I would also add in parents. Teachers can do what they can but if parents at home do not follow through either in educating their children to maintain it, then it falls apart. Luckily for me my parents pushed me to learn because they did not have an education themselves and had to learn everything the hard way. Dad lived through the Depression and mom came from the Philippines and never finished elementary school.
Honestly there is a whole story.
There is a multitude of reasons why. For some, it is the belief we must shoulder it as our own burden because we do not want to bring that on those we care about. Others, simply dont know how to express it or there are those that wish to share because they had an experience where they let their guard down just for it to be tossed into their face or dismissed. These are just some examples.
@Audjuice9989 Probably and the argument for the defense she can't handle a retrial is ridiculous. If she didn't want to go through all of this, then she shouldn't have murdered her kids in the first place.
To clarify my earlier point: Iβm speaking from a legal-analysis standpoint.
The issue is not that people cannot have opinions or emotional reactions to these cases. The issue is that two cases can both involve death and still follow completely different legal doctrines.
A self-defense case asks whether force was legally justified because of an immediate threat from another person.
A criminal-responsibility or mental-state case asks whether the defendantβs mental condition affected intent, culpability, or legal responsibility.
Those are not the same legal questions.
So when people compare Lindsay Clancy and Kyle Rittenhouse, the only broad similarity is that both cases involved deaths and legal defenses or circumstances the court had to examine. Beyond that, the comparison becomes misleading because the facts, elements, burdens, and legal standards are different.
That does not mean courts should ignore extenuating circumstances. They should examine facts, intent, mental state, defenses, and culpability. But comparing cases under different doctrines as if they follow the same rules creates a false equivalency.
@darlingstrawbie Two different cases that fundamentally different set of rules to follow. People that try and draw parallels between these two highly different cases are extremely ill or uninformed how the legal process works.
It's literally a Google search away to finding out the reasons why.
@darlingstrawbie I have a 1 month old baby girl and I still post things while I take care of her. Lol most of the time it is like 0200 to 0400 in the morning but hey when duty (pun intended) calls you know.