Save America Ministries

Chuck Crismier: You're absolutely desperate, absolutely desperate. Something's been happening to your mind, to your heart, to your body, and you cannot figure it out. It seems to be just beyond measure, beyond control, and it's getting worse. And it's getting worse, and nobody can seem to figure it out. They have ideas, and so they send you to the doctor.

In fact, they send you to numerous doctors, one right after the other, and nothing seems to work. And then they prescribe Seroquel to you, a prescription atypical antipsychotic medication used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder. It helps control systems like symptoms like hallucinations and delusions in adults. It's treat it treats sudden mood swings.

And its side effects, some of which are kind of normal, and others are anything beyond normal, and demand immediate medical attention according to the records, like suicidal thoughts, an increased risk of suicidal ideas. And then, as if that were not enough, the effects and the side effects of Seroquel include inducing troubled thinking, problem speaking, unusual dreams, irritability, and mood swings.

That's Seroquel, and that doesn't even deal with the other eight drugs prescribed on top of it. Welcome to Viewpoint. I'm Chuck Crismier. Conversation is always with ever-increasing conviction, Talk to Transforms. And today on Viewpoint, we're going to have a very open conversation. No, you're not going to participate, but you are going to participate because your mind and your heart are equally involved as are the rest of Americans and the world with regard to the trial of Lindsay Clancy.

The trial of Lindsay Clancy, and today on Viewpoint, we're going to take a look at this from a variety of viewpoints, and we're not going to leave any stone unturned because if we're going to have an honest conversation, we need to be honest about it. We need to take a look at all aspects of this. For instance, why a jury trial? What would be the difference between a judge or bench trial and a jury trial? Why do we have jury trials in the first place?

Well, here's the reason, because reasonable minds can differ. You may not be aware of it, but every lawyer who goes through law school has been introduced to the phrase, "reasonable minds can differ." Now, if there are reasonable minds that can differ, whose mind is reasonable? Is your mind reasonable? Are you sure your mind is reasonable? If your mind is reasonable, then how did you justify divorcing your spouse when God says he hates it?

If your mind is reasonable, then how is it you justified remarrying when your spouse, after a divorce, when your spouse was living, and God calls it adultery, for which you must repent, or you will be consigned to eternal damnation? What about your reasonable mind? You see the problem? We have an ability to twist our minds and our hearts, and actually, to bring judgment upon others when we ourselves are not willing to be judged by the same standards.

So, with a jury, you have the opportunity to have the testimony or the observation and conclusion of so-called 12 reasonable men. Now, where are you going to find 12 reasonable men in America today? Where are you going to find 12 reasonable men anywhere in the world today? And then we talk about 12 reasonable men, well, how about 12 reasonable men and women?

And the juries are made up of men and women because we don't want to remove women because they bring a different kind of viewpoint. Why do they bring a different kind of viewpoint? Because they weren't created like men. They were created like women. And so God created them, male and female created He them in the image of God created He them. And so we have male and female. They have different viewpoints. They process things differently, as you well know if you're married.

Because my wife is sitting in on this to hold me accountable, you see. I said, you might just want to listen in to the program today, lest you should think your husband is antagonistic to women in general, except for you. Well, today on Viewpoint, we're going to have this open conversation, and I'm glad that you've joined us. It reminds me of a situation that occurred in our large house church this last weekend, in which I introduced this subject because I felt that it needed to be discussed for Christians.

Christians needed to discuss this issue. And so the very first response was, somebody with an open face, "I know what the answer is, guilty." That was the open initial response, "guilty." Guilty of what? Oh, well, that's the issue. Guilty of what? That's what we don't seem to understand. So everybody calls it a murder when, in fact, they don't even know what a murder is. Today we're going to talk about what a murder is.

You may think that the killing of a human being is murder, but that's not what the law calls it. Oh, that makes common sense as a resounding problem for you, but it is true. And you're talking to a lawyer here, who spent 20 years as a trial lawyer in California, the courts of the largest family law court in the nation, the Los Angeles Superior Court system. I think I know a thing or two about the law.

So today, we're not just going to look at it from a totally legal standpoint, because you're not a lawyer, and I'm not practicing as a lawyer, haven't been practicing as a lawyer for 31, 32 years. So we're not coming to this as experts here today. We're coming to it as human beings. I trust that you are a human being. No matter what your opinion, you are a human being. And human beings have opinions. Have you noticed that?

