Judge declares mistrial in Lindsay Clancy case

 

Lindsay Clancy supporters. The Boston Globe. 

A judge has declared a mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy case. BBC. Clancy admitted to strangling her three children, aged 5, 3 and 8 months, before cutting herself and throwing herself out the window. She then plead not guilty by reason of mental illness under Massachusetts lack of criminal responsibility law. The case was in extended deliberations and it turned out that one jury stood alone wanting to convict her. Despite last minute efforts by the defense to extend the trial, including an appeal to the State Supreme Court that failed, the judge declared a mistrial as the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Clancy will be held in the same mental hospital she has been held in since committing the murders.

Clancy, her ex-husband Patrick and the three children she killed. BBC.

My Comment:

There are two aspects to this case I find baffling, to say the least. The first is that there were 11 jurors and a whole lot of people that watched this case somehow thought that Clancy was not responsible for her murder of three of her own children. The second is the actual courtroom drama itself. The first issue is the more important one but the second is where I am going to start. 

To begin, there were quite a few irregularities in this case, to say the least. The jury was not sequestered, which I am told is standard in Massachusetts, even for cases of this profile. This case is an good example of why that is a bad thing as it was also pretty clear that the jury was being influenced by outside forces. The jurors were likely able to see the news and social media coverage of this case, even despite jury instructions,  and I think it influenced the final vote and certainly two jurors showed up in court wearing pink, which was adopted by Clancy's supporters for some reason. 

There was also an arrest for jury intimidation as a true crime blogger showed up at the trial and started photographing the jurors. She got charged for this, but who know if that had an impact as well? Certainly it may have affected the jury knowing that their faces could be out there and that their decision would not remain anonymous. 

But what really got me is that the lone hold out was semi-doxed by the court. We know he alone wanted a conviction and that he was a man. Normally that stuff stays locked down tight and when a jury is deadlocked we only know that it is deadlocked, not the vote and who did it. I fear now, with this information out there, that his life is going to be ruined if his name actually gets out there. I think he was extremely brave to continue to stand up for his take on the case even knowing that it could end up backfiring on him and his courage did restore a bit of faith in jury trials that otherwise would have been destroyed by this case.

Much of the problem might be Massachusetts insanity law. Under their lack of criminal responsibility standard, the defense is one that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. This is the exact opposite of most states where insanity is an affirmative defense, one that has to be proven by the defense. It seems to me that the jury may have gotten hung up on this and read too much into the standard (raising it to "beyond any doubt").

In my view, Clancy was mentally ill, but not insane. She knew what she was doing was wrong, she planned it and even called her husband in the middle of the murders so she would have more time to kill her last kid. I don't believe she was suffering from PPD or PPP, just standard depression, and she was in control over her actions the whole time. But under Massachusetts law you have to prove all that beyond a reasonable doubt. Without watching the trial it's hard to figure out if the prosecution screwed up, or if the jury really was affected by the media and social media firestorm that was this case.

Regardless, this case would not have been important at all without the frankly shameful actions by the supporters of Lindsay Clancy. There are many child murders in this country, sad as it is to say, and many trials where the insanity defense is brought up, but they don't blow up. This blew up because Clancy got support online somehow.  The fact that she had any supporters at all is shocking and something I have been having an existential crisis over. It's not something that should have ever happened.

You can make an argument that Clancy was insane during her crime and by Massachusetts law she should go to a mental hospital instead of prison. I don't agree with that, but I can see the argument. But that's not what a lot of Clancy's supporters were doing. Instead they were making insane claims that she was totally innocent and that every woman has the same feelings and desires that Clancy had, the desire to murder her kids. They were also arguing that no women could be held responsible for their crimes if their hormones were giving them mental issues. Ironically that was the old misogynist argument against giving women rights in the first place, but it's now being used unironically by supposedly feminist women. And the level of hatred, actual hatred, for Patrick Clancy, is beyond the pale. And it seems to mostly come from the fact that he moved on after he divorced the woman who murdered his children and destroyed his family. 

Some of these women were also using it to advocate their own hobby horse issues, saying that post-partum depression and psychosis are major issues that should be covered more and that the medical industry shouldn't hand out prescriptions like crazy (though in this case it was Lindsay Clancy that was prescription shopping with multiple doctors). I'd even agree with most of that, but it's insane to me that they would pick such an awful example to use. Like I said, I don't believe that Clancy had PPD or PPP and, if anything, she should have been regularly taking her meds. 

