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.
then the best strategy for the defendant is to always plead insanity when facing significant jail time
That's absolutely not true. Insanity defense are very rare and they have a abysmal success rate. It's basically a desperate hail marry. Do you know why?
Because first in order to raise insanity defense you need to admit you did it. It lowers to burden on prosecution not raises it. That's why no one in their right mind uses it unless prosecution has overwhelming evidence against you.
Second of all jury almost never buys it. All prosecution has to do is go out there show you were functioning fine until you committed those crimes and suddenly you claim to be insane.
Also you should be consoled with the fact that in most states it functions like you describe. In Florida for example defense needs to prove the accused was insane by "clear and convincing evidence". It's a lower burden than "beyond reasonable doubt" but still burden is on the defense.
This was just in a state prosecution need to prove she wasn't insane. And yet still she wasn't found not guilty. In the end if you were fallowing this topic more closely you'd have found it much less sensational than you have now.
Just wondering, ive never heard 'clear and convincing' as a standard (im in Australia) is that the same as the civil burden 'on the balance of probabilities'?
Thats interesting to know. We have 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases and 'on the balance of probabilities' for civil cases, or when a defence is raised by the defendant in a criminal case.
•
u/hallo_its_me 15h ago
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 .