Human beings have opinions. We have viewpoints, and guess what? Those viewpoints determine destiny whether we're realizing it or not. Your viewpoints for how you raised your children are determining the destiny of your children, did you know that? Whether or not you chose to raise them from a godly standpoint, that is, disciplining them the way God says to discipline them, or you decided to take a Dr. Spock view and let them kind of figure it out themselves, all of our viewpoints for child-rearing are determining destiny, and you can't escape it.

We watch it in the lives of dozens and dozens of people across the country and have for years during our 60-year sojourn as a married couple. So all of these things, you see, are pertinent to this discussion. Now, as we opened up the program here today, and I'm just making sort of an opening statement to you so that we can realize that maybe, just maybe, my initial knee-jerk thoughts on the issue may not necessarily be true, may not necessarily be accurate, may not necessarily be even lawful.

Maybe I'm acting as judge and jury when, in fact, I don't even know what the case is about, not really. I only know what I think it's about. Three kids were killed, and therefore I know the answer. It's murder. And murder requires a response. Therefore, the knee-jerk response is guilty. Guilty as charged. Guilty as charged for what? Guilty as charged for first-degree murder?

Guilty as charged for manslaughter? Guilty as charged for negligent manslaughter? Guilty as charged for some other crime? And what about homicide? What is homicide anyway? Is homicide murder? No, it's not. So all of these things, you see, are pertinent to our discussion here today. And before we launch into the legal aspects of this, I want to take a look, share with you the viewpoints of many different people across the country that are expressing these.

These are thoughtful people, and they have different viewpoints. We'll be right back.

Once upon a time, children could pray and read their Bibles in school. Divorces were practically unknown as was child abuse. In our once great America, virginity and chastity were popular virtues and homosexuality was an abomination. So what happened in just one generation? Hi, I'm Chuck Crismier and I urge you to join me daily on Viewpoint where we discuss the most challenging issues touching our hearts and homes. Could America's moral slide relate to the Fourth Commandment? Listen to Viewpoint on this radio station or anytime at saveus.org.

Every human being has bias. Did you know that? Yes, even you. Even your pastor. Every judge has bias. Every lawyer has bias. Every doctor has bias. Every school teacher has bias and every parent has bias. And so do you. So what do we do with this issue of bias? Well, we know, we have to know right up front that everybody has bias. So how do you protect against bias in the case of a person who is being charged with first-degree murder?

And you have 12 so-called reasonable-minded jurors, subject to the directions of a so-called legal-minded judge, and two or more lawyers who supposedly are equipping the court and the jury with the best understanding of the case that could be understood in order to form a proper judgment. Every one of those jurors has a kind of bias. The judge has a kind of bias. The lawyers have a kind of bias.

Every human being has bias. And we're going to talk more about that when we talk about what happens when a jury is impaneled. But before we get to that, Abby Johnson. You may remember Abby Johnson because she was the main figure in a movie that came out a few years ago concerning Planned Parenthood. She left Planned Parenthood, was deeply troubled by what happened in Planned Parenthood, and she was one of the leaders in Planned Parenthood.

So she says she writes a piece warning that Lindsay Clancy supporters are engaged in "conspiracy rot" and "misguided compassion." So we're going to talk about that because I well understand that. The case of Lindsay Clancy, Massachusetts mother on trial for strangling her three children to death with exercise resistance bands in the basement of the family's Duxbury home, has divided the nation. No question about it.

That's why we're talking about it, friends. Some have said this is the most painful murder trial in American history. Well, that depends on a viewpoint as well. Depends on whose listening to the facts of the murder trial. But indeed, it's very painful across America. Some say the mother's case is a shining light on postpartum struggles, while others say public support for her exemplifies misguided compassion.

Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood clinic director turned pro-life advocate. Notice, she has bias now. Her bias is in favor of pro-life. That's her life, pro-life. Nothing wrong with that. She agrees that mothers need support from their families and community after they have a baby. However, she also believes that Clancy must be held accountable for committing these murders.