If women were reacting to this case with support of Clancy (not just emotional, Clancy raised over $1 million for her defense), men's reaction has been different to say the least. I won't speak for my entire gender, but it does seem clear that something broke in this case. It may have been the "women are wonderful" effect. Most men (and women for that matter) tend to put women on a pedestal and end up treating women better than men, it's a demonstrated effect in psychology that is well documented. But I think a lot of men are now thinking this has gone way too far. Because I don't think there is any argument that if this case had been with a male offender and all other facts were the same, he would absolutely go to prison. 

I do think this case is going to further damage relations between men and women. Given that relations are already so bad that the birthrate has collapsed and a huge number of young men are going to be perpetually single for their entire lives if nothing changes, this is a very bad thing. I don't think women really understand just how badly it plays for men to see women chanting support for a family annihilator, let alone blaming the husband for her crime. 

Indeed, I have seen some anecdotal evidence that this case has already destroyed some relationships and it's not hard to understand why. No one is going to want to stay with someone who thinks its at all justified or excusable to murder three children, and men are, quite logically, breaking up with people who do think that way. 

The one question I am seeing from young men over and over is "what happened to women, why are they like this?" It's not one I have an easy answer for either. It's clearly not all women, there were obviously a lot of women just as baffled as I was that this case blew up the way it did and think that Clancy should either spend the rest of her life in prison or be sent to the gallows, but there is a large faction of women who supported Clancy. And it's not even a left v right issue, there were voices on the right, even discounting clearly insane ones like Candace Owens, who were supporting Clancy too. 

If I have any answer at all it might be the proliferation of algorithm-based short form video. This case blew up on TikTok and I have always said that the short form video they specialize in is extremely potent propaganda, as the videos are short enough to be effective but not long enough where you actually have to think. And the algorithm makes it even worse as it is only going to show you stuff that you already agree with. And given the consensus based thinking that a lot of women (and more than a few men) suffer from, it's incredibly easy to get folks to agree with things that would otherwise be laughed at when you don't actually get exposed to opposing viewpoints.   

And it absolutely scares me that there may be copycat cases because of this trial blowing up the way it did. Even today news broke about another mother that murdered her son. In that case a mother killed her two year old child and attempted suicide only a few hours after having a discussion with her friends about Lindsay Clancy. I have said for a long time that social contagion is a thing, it's why I am always reluctant to cover mass shootings unless there is a good reason to do so, and I think the coverage in this case may lead to further copycat murders. 

 

Bernie Sanders floats banning super intelligent AI.

 

Senator Bernie Sanders. Politico/Getty.

Senator Bernie Sanders has floated legislation that would ban super intelligent AI. Politico. The ban would punish anyone who developed a super intelligent AI with 20 years in prison. Critics say such a ban would handicap the United States against China. Sanders has also called for a moratorium on data center construction. Such legislation would face strong headwinds in Congress and might be ruled illegal by the courts. However, the ban and moratorium might be popular with voters deeply skeptical of AI. 

My Comment:

There's very little chance of this passing. Not only would the tech companies not go along with it, the executive branch would have a fit as well. There is zero chance that the United States would simply wave the white flag to China and allow them to develop advance AI while leaving ourselves without similar technology. It would essentially be suicide. I think there is less than a 1% chance of this legislation happening and even if it did, I think the courts and the executive branch would prevent it form going into effect. 

Not that I think a true super intelligence, in the way sci fi people define it, is likely any time soon. AI can, and already does, some things better than humans, but they are not sentient and still make major mistakes. Such a thing might be possible in the far future, but I am skeptical in the short term at the very least. I generally think it's another example of the Whig view of history, where people assume that society will keep advancing and there will never be any regression. I think we absolutely could end up with hurdles that will take decades or even centuries to overcome when it comes to AI super intelligence, if they ever get solved at all

Do I think there are dangers to advanced AI? Sure, there are dangers with every technology. Many of them are not predictable before the technology is released. But the AI safety "sci-fi tech uprising" that ends humanity? That's not one of them. AI could do a lot of things, many of them bad, but I don't see them gaining actual sapience, which would be required for malice. 

Regardless, Sanders is a savvy political operator and I don't think this is about super intelligent AI. Sanders is a communist (ok, a socialist), and his objection isn't that AI may go rogue and kill us all, it's that companies are making a profit. He's just exploiting popular sentiment that is critical of AI. 

