I mean it also helps that he was tried in Texas where they don’t believe in mental health exceptions. She’s being tried in Massachusetts, which has a very different political climate.
Also, in Texas, the burden of proof for insanity is on the defense. In Massachusetts, burden of proof is on the prosecution. His defense had to prove he was insane when committing the crime while her defense just had to poke holes in the prosecution’s case.
This seems way more sensible to me. I understand if the actual underlying crime should be innocent until proven guilty but if you are insane that specifically should be a higher burden of proof .
I think it's a question of if proving someone is guilty of a crime requires proving that they chose to commit that crime or if the state is allowed to assume that the fact the crime was committed is proof it was by choice.
It wouldn't just be an issue of whether or not people are by default assumed to be mentally competent, either. Suppose someone put a gun to your baby's head and told you to go rob a bank or they'd kill your kid. If the state tries to prove you are guilty for robbing that bank, is part of proving that presenting evidence that you were free from coercion? Or is it your responsibility as a victim of the crime of extortion to have to act as a proxy for the state to prove that other person is guilty of threatening your baby and therefore guilty of robbing the bank by extension. Your baby can't testify, so how would you do that if the person with the gun got away before the cops caught you?
With mental competency at issue, how much would we believe someone who truly was not competent could intentionally put forth an effective proof of that? If we say that is what defense lawyers are for either we are expecting someone to be mentally competent enough to hire lawyers and direct them to prove they are mentally incompetent, or we are kicking the can down the road by assuming a public defender (aka the state only with less money and time) gets to pick a defense in the absence of competent choice by the accused. That puts the onus on public defenders to also be psychiatrists skilled enough to at least make an initial assessment that a more thorough examination is required. Or else that will never happen because the only reason not to do that as part of an ethical best effort to successfully defend a client would be because the state would not give public defenders enough money to order that examination for every person accused.
Your baby can't testify, so how would you do that if the person with the gun got away before the cops caught you?
You don't, and you go to jail with all the other people that are "not guilty" that have made up a story to deny their responsibility in some way. The alternative is that everyone that robs a bank can claim they were threatened to do so by mysterious strangers that got away before any evidence of their existence could be found, much like this woman's claimed "psychosis".
•
u/500rockin 15h ago
I mean it also helps that he was tried in Texas where they don’t believe in mental health exceptions. She’s being tried in Massachusetts, which has a very different political climate.