Now, wait a minute, wait a minute. Who called them murders? Abby Johnson did, but she doesn't even know what a murder is, not from a legal standpoint. She just concludes automatically, knee-jerk, that because three kids were killed, they were murdered. That's the first problem that we have to deal with, friends, knee-jerk judgments. I thought the Bible said, "Judge not, that you be not judged." So who are you then to judge this thing?

You don't even know about the law. You see our problem? Now, I'm not trying to plead the case necessarily of Lindsay Clancy, because I don't know all the facts and neither do you. In fact, the jury doesn't even know all the facts, and that's exactly the problem. You know who does? God. He's the only one that knows all the facts. Not you, not your pastor, not your doctor, not the lawyers, not the judge, and not the jury.

Not one person knows the true facts. None, including you. So, isn't it a bit arrogant for each one of us to come up with an absolute answer in this situation and arrogate our own viewpoint as if somehow it's the view of God? But that's what we're dealing with here. Believe it or not, we're going to share the view of a pastor who's come out very dramatically concerning this issue, and I'm sure there are many others like him.

So, this woman, Abby Johnson, says, "I think that people are using their own experiences with postpartum depression, postpartum psychosis, and they're linking it to what Clancy did, and then they're saying, 'Oh, that could have been me.'" Yes, that's what a jury trial is about, my friends. It's the experiences of other people that are applying that to the facts of the case.

But that's actually not true, says Abby Johnson. "Most women who have postpartum psychosis do not kill their children." That's not a conclusion of anything either. Just because most people don't murder doesn't mean some people do. You see the problem? Our thinking is so distorted. Clancy, 36 years of age, a former labor and delivery nurse at Massachusetts General Hospital, is facing murder charges for the January 24th, 2023, deaths of her three children.

The mother pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder. In response to the Clancy case, Johnson says that many people have allowed a sense of misguided compassion to fuel their feelings. Another issue that has tainted people's perception of the case is the draw toward what she describes as "conspiracy rot," whatever that is. Throughout the trial, people have shared various theories online about the Clancy murders.

One of the more popular theories is that Clancy didn't murder her three kids, and the real culprit is her husband or someone else. Oh, on what basis are they concluding that? Theory? Ideas? That sometimes behind problems in the home, it's not just the wife, it's the husband, or maybe it's not just the husband, it's the wife. True, those things do happen, but on what basis? There's no factual basis whatsoever in this case to make that conclusion.

So she said, "I think a lot of the conspiracy-minded women are looking for an alternative to actually committed the crime." First of all, she says "the crime." Nobody called this a crime. She's being accused of a crime. That doesn't mean she committed a crime. So we've got to talk about what is a crime? See, we conclude things that we don't necessarily know about. So they say, "It could not possibly have been a mother that did this." No, it's not likely.

Mothers don't usually do this, but some could. But the question is not whether some could or that some did. The question is whether this woman did and why she did it. That's the issue. The issue isn't what is society doing. The issue isn't what most people do. The issue isn't what even a few people do or don't do. The issue is what she did. Do you want to be convicted based upon what a majority of people do or don't do?

Do you think that's justice? No, that's not justice, my friends. That's vigilantism. She concludes by saying, "There is evil in this world that people deny because they cannot believe something that evil could exist, but it does." Oh, I believe lots of things are evil and can exist. In fact, you know what God calls evil? Everything that disagrees with his viewpoint. That's what God calls evil.

Oh. In other words, that's why you and I are all under a death penalty unless we repent. Oh. You see, that counters that understanding is not taught or preached in our churches anymore because we think we're all skating because we made a confession of Christ. We don't know that Lindsay Clancy didn't make a confession of Christ. So maybe she's in like Flint, too, like the many in our theological camps try to tell us.

Doesn't matter what you do, it's just what you made a claim of at one point in your life. Think about these things, friends. Now, the question came out in another article, NewsNation, "How important was Patrick Clancy's testimony in Lindsay Clancy's case?" He's the husband. The testimony of Patrick Clancy, former husband of Lindsay Clancy, became a focal point of the murder trial against his ex-wife.

Criminal defense attorney Andrea Lewis called his testimony "critical" to showing the jury what Lindsay Clancy's state of mind was. That, my friends, is the issue of the case. The issue of the case is not whether the kids were killed. The issue of the case is not necessarily the drugs themselves. The issue of the case is her state of mind. Her state of mind, not your state of mind. Not the state of mind you think she should have had.

