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 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.
This is actually the biggest issue other than different states having different standards and why comparing any two cases is pointless. Both sides bring on highly qualified experts and the case often then hangs on which one performs best in the eyes of the jury. And since it’s also a different jury every time it’s really hard to make a comparison.
Yeah, I'm not sure what the jury is supposed to do when you've got multiple highly qualified experts disagreeing with each other. I guess you've got to go with reasonable doubt at that point but it seems like there must be a better way.
•
u/500rockin 18h 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.