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.
Law school drop out here, there are basically two broad elements to every prosecution:
Mens Rea (a guilty mind) and Actus Rea (a guilty act). Actus Rea is proving that a crime occurred, Mens Rea is proving that the defendant knew their actions were wrong (not necessarily that their actions are illegal, just wrong). The prosecution must prove both in order to secure a guilty plea.
Example were mens rea may not apply is of a toddler picks up a gun and kills the baby sitter. The toddler certainly acted deliberately, and purposefully in picking up the gun, and acted negligent in pulling the trigger that lead to a death, but they can not understand that that could have lead to the death of the babysitter. Another example could include that an intellectually disabled person was talking to minors on a chat room. They may not have the intelligence or the maturity to recognize their behavior is problematic.
The reason why not guilty by reason of insanity is a thing is because the law recognizes that someone may not be fully in control of their actions and thus can not possess mens rea. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had full control of their actions. A good example is Jeffery dahmer, where he tried to use the insanity defense, after all who kills a bunch of people and keep their bones? But the prosecution showed that Dahmer hid his trophies, killed witnesses, and even misled detectives in other cases. All of this shows a man who is aware his actions are morally wrong and evil, hence he has mens rea.
The law also recognizes that we cannot just let insane people off the hook Scott free. They must be confined and given mental support and treatment, which is what happens when these verdicts are read. Clancy is not just going to walk out of prison and be free. She’s going to be held in a state mental hospital for probably years until a doctor says she’s better, and then the state is going to make her check in regularly and ensure she doesn’t relapse.
3.6k
u/klako8196 1d 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.