Not whether you can speculate as to what her state of mind was. The jury is required to determine what her state of mind was. Are you understanding this? That was the jury's deliberation. And that's the reason why two of the most prominent lawyers in the country declared openly before the jury verdict on Friday, "This jury has an almost impossible job to do." Do you know why? Because it required them to be God.

They had to determine at a moment's notice whenever that act of killing those kids occurred, what the state of mind of that woman was, and you aren't able to do that because you weren't there, and you couldn't even get inside her state of mind. Oh. Maybe you haven't thought about that yet. You see, these things are very, very important as we consider this. Criminal defense attorney Andrea Lewis called his testimony, the father of the kids, "critical" to showing the jury what Lindsay Clancy's state of mind was like.

"All eyes are on him to a large degree," she said. Was she loving? Was she warm? Was she a caring mother? Did you notice her acting irrationally or detached from reality in the time frame leading up to it? Those are the critical questions, she said. Without question, Patrick Clancy saying that his wife is a victim was a clear issue. He didn't say his wife was culpable. He said she was a victim. Oh.

Now we enter into the whole idea of victimology, right? Everybody's a victim. So we have a societal problem where everybody's a victim, and I'm not responsible for anything. I understand that. But this woman is not being tried on the basis of a problem in society. She's based upon her condition at the time of the acts. That's what we keep missing. We just don't understand it. And we have a level of arrogance, even spiritual arrogance, when we elevate our viewpoints to a point of absolute certainty as to what actually took place or what must take place as a result.

After the birth of their third child, Patrick Clancy said Lindsay's mind health got worse every month. He said she began taking Zoloft in September of 2022, telling him, "I think it's really going to help with my anxiety and with going back to work." She just kept getting worse, though, and worse, he said, battling severe insomnia. She couldn't sleep, including nearly 48 hours without sleep. What happens to you when you can't sleep?

I'm not talking about missing four hours of sleep, friends. I'm talking about doctors who are talking about the absolute critical nature of sleep, and it affects your ability to think, your ability to make decisions, your ability to respond. And on top of that, they gave her nine different psychiatric kinds of prescriptions. Each was multiplying and adding to her problems. Patrick Clancy testified that Lindsay went into a big spiral that started around the time she began taking Seroquel in early December of 2022.

An antipsychotic prescription medication used to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder. A week after the tragedy, Lindsay called Patrick from her hospital bed and confessed to hearing a voice in her head. She talked about what she went through. Lindsay Clancy's trial, doctors explained postpartum depression versus postpartum psychosis. Everybody threw in the word psychosis. All of a sudden, the word psychosis becomes critical.

Was it discussed earlier? We have no record that psychosis was discussed earlier. It wasn't discussed in that fashion. It was discussed in terms of what symptoms was she dealing with, and she was given one after another after another after another psychiatric kinds of drugs. Let me ask you a question, friend. Do you take a psychiatric drug? I'll be very, very careful, because more than 40% of Americans are on some sort of psychiatric drug.

More than 40%. And she had a major depressive disorder, according to the very purpose requiring Seroquel be prescribed. That also is supposed to control symptoms like hallucinations and delusions in adults. Really? To treat sudden mood swings. Side effects including suicidal ideas. And troubled thinking, problem speaking, unusual dreams, irritability, and mood swings. In other words, these are things over which the person has no control.

Oh. Now, wait a minute. I thought she killed her kids. She murdered them, right? How could she murder them if she didn't have control? Oh, you say, "Well, how could a woman possibly do this to her kids?" That's true. But she wasn't a woman in your shoes. She was in her own. And there's the problem. We'll be right back.

There's so much more about Chuck Crismier and Save America Ministries on our website, saveus.org. For example, under the marriage section, God has marriage on his mind. Chuck has some great resources to strengthen your marriage. First off, a fact sheet on the state of the marital union, a fact sheet on the state of ministry, marriage, and morals. Saveus.org. Marriage, divorce, and remarriage. What does the Bible really teach about this? Find all of this at saveus.org. Also, a letter to pastors, the Hosea Project. Saveus.org. And many more resources to strengthen your marriage. It's all on Chuck's website, saveus.org. Again, you can listen to Chuck's Viewpoint broadcast live and archived, Save America Ministries website at saveus.org.

