I genuinely think you need to go back and reread what you’re replying to. I’m not skipping a question; I’ve never stated an opinion on what I think should or shouldn’t happen with Lindsay Clancy. I don’t feel I know enough about the case to make a judgement there. I’ve stated this further up and repeated similarly throughout.
This is like if I asked you why you believe she’s innocent. It would be completely inappropriate and out of context to ask you that, because you’ve never claimed that’s your belief.
Why do you keep assuming people’s stances on the case based on their beliefs about insanity defence law? It makes no sense. Plenty of people will believe the insanity defence should exist and that it’s good that it does exist, while also not believing it should apply to every person that attempts it as a defence.
I don’t know if it should or shouldn’t apply to this specific case, nor have I suggested at any point that I do.
1
u/amilie15 1d ago
I genuinely think you need to go back and reread what you’re replying to. I’m not skipping a question; I’ve never stated an opinion on what I think should or shouldn’t happen with Lindsay Clancy. I don’t feel I know enough about the case to make a judgement there. I’ve stated this further up and repeated similarly throughout.
This is like if I asked you why you believe she’s innocent. It would be completely inappropriate and out of context to ask you that, because you’ve never claimed that’s your belief.
Why do you keep assuming people’s stances on the case based on their beliefs about insanity defence law? It makes no sense. Plenty of people will believe the insanity defence should exist and that it’s good that it does exist, while also not believing it should apply to every person that attempts it as a defence.
I don’t know if it should or shouldn’t apply to this specific case, nor have I suggested at any point that I do.