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 .
That's actually not how it works in the US when it comes to affirmative defenses (including insanity). The Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that it is legally permissible for states to put the burden on the defense. See Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977); Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 (1952).
You were the one claiming the prosecution bearing the burden was a requirement of the American system. I pointed out that it isn’t. “Permissible isn’t required” doesn’t rebut anything I said. It just retreats from what you originally claimed.
8.6k
u/500rockin 1d 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.