Chuck Crismier: Apparently, Lindsay Clancy was so overwhelmed by what she discovered that she had done, she launched herself out of a second-story window and has been paralyzed from the waist down ever since. Did you hear about that? Oh, you didn't, did you? That's what I thought. Why did Patrick Clancy divorce his spouse? That's a good question. A valid question. Is it because he thought that she was a mean, ugly woman, who was bitter against her kids and treating them inappropriately?

No. In fact, if this had been a civil case, a divorce case, this man, if he really thought of his wife that way, would have sought custody in the worst way possible and would have demeaned his wife beyond measure. I know because I've handled many, many of those cases. But that's not what he did. He didn't divorce his wife, that we know of, because of what she did in and of itself.

In fact, if he was bitter toward her, why did he appear on her behalf as the principal witness to testify as to her welfare of the kids, her attitude toward the kids, and even toward him? He said, "I did not marry a monster." That was his words. "I was married to someone who got sick." Oh. So, do people kill their kids when they get sick? Not generally. But what kind of sickness did they get?

You see, that's the real issue, and you don't know. Now, you can be so arrogant as to think you know more than the doctors, more than God, more than the lawyers, more than the jury that heard all the testimony. And if that's you, well, then you're the judge, and you be the jury, but you're going to be judged according to the same standard when you come before God. Think about that. You will. Are you listening?

Now, I'm not necessarily standing up for Lindsay Clancy. What I'm trying to do is help us to understand, we do not have a righteous attitude toward this case. Christians don't have a righteous attitude toward the case. Partly because we don't understand, partly because we're prideful, partly because we're not looking for justice, we're looking for something that betters the society as a whole. But that's not what justice is about.

Justice is about this individual case. Would you want to be judged and paraded up as a figurehead for the whole world or the whole nation to come against because they don't like what you did because look at what's happening to society? No. This is about what happened to her, what she did or didn't do. So, there's talk about a new trial. The husband has come out and said it would be extraordinarily painful.

He thanks the jury for their hard work, their commitment, their perseverance. He seems to be a very honorable person. I don't know him. You don't know him, but we can only take him from what he's saying, the attitude that he's expressed. The mistrial means prosecutors can retry the case before a new jury. Jurors in the first trial deliberated for seven days, later writing in a note to the court that they could not reach a verdict because one juror did not agree with the other 11.

So, why didn't they agree? Why didn't the one agree? What was it that kept him from agreeing? It was a man against all the others. Not to put down the man because he's a man, but was it what was his thinking? What was in his mind? Was he interested in justice, or was he interested in something else? Did he decide what the justice should be? Had he already tried the case, notwithstanding what the judge said according to the orders that had been given about how to deal with the issue of beyond a reasonable doubt?

It seemed that he had already tried the case, just like you, or just like many. So, she's in a hospital. She's in a psychiatric hospital where she's been for three years. And she's going to stay there right now until something happens in this case. So, we'll see what happens. Now, I want to shift over to looking at some legal aspects here, okay? Please listen very carefully.

Now that you're all stirred up, you got your emotions all stirred up because of what you came to this broadcast thinking. And now maybe, maybe something is being quickened in your own mind and heart that maybe I jumped to conclusions too quickly. Maybe I'm not as righteous as I think I am. Does that mean if a person is not righteous and is on a jury that they should always be willing to acquit somebody of a crime?

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Because all of us have sinned and come short of the glory of God. We're all sinners. From God's viewpoint, we've all committed murder. Did you know that? He said, "No, I haven't committed murder." Yes, you have. You've been angry with someone, and Jesus said, "Whoever is angry has committed murder in their heart." You're angry with someone else, and you don't resolve it. You've committed murder in your heart.

That's what Jesus said. What do you say? You see our problem? We have a real problem of self-righteousness. A serious problem of self-righteousness. So, what's homicide, by the way? Let's go into some legal terms. Homicide is the killing of one human being by another person. It's not murder. Someone, a person, dies at the hand of another person. Even the Bible permits people in that day because they did not have a legal system like ours.