So why are people critical of AI? I don't think it has a thing to do with AI safety. Much of it is simply fear of change. There are always winners and losers when a new technology is rolled out. Horses lost out when the automobile was invented, industrial workers lost out when robotic automation became common and now a lot of entry level white collar jobs are going to disappear as well, and many already have. It's pretty natural to be opposed to a chance when it does in fact harm people, but that also usually doesn't do a thing to stop progress. 

The other problem is that the current tech barons don't understand the concept of noblesse oblige. The old robber barons of history were also centers of progress and made their millions by changing the world. But unlike the tech barons, they understood that in order to keep the loyalty of the people, they had to give something back. So they built museums, parks, colleges and charities. 

Today's tech barons? They don't do any of that, at least not for Americans. Many of them send their billions to the third world, not really caring if they have a positive effect or not (a good example is the mosquito nets they buy being used for overfishing). Even Elon Musk, who is probably the most benevolent of the tech barons, hardly gives anything back to the people, most of his spending is political. To be fair, he does give folks access to Starlink during disasters, but that's the exception that proves the rule. 

In that, I guess I have to grudgingly admit that Sanders might have a bit of a point. If we want AI (and I think we should), I do think that these tech barons have to shape up. Sander's solution is idiotic of course, but I would argue that the tech barons should indeed be giving back to the people out of naked self interest if nothing else. I don't think people would be anywhere near as opposed to AI and data centers if the tech companies cut a check to improve their lives.  

Border crisis in Ceuta Spain continues with thousands of civilians protesting

 

Protesters in Ceuta Spain. AP.

Thousands showed up to protest in Ceuta Spain due to ongoing concerns about the massive migrant invasion that occurred in July. AP. 72,000 migrants, mostly from Morocco, crossed the border last July and most of them returned, but at least 5000 of them stayed, though local Ceuta authorities claim higher numbers. September 2nd is a holiday in Ceuta that celebrates the founding of the city, but this year 50,000 citizens protested their government's response to the crisis. Protests were also reported in other Spanish cities on the mainland. The invasion has caused major social disruption and drained resources. Madrid has earmarked money for the city, but is blaming the crisis on Russia and Israel. 

The crisis has led to a major increase in sexual assaults, with around one a day being reported to authorities since the invasion. BBC. 23 cases have been reported against adults and 9 against children. Many of the victims are female members of the invasion and the perpetrators have been both Moroccans and Europeans. 

My Comment:

As bad as the situation in Ceuta is, it could have been a lot worse. Most of the invaders returned home after a few days. Had they stayed it would have been apocalyptic. Ceuta has a population of about 80,000 people and there is no way that the city could take care of 72,000 new people, many of which are hostile. They are having extreme difficulty dealing with the 5,000 to 10,000 that are left as is. 

It's actually absurd that any of these people are still in Ceuta. It would be fairly trivial to deport them, just walk them over to the border, open the gates and lock it behind them once they are through. You wouldn't even need to use violence for the most part, just regular herding tactics. And riot police would probably be enough to clear out the camps in the beaches. There would, of course, be a lot of stragglers, but it would solve 90% of the problem. 

But Spain's leftist government refuses to do that. Part of it would be the bad optics because the international press would find some picture of a younger underaged invader being pushed around and they would accuse everyone of fascism. The rest is that they don't actually want these people to leave. They want them to come to Spain so they can lower wages. Plus they have the old anti-colonialist prejudices where they think that people from other countries are automatically better than the folks that they are supposed to represent. 

The results have been predictable. A sexual assault a day. Ironically, many of the victims are the female invaders themselves. It's not particularly surprising given the lack of policing on these beaches. But every single one of these crimes are presumably preventable (there could be a case or two of Spanish citizens attacking each other, to be fair). 

Regardless, this issue isn't going away any time soon, and I think the Spanish people are right to be upset. Like I said, it wouldn't be that difficult to get these people out of there but the Spanish government is not doing so. Until that changes I expect there to be more protests. 

The Department of Justice has shut down 270 CDL schools

 

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. New York Post.

The Department of Justice has shut down 270 CDL schools for graduating truck drivers who could not speak English or offering subpar training facilities. New York Post. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that illegal immigrants and folks that can't speak English should drive big rig trucks. They shut down 110 schools that had graduated 5,000 drivers who could not speak English at all, which is a dangerous thing if they cannot understand road signs. 160 more were shut down for inadequate training facility, many of which only consisted of a single truck or a small parking lot. 239 people have died in crashes caused by CDL holders that did not speak English with California being the most common state to issue the CDL's. Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin was a former truck driver and he said that standards had massively dropped since he got his CDL. 

