Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
When the fawning media announced an 11-1 deadlocked jury in the Lindsay Clancy trial, we did not learn what the 11 had decided. I told my husband that 11 jurors wanted acquittal and the one holdout would be a man trying to stand his ground for a murder conviction.
My husband asked, "Couldn't it be the other way?" My response: "No way, because it's Massachusetts."
These are the people who gave cowardly Teddy Kennedy a pass on Chappaquiddick and the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. The information we were given sounded like the work of a group of nagging scolds or third-graders telling the teacher, "This juror will not follow the law." However, Juror #12 was the only one following the law.
The reasonable doubt standard is loosely defined by law, but its application requires an evaluation of facts by factfinders.
Juror #12 did not succumb to the peer pressure or the keen awareness of a continually ticking clock during the dragging hours of deliberation.
Was Mrs. Clancy insane? The timeline for her actions, her meticulous and calculated process, and the sheer cruelty of her actions mean that a juror could, applying the law, find sanity with no reasonable doubts. Mrs. Clancy's self-contradictory behaviors and her bizarre post-murder responses wash away any reasonable doubts. If we cannot draw a line on maternal filicide and infanticide, what line do we have left?
We are in an era of cruelty, readily excused by rationalizations, justifications noble protests, and the failures of others as blameworthy, not the killer. Shocking actions go unpunished because, well, they had a good reason." Matthew 24:12 addresses a forthcoming era when love (hearts) would wax cold.
Cold hearts are not just indifferent, they are proud of their misguided compassion given to perpetrators because we have our justifications for overlooking sheer cruelty. There is a standard set of phrases: "This is what caused that," or "The system failed them." There are no lines when avoiding punishments because there are other issues, however peripheral they may be. In some instances, the justification is as shallow as, "But he's cute." Remember the lesser half of the Boston Bomber Tsarnaev brothers. Dzhokhar garnered financial support, legal assistance, epistolary relationships from those who found him "cute," and lawyers fighting his death sentence for 13 years.
More recently, the infamous Luigi Mangione has admitted shooting UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson (in the back) on the streets of Manhattan because Mangione's insurance, not UnitedHealthcare, denied claims for his back problems. When it comes to justification for murder the specifics are not critical. We all hate insurers and Luigi was just trying to force a systemic change.
NYC has not shown such love for a "bad boy" since the early days of Rocky Graziano. Some Luigi supporters have stickers ("Free Luigi" ). Others have created "#Team Luigi," and "#Eat the rich." Others are epistolary jailhouse girlfriends who find him "cute." Mangione's fans have raised $1.5 million for him. They view their actions and Magione's as a valid and principled protest against evil health insurers.
Insurers denying claims is not (yet) a defense to murder. Nor is "cuteness." Having suffered through back problems, I know the pain is debilitating but it does not warrant a street execution. However, count on Massachusetts to be at the forefront of possible new defenses for murder.
The Clancy case has highlighted the mental health system's issues as a justification for lesser or no punishment. Murder as a tool for getting reforms is the stuff of the seventh century. Juror #12 saw through all the red herrings and focused on mental capacity. He was convinced, with no reasonable doubt, that the facts established intent, motive, and meticulous calculation. Those who hear voices are not also given an itinerary for following their orders. When do directions from such paranormal forces require recipients to a Google search or two?
Most people overlook the phrase in Matthew 24:12 that precedes the prophecy of hearts waxing cold. That phrase is "And because iniquity shall abound." The presence of so many cold-hearted actions shock the conscience and excused criminal conduct moves the line for accountability. Without lines and accountability, the vicious cycle of spurious defenses continues. Our hearts wax cold and "heavy" as the failed jury confessed, but lightweight reasoning abounds and excuses unimaginable cruelty.
Mrs. Clancy's attorney's disgraceful rant following the declaration of a mistrial made Juror #12 the culprit. He may be the only one with a heart of love – for the lost Clancy children and the future of other children who may become victims as such cruelty does not face no accountability. We have crossed the RubiCom: There are no clear lines. Murder? It just depends. Those who rely on lines, well, you are just wrong, and you are evil.
Infantile logic has replaced lines and another creative defense to murder was born: Bad, evil jurors.
Professor Jennings has hundreds of articles in academic, professional and trade journals. In 2006, Emerald Management Review named her article, "Ethics and Investment Management," one of the top 50 articles in 2005. She was named a Top 100 Thought Leader by Trust Across America and one of the 100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics by Ethisphere. She is a contributing editor for Ethikos and the Real Estate Law Journal. She has been an emeritus professor at Arizona State University since 2015. In addition to serving as an associate dean and director of the Executive MBA program, she served as director of the Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics at Arizona State University from 1995-1999. She continues to teach graduate courses in business ethics and ethical culture at ASU and other colleges around the country. She is an instructor and mentor for Wiley's CPAExcel review course.
(COMMENT, BELOW)