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 think its a fair point but I think my arguments against this are:
Juries already have to determine truth in expert testimony. DNA, fingerprints, handwriting analysis, even stuff that ended up being mostly bogus like blood splatter analysis, all have to be considered by a jury. Its an important safeguard to ensure the justice system stays tethered to the will of the people
Psychiatry has genuine expertise that juries should take seriously, but retrospective determinations of someone's mental state and capacities aren't sufficiently objective or reliable to justify transferring the ultimate legal judgment to them
This would give psychiatry particular authority that we would never give to another discipline (ie in a lawsuit over whether a building was negligently constructed we don't just hand the case over to a panel of engineers after a jury determines that the building did factually collapse)
I understand your point that psychiatrists could not replace the judge and conclude cases themselves. But I am not convinced that delegating the final judgment on whether the person was likely insane or not would be giving psychiatrists too much power.
In the end it’s a medical assessment and a medical decision that falls into the expertise of doctors that studied more than ten years to become forensic psychiatrists. In any situation other than in the courtroom, if a psychiatrist has to evaluate someone’s capacity to make decisions, they come to a conclusion and the rest of the medical team follows recommendations based on the psychiatrist’s assessment. This is not out of their scope of practice.
However the current system is problematic with each side (defense and prosecution) finding a psychiatrist that says what they want for their cases. It would be better if there was a panel of independent psychiatrists that would come to a conclusion but still have the judge making the final decision because of the legal implications.
•
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 .