My Comment:

This is one of the lesser known changes that have been put into place since President Trump was elected and I have to say it's a welcome one. I work in an industry where I deal with CDL holders every day and it's unquestionable that the standards for truck drivers dropped like a rock right around the time that the Biden administration took over. 

So often before Trump's 2nd term, I was using my phone to translate to drivers that didn't speak English well or at all, and sometimes even then, it was impossible to communicate with them. Not to mention the drivers that could barely back their trailer into a spot or slide their tandems. Some of these issues were forgivable during 2020 during the bad days of the pandemic when we had a genuine lack of drivers, but there was no excuse for the lower standards continuing in 2021 and beyond. 

The change after Trump was sworn in was dramatic to say the least. I haven't had to use my translate app on my phone for a truck driver for more than a year now. When I see a truck driver now, I can usually assume that the person is someone who can actually speak to me and I am pretty sure is allowed to be in the country. That's a huge positive for me and it's a good thing for everyone else. 

Why? Well, you need to be able to read English to drive a truck. You need to know what road signs say in order to drive and navigate safely. Imagine driving and not recognizing a road closed sign or what a stop sign is? But there were thousands of drivers on our roads doing exactly that, and it led to quite a few deaths, all of which were preventable. 

These schools were facilitating all that. They were scamming America and they were run by the same people that were getting the fake CDL's. These were license mills and they were giving their buddies CDL's so they could get jobs and I am sure they were taking kickbacks as well. The fact that the drivers were untrained and unsuited for American roads didn't bother them a bit. Closing them down is a major victory and more than justifies my vote for Donald Trump. 

How bad is the Patriot missile shortage?

 

A Patriot Missile battery in Poland. AP.

The United States and Europe is reportedly suffering from a lack of Patriot missiles. AP. Patriot missiles are the only known weapon system that can intercept Russian ballistic missiles, and the lack of missiles in Ukraine may prove to be a turning point in the war. Ukraine was given many missiles but have used the vast majority of them up. In addition, as many as 1500 missiles were used in the Iran conflict. However, the Pentagon has disputed those numbers. Missile production has increased, including a new plant opening in Europe, and there is some hope that France and Italy's untested SAMP/T NG system could make up for shortfalls, but the weapons have never been tested in combat and have a lower range than the Patriots. 

My Comment:

This is kind of irresponsible reporting by the Associated Press, but rumors of a lack of Patriots have been ongoing for months now. At the very least, it's incredibly clear that there aren't any more missiles for Ukraine at the very least, but are things as bad as this report says?

Well, there's good news and bad news about that. The good news is that I think these reports are exaggerated. We did use quite a bit of our Patriots in the Iran conflict and gave away far too many to Ukraine, but I seriously doubt that we went through 1500 missiles during the Iran conflict. 

The bad news is that even if we had full stocks we would be in trouble. Why? Because modern warfare has changed quite a deal and the Ukraine war has been a perfect laboratory for Russia to experiment with how to defeat the system. 

A major problem with Patriots is that they now have to be volley fired to intercept Russian missiles. Russian ballistic missiles now have decoy packages that require more than one missile being used if they want to have a viable chance of shooting them down. And that's not counting Russian hypersonic missiles, which are almost impossible for Patriots to intercept period. 

And that's not counting Russia's advances in air power. Russia hardly has to worry about their jets being intercepted by Patriots as they drop their glide bombs, like the FAB series, far behind enemy lines. Though Patriots are the best weapons we have in terms of air defense, they aren't quite good enough anymore. 

Does it matter? I don't really think so in the short term, unless the Iran conflict goes hot again. Right now the conflict is frozen, so we should be able to slowly build up our weapons. But I also think that the idea of an actual conflict between Russia and NATO are overblown. Yes, I know that the meeting with the CIA director yesterday was supposedly warning Russia off of some kind of attack, but even that seems far fetched to me. Like I said yesterday, the idea that Russia would start something with NATO while it is winning in Ukraine seems like madness to me, and Russia is one of the more rational actors on the world stage. And if there is somehow a conflict between Russia and NATO, the world will have a lot bigger problems than the lack of a few interceptor missiles.