Is Social Media Addictive?

Is Social Media Addictive?
By Mike Bibb

Surgeon General's Position on Social Media and Addiction: "The current U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, has not formally declared social media "addictive" in legal or scientific terms, but he has warned that it can cause "excessive and problematic use" and has urged urgent action to address its harms to youth mental health." — Communicate Health, Aug. 15, 2024.
_______________________________________________

At first, I had doubts if social media was addictive, but after learning 11 of the 12 jurors in the Lindsey Clancy murder trial in Plymouth, Massachusetts believed she was "innocent by reason of insanity" when strangling her three young children, I've changed my mind.

Social media must be causing more brain damage than previously imagined. And, it's not limited to people under 18 years of age.

Actually, I would include Lindsey's defense attorney in the mix. He put on an after-trial theatrical presentation condemning the actions of the lone dissenting juror, that a person might suspect he is more interested in publicity than job performance.

So what if a single juror did not agree with the other eleven? Isn't that one of the purposes of the jury system of fairness? Agreement and disagreement is supposed to be the primary function of deliberations.

A verdict cannot be reached in a murder trial unless everyone agrees — 12 out of 12.

That's the way the system is set up.

Not, 11 out of 12, or 10 out of 12, or 9 out of 12, or 7 out of 12.

Lindsey's attorney knows this — he's been practicing law for a long time. This was not his first time in court.

Then for him to publicly berate, in front of the court house, the lone juror who did not acquiesce with the other eleven, seems more like the rantings of a sore loser than acknowledging it was the absolute right of that juror to express and hold his own views.

Regardless, if his decision was contrary to the majority.

Lindsey's attorney, Kevin Reddington exposed his sentiments following the trial: "Where do I begin to thank these jurors, minus one," he said.

"I have no idea what that guy was thinking; I have no idea why he did what he did. They know that they were robbed by one man, for whatever his agenda was, who stole seven weeks of the life of these other jurors that were so attentive, so beautiful, so wonderful."

He didn't mention anything about the three lives Lindsey stole that were "so beautiful, so wonderful," nor the evilness of her actions.

Not a single word

Also remember, Lindsey previously admitted she killed her kids. Undeniable evidence was presented to substantiate the crime.

To me, as a nonlawyer, the purpose of the trial was in determining and deciding if Lindsey should receive a Murder One, Murder Two, Manslaughter, Innocent by Reason of Insanity, or Acquittal conviction.

Whatever the outcome, it's pretty well understood Lindsey will be spending a great deal of time in either prison or a mental health institution.

Unless — by some incomprehensible reason, she is acquitted — she will not be mingling with friends and family outside of prison or hospital walls for a long, long time.

If ever.

For the simple reason she intentionally choked to death every one of her children with malice and forethought.

Yet, she's become a sort of social media star, gaining admiration among a select group of fans, who believe her confinement should be lessened to a more compassionate level.

Apparently, forgetting Massachusetts is not a death penalty state. That seems lenient enough, considering in many other states her crime would automatically qualify for lethal-injection or firing squad.

Although, it would probably take several years, or decades, before the final act of justice is meted out.

Also, for some purpose, the judge did not sequester (isolate) the jury, permitting them to return home daily. He did, however caution them to refrain from discussing the case.

As a result, there is really no positive way of knowing how much outside influence — especially social media and the press — may have persuaded their decisions.

If the case is retried, I'm sure the state prosecution will seek to correct several errors committed in the first trial.

Keeping in mind, the trial of a mother who slowly inflicted a suffocating death upon her own children, aged 5 yrs., 3 yrs., and 8 months, doesn't deserve special treatment.

The viciousness of her crime can never be lessened by compassion, or public sympathy. She did what she wanted to do; the children  aren't coming back, and now the state must do what it has to do.