Everyone has opinions about how the Lindsay Clancy trial, the high-profile case about a mother who strangled her three young children, should have ended, but none are more interesting and revealing than those of the jurors assigned to decide the case.
Less than one week after the judge declared a mistrial, several of the hung jury’s female members admitted to the media that the holdout vote belonged to one of the three men named to weigh the case. Another juror, Paula Devlin, stunned Gayle King when she further announced the man who refused to vote not guilty by reason of insanity is black.
In a subsequent sitdown with CBS Saturday Morning, Devlin revealed her opinion on the Clancy case was shaped by a collective quest to “change something to make it better for other women in the future, for other families.” Devlin maintained that the jury “didn’t know what was going on outside of our little bubble” but admitted they saw their verdict as “a turning point.”
Social change is not part of the charge the judge gives a jury. In fact, jurors like Devlin are required to take an oath to remain impartial. Any decision from the jury of Clancy’s peers was supposed to be made using only the evidence presented during the trial.
Devlin’s confession to CBS, however, suggests that at least some of the jurors came to the box with an agenda. The evidence that Clancy’s jury was compromised by activism only gets more damning with other jury members’ admissions that they relied on outside expertise to pressure the holdout into compliance. This mindset ultimately enabled a majority of the jury “get over” the undisputed fact that Clancy killed her kids.
For decades, Democrats have sold soft-on-crime policies to Americans using euphemisms like “justice system reform.” The most obvious results of this well-funded criminal release ideology are more brutal acts of violence committed by countless violent criminals who were let off the legal hook and returned to the streets.
Giving violent criminals a free pass only punishes innocent Americans and delays true justice. Yet, it should come as no surprise that after years of political and media messaging declaring all cops are bad, judges and juries get it wrong, and bail bonds and jail are racist, everyday Americans view the justice system and their participation in it as the place for activism instead of rule of law.
Women in particular are more susceptible to the emotional manipulation posed by progressive pro-crime psychological operations such as Black Lives Matter. The evolution of this pattern could not be more clear. What starts as Affluent, White, Female, Liberals (AWFL) screeching on social media quickly evolves into violence.
The radical victim mentality that’s been force fed to us for years through corporate media and social media is exactly what led Devlin to be convinced that Clancy was not guilty of killing her kids and shouldn’t suffer legal punishment because she had an “it’s a wonderful life” sign in her home and might have strangled the children out of a distorted sense of love.
Facts, not feelings of solidarity or sympathy, were supposed to guide the Clancy jurors as they determined her legal fate. Instead, deliberations were driven by a hero complex that will continue to erode the integrity of our legal system.
