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 agree, most people misunderstand significantly what is a psychosis and how it presents. The majority seems to believe that psychotic people are always completely disorganized, dissociated and are just there speaking with their voices without interacting with the real world. Others appear to believe that psychosis cannot create complex delusions that the person would never believe in their normal state.
In reality, a good part of psychotic people (if not most) are delusional and even experience hallucinations, but can still hold a conversation appearing mostly fine. They believe the voices are real but they know that it is not something that others would find normal, so they hide and deny the fact that they are experiencing hallucinations. They can also make plans, and sometimes complex plans, while delusional.
Even for psychiatrists, determining criminal non responsibility is a complex process, and the psychiatrists that work on those cases are often specialized in legal psychiatry. It is a big responsibility to put on lay people, to delegate the final decision on whether the suspect was likely insane or not.
•
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.