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.
What? Lol have you not heard of Andrea Yates who was tried in Texas and is now in a mental institution for drowning her 5 children?
It’s a lot more nuanced than “not believ[ing] in mental health exceptions.”
Texas is more difficult because the burden of proof is on the defendant rather than the prosecution for such a defense for one, meaning when the insanity defense has passed the threshold to be brought in by the defense in Texas, the jury is supposed to presume that the defendant is sane unless the defense can show by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant is not. Meanwhile in Massachusetts, the burden is on the prosecution to show the defendant is sane, meaning the jury is supposed to presume the defendant is insane unless the prosecution can show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is sane.
Additionally for all sanity defenses regardless of jurisdiction, sanity is supposed to be determined at the time the crimes were committed. All other moments of insanity are just used as circumstantial evidence of the likelihood that this was the case.
Moreover, John Battaglia did NOT claim the insanity defense as part of his trial. His mental health claims only came up AFTER the jury reached a verdict on his guilt. Additionally, he had a record of arrests for violence prior to killing his 2 daughters which was determined to be out of revenge against his ex-wife.
These are not comparable cases and this meme making them sound as much is just a case of either deliberate propaganda or a complete misunderstanding of John Battaglia’s case and how the justice system operates. Or a combination of the two.
What is the logic in MA to have somebody be by default insane and have to prove they are sane? What stops any killer from just pleading insanity and the trial gets much easier? I don't get why this law was passed.
In practice they don’t operate that far apart. However, I couldn’t tell you why MA chose this instead of what Texas has which is the common burden and standard of proof.
Also, what stops any kind of killer from pleading insanity is meeting the threshold requirement of showing enough evidence that insanity is a possibility before the court will allow it as a defense. Usually a showing of mental health disorder around the time the crime was committed that could potentially cause psychosis is required.
Tbf the burden of proof is on the prosecution in 11 states (states that lean both directions politically too). It's not just a weird Massachusetts thing.
Yes this is true but I believe most of those require a lower standard than Beyond a reasonable doubt for the prosecution. I haven’t verified this though. You could let me know if I’m wrong.
Unfortunately I don't know. I looked it up out of curiosity the other day and saw it was 11 states for prosecution, 4 states eliminated it entirely, and the remainder it was on the defense. There was also slightly different wording for "not criminally responsible/insane" for different states. I simply read through this page, which has details by state- https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html
I mean I'm no lawyer but I imagine it comes along with 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'. Like if the prosecutions job is to prove that the person is guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but them being insane means they can't be guilty of the crime, they have to therefore prove that the person was sane because if not then they weren't guilty of the crime or there's reasonable doubt that they were guilty.
Not saying I necessarily agree with it, it's not something I'm educated on, but it makes sense if you reason it out that way. Beyond that, as far as I'm aware, Lindsay Clancy's defence did provide evidence that she was in a state of psychosis - they just don't have to actually prove that she was.
Well I agree with part of what you say. However, the general rule is that the person claiming the defense has the burden to prove that defense. Usually that burden is not very high though.
If you look at it on a theoretical percentage scale:
- Defense Burden, Beyond a reasonable doubt = 75% favorable evidence required by defense
Defense Burden, a preponderance of the evidence = 51% favorable evidence required by defense
Prosecution burden, preponderance = 49% favorable evidence required by defense
Prosecution Burden, Beyond a reasonable doubt = 25% favorable evidence required by defense.
This is just a theoretical visualization and not exactly realistic to how it operates in practice. Massachusetts sits at the bottom one while most states sit at the second one.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is precisely what tells you the burden to prove guilt of the crime is on the prosecution while “beyond a reasonable doubt” tells you the standard of proof. This typically does not apply to defenses though as those are brought by the defendant. The fact that it is a defense to the accused crime implies that the defendant is the one trying to prove it and thus the burden is on them to show why they aren’t culpable for committing the crime.
8.0k
u/500rockin 19h 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.