Permitted them to run to safe cities that were set aside to protect them from vigilante people that would come through and try to kill them in retribution for something that happened to a friend or relative. God protected them. Then they were to be tried in a more independent kind of way as to whether or not they had committed something other than homicide. So, what's a crime? A crime is an illegal act or omission to act that violates public law and is punishable by the government.

So, the government is the minister of justice, supposedly. That's what the Apostle Paul said in Romans chapter 13. But not all government is a minister of justice or mercy or love or compassion or doing its job. But in our government, in our system, which is the best legal system in the world, by the way, go to Iran, and you would have been lynched almost immediately. Iran has killed over 50 people just in the last month.

Over 50. That doesn't mean that it doesn't include those that are put for permanent imprisonment in Evin Prison. A crime is an illegal act according to what? According to the law. Not according to your thoughts, not according to our viewpoints, according to the law. And it includes two things. One is a guilty act. The other is a guilty mind or criminal intent. Many people are concluding, and I've heard this over and over again, "Those kids were killed, and therefore this is murder." That's just not true.

It's not true under the law. It's not true at all. Yes, there was an act that caused these kids to die. The question, though, is not whether the kids were caused to die. The question is why and what was the mind or heart set in accomplishing that killing. That's the real issue of this case. And that brings us to another issue called reasonable doubt. Beyond reasonable doubt. Now, there are two standards in the law.

One is basically a civil court standard, which is beyond, which is by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, if the evidence is just slightly over half, you have to rule in favor of the person bringing the case, whether it's a plaintiff in a personal injury case or whatever. But the criminal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very high standard. It's the highest legal standard of proof required to convict a defendant in a criminal trial.

And there's a good reason for it. Now, let's talk about beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove guilt so conclusively that a normal rational person has no honest or logical doubt about the defendant's guilt. How could that be done by the prosecution in this case when there was so much evidence to indicate that this woman was under severe, severe duress of a level that you can't hardly even imagine?

To the point where she went to what, eight different doctors? They prescribed nine different kind of psychiatric medicines. Each one of which produced consequences, and collectively, who knows what kind of consequences. All of that was introduced. But beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty. It doesn't mean 100 absolute certainty or proof beyond all possible or imaginary doubt, because human affairs always leave room for tiny theoretical questions.

A reasonable doubt has to be based on the evidence or lack of evidence, rather than far-fetched guesswork, emotion, or sympathy. So, if you're follow if the jury is basing their decision on sympathy, that's not has no no bearing on reasonable doubt. It has to do with evidence and whether or not the prosecution could establish basically, for sure, that Lindsay Clancy had the mens rea, that is, the state of mind necessary to make her culpable, not in general, but at the moment those killings took place.

So, putting her in continuing psychiatric care in and of itself, two or three, four years after this fact, means very little. Why? Because what what the issue is what happened at the moment of that act. Not what happened two years before, not what happened four years later. What happened at the moment of that act. You see how we're able to sort twist our thinking a bit on these issues?

Now, we're going to get to the issue of jury trial here next, and we're going to talk a little bit about the insanity defense and the whole idea of the state of mind called mens rea and so on. Hang in there.

Have you ever considered what the early church was like? Many people are developing a heart longing for a greater fulfillment in our practices as Christians. A recent study showed 53,000 people a week are leaving the back door of America's churches in frustration. What is going on? Why has there not been even a 1% gain among followers of Christ in the last 25 years? Could it be that God is seeking to restore First Century Christianity for the 21st Century? Jesus said, "I'll build my church." Is Christ by his Spirit stirring to prepare the church for the 21st Century? The early church prayed together and broke bread from house to house. They were family, and it was said by all who observed, "Behold how they love one another." Incredible, but the same can be found right now. Go to saveus.org and click Cell Church. We can revive First Century Christianity for the 21st Century. It's about people, not programs. It's about a body, not a building. That's saveus.org. Click Cell Church.

Chuck Crismier: Again, I welcome you back to Viewpoint. Today, we're doing a very open review of the case of Lindsay Clancy, and taking a look at it from a broad view as to working together, weaving together the law, our understanding of the law, how we tend to think as human beings, even to distort the law or make it up on our own. We're prone to just make it all up out of whole cloth. In fact, we even have a Supreme Court that did that in 1947.

