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 just don’t think unqualified layman in the jury really should be the ones deciding whether someone was clinically insane or not.
The jury should just deliberate on whether the defendant committed the crime in question, if they rule they did, then the defense should be able to request a review by a panel of mental health experts who will be tasked with determining whether the defendant was criminally liable or clinically insane.
I understand where you are coming from, but having a panel of experts creates a whole new set of issues. Who picks the experts, and how do we ensure they remain completely unbiased?
If the state or medical board selects them, the public will question their neutrality. It becomes much easier for deep-pocketed defendants or ambitious prosecutors to influence (corrupt) a small panel .How would we resolve expert disagreements or prevent systemic bias? Leaving expert testimony up to a jury to deliberate on helps prevent a single small group from holding absolute authority over a verdict.
•
u/klako8196 18h ago
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.