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 .
But if the burden of proof for being insane is higher, then the best strategy for the defendant is to always plead insanity when facing significant jail time, as it's impoasible to disprove, and if you do as you're told, you're out much sooner.
To me, it sounds only logical that each positive (as in, an assertion on the state of something) claim should be corroborated with evidence. If someone asserts that you did something, they should provide evidence. If they prove it but then you claim you were actually insane at that moment, then you should provide evidence.
Pleading insanity should be taken out of law because it’s impossible to ever prove what’s going on regarding an internal state. The law should find a murderer GUILTY if the facts establish the person did the deed. Mental health should be considered only in sentencing. And then only objective facts should be taken into consideration. We can’t let psychologists, or academics of any ilk, distract us from the reality that the person did a thing that is deeply antisocial.
•
u/klako8196 15h 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.