Made up the whole idea of separation of church and state, which was nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in the law. Did you know that that happened in 1973 with regard to Roe v. Wade and the abortion decision? Supposedly, nine reasonable men on the Supreme Court made up the law. It was not law at all. There was nothing in the Supreme Court, nothing in the in the laws of men, that supported Roe v. Wade or abortion.

They just made it up. That's why it got overturned a couple years ago. Because everybody knew it was just made up. Even judges are prone to make up law. They're not honest. They'll take cultural issues, they'll take all kinds of things that they patch in together and come up with a conclusion that they rationalized in their minds that isn't true. And we're all capable of it. Believe me, we're all capable of it.

So why do we have jury trials? We have jury trials primarily, and they come they're constitutionally required. Every person is entitled to a jury trial. Why? Because if you don't have a jury trial, you're subject to one man or one woman's opinion that's full of bias from their background, and there's nothing to counteract it. One person. A jury trial is a check on power. Juries act as a safeguard against a single judge or the government abusing their power like what happens in Iran.

Where they act corruptly, it involves community standards. A group of regular people brings the moral values and common sense of the local community into the courtroom. Now, you may disagree, and that's where the whole idea of reasonable minds can differ. But what is a reasonable mind? Almost every human being would conclude they have a reasonable mind. But the one next door to you doesn't think so. You see the problem? We've got that same problem going on in the church.

It's driving the church into moral and spiritual oblivion because we have pastors who decided to arrogate to themselves the idea of God's viewpoint concerning every issue that God's already spoken on. So they become judge and jury. And then the people follow suit, and we see moral degeneracy continue in the church. Now, impartiality. Jury trials, randomly selected peers, help ensure that a trial is fair and balanced, rather than dependent on just one official's opinion.

And here's what happens. Whether you realize it or not, lawyers, when a jury is presented, that jury is not accepted just out of hand. It goes through a process of what is called voir dire, which is the review and inspection of the jury first by the court. The judge will interview the jurors as to certain basic questions. Then, the lawyers are entitled to inspect the jury and basically cross-examine the jury, ask various questions to try to determine bias.

That's the goal, to try to determine bias. Then ultimately, after all of the various jurors have been dismissed for whatever reason, preemptive or or reasonable, then a jury is selected, and that jury sits. And we put public trust in court cases, in juries, precisely because it's the best, most honest, and fair system in the world. In spite of the fact they're made up of faulty human beings.

And that brings up the so-called insanity defense. The insanity defense, which is what this is involved here, by reason of insanity, or by reason of lack of mental capability of appreciating the wrongdoing that took place at the time that it took place. It's not a matter of whether it's appreciated a year before or two years before or five years later. It's what happened at that moment. And this was a case in flux.

As you know, if you really understand the facts, this was a case in flux where the situation with Lindsay Clancy was deteriorating greatly. If it had not been the case, she wouldn't have been going to all these doctors. And they wouldn't have been prescribing all of this psychotic control stuff. Now, the question is, did all of that remove Lindsay Clancy's volitional ability to perceive the nature of her acts and its severity, the wrongness of her acts at that moment, not at some other moment, at that moment?

And that's what the jury had to decide, and they couldn't decide it. In fact, 11 of the jurors said, "You know what? The way we see this, there is no way that we can make that conclusion that she was culpable at that moment." But there was one holdout juror. Now, what was his viewpoint? I don't even have to know exactly, I don't have to talk to him. I know what his viewpoint is. It's very clear.

In fact, it came out when the head of the jury, foreman of the jury, came out and said to the judge, "We've got a problem, judge. We've got a juror who refuses to stand to hold to the standard that you required in your instructions." Now, what was that standard? Beyond a reasonable doubt. So that juror said, "I don't care what the reasonable doubt thing is, she killed the kids, and that's murder, and that's it." That was his viewpoint.

Now, here's what's fascinating about this. By the way, the guilty mind thing is called mens rea. It's a Latin term. Every lawyer knows it, which means that the the defendant acted with conscious desire to cause the specific criminal result, knowingly, certain that their conduct would result or lead to the outcome at that time, was reckless or reckless or was negligent. But those are two different things, reckless and negligent.

You can have negligent manslaughter, but that's not the same as murder. It's a homicide, but it's not murder. Murder is a very specific crime that involves a mens rea of knowing when you went into it what you were doing. And that means it was premeditated. She had to know exactly what she was doing, why she was doing it, was not under any other control other than just her own volition.

