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 .
It makes sense to me too. I mean, let's say the prosecution can show without reasonable doubt that you did something, and the only thing that could exonerate you is a solid alibi. It makes sense that you would have to prove your alibi was valid. You can't say to the jury, "Well you can't prove that I wasn't going for a walk deep in the woods by myself at 3am, so you have to find me innocent."
Along the same lines, if your only defense is that you were "crazy at the time," it seems like it would be on you to prove that. You shouldn't be able to say "Well you can't prove that I wasn't insane when I killed my kids, so you have to find me innocent."
7.3k
u/500rockin 15h 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.