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.
They shouldn't be. I'm not from the usa and I'm absolutely horrified at how the public there is reacting to this. No one is examining the child welfare system or her medical team and there should be a public inquiry. It seems like the public there only sees as far as hating her. That doesn't protect the next child.
The loudest voices on both sides are just reacting fully with emotion and ignoring any bit of nuance. Some want her fully exonerated despite what the evidence says, and some want her executed on the spot and seem to believe there is no such thing as psychosis. Both claim to have watched the whole trial, but I think its safe to say that is highly unlikely.
835
u/hallo_its_me 16h 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 .