So what's your answer? What's your answer? Let me share a couple of lawyers that have responded to this. Nancy Mace is a lawyer from South Carolina. She was just voted out of office, but she posted on this. She said, "The one lone juror in Lindsay Clancy's case who held the line was the only one who understood murder is criminal." Okay. Nancy Mace revealed her complete lack of understanding when she said, "Murder is criminal." Yes, murder is criminal, but she presumed that it was murder.

That's the problem. Murder has to do with the intentional with the mens rea, full understanding and comprehension of doing the wrongful act. So she presumed that without even discussing it. That's what people are doing, friends. That's wickedness. That you talk about judgmentalism. That is judgmentalism. You're not even willing to humble yourself under the law. And attorney Edward Polsek wrote, "One thing's for sure, the lone holdout juror who righteously stood up against evil, even under the withering pressure from his 11 colleagues and the judge, is an American hero." That's a viewpoint. I understand that viewpoint.

Why would he call him an American hero if he rejected the judge's instructions concerning reasonable doubt and mens rea? Because that's the outcome that he thought should happen, no matter what. "Kids are killed, this is horrendous. We can't allow this kind of thing to happen. Therefore, she's guilty." That's how it concludes. But that's not the law. Are we a law-driven people or not? Are we a nation of laws or of men? That viewpoint is a nation of men, not laws.

And it's coming from a lawyer. One of the 11 jurors, what of the other 11 jurors? Polsek said, "They should not be attacked and demonized for coming to a different conclusion than the lone holdout. That that was their right and part of their civic duty." Our system of trial by jury, just like our Constitution, will always be the best in the history of mankind. Trial by jury is the virtuous pillar of our criminal justice system, even when it results in a controversial outcome.

We have to believe that. When the famous case in Southern California that the whole nation and world watched 30-some years ago, when the lawyer presented the case to the jury and he said, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Nobody will ever forget those words. "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. There were too many other things that could involved whether or not the glove fit or not.

Maybe he gained weight, maybe he had a lot of salt, and the glove wouldn't fit. Maybe there was too much time had passed. That that was a nonsensical argument, but it sure conveyed a jury that wanted to deliver an acquittal in that racially charged case. So it's all about bias. Now, a pastor, a young pastor, I don't know how old he is, senior pastor at Lakepoint Church somewhere, laid out the parallels what he discerned between the Lindsay Clancy case and Judges 19.

So, on a podcast he aired September 4th, Pastor Josh Howerton said he saw parallels between the reaction to the Lindsay Clancy case and the moral depravity of ancient Israel in the book of Judges. He described the Clancy murder of three children as obviously demonic. Well, if it was obviously demonic, is he suggesting that she wasn't in control? You see the problem with these these words? He also deserved the widespread support she has received from many women as a potential turning point in the spiritual trajectory of the United States.

Well, there may be some truth to that. But then, is he talking about what's happening in the church, the church where he's pastoring, where huge numbers of the people sitting in his congregation are fornicators and adulterers and cohabiters? Does he speak to that? He said there was a time in Israel's history where Israel wandered so far, so fast in open rebellion against God, that the Bible says in the book of Judges, that quote, "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." And there was a reason, a season when moral degradation and just utter depravity just washed over a nation that had previously loved the Lord their God, he said.

There are specific instances he said where empathy can become toxic. And this is one of those cases. I agree with that. Empathy can become toxic. It's toxic in the church where we approve that which God says he hates. And then we want to come after a woman here under these circumstances and think that's false compassion. We don't understand the law, friends, and we need to inspect our own hearts. I'm a law and order kind of a guy.

And for me to take this position and discuss it this way, I think you should seriously consider what I'm sharing. This case has tremendous implications for the mind and the heart of we the people. Yes, it does. Are we trying to approve wickedness and unrighteousness? I don't think so. I think what we're trying to do is become lawful citizens, even though we're not prone to be lawful citizens.

Chuck Crismier: You've been listening to Viewpoint with Chuck Crismier. Viewpoint is supported by the faithful gifts of our listeners. Let me urge you to become a partner with Chuck as a voice to the church declaring vision for the nation. Join us again next time on Viewpoint as we confront the issues of America's heart and home.