Introduction Earlier, the burden of proof was on the prosecutors. They had to prove that the defendant was criminally insane, unable to distinguish between right and wrong. However, this law and the definition of insanity have changed over time.

Question

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 19, Problem 1Q-P636

Summary Introduction

Introduction

Earlier, the burden of proof was on the prosecutors. They had to prove that the defendant was criminally insane, unable to distinguish between right and wrong. However, this law and the definition of insanity have changed over time.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Suggested response

Just like the burden of proof to prove someone guilty of a crime lies on the prosecutor, the burden of proof to prove someone insane should lie on the defense. Insanity defense has been misused in the past. However, still a legitimate defense, certain criteria should be met to establish the applicability of this defense.

Requiring to prove someone completely sane could lead to the acquittal of people who are wrongfully using this defense. It can be a difficult task to prove that someone is sane, since few who engage in criminal behavior live an otherwise healthy life. Most criminals show some form of bizarre tendencies and dysfunctions in the daily lives. Thus, the focus should be on proving that these individuals are, without a doubt, criminally insane.

However, the definition of insanity given is narrow and subjective. This further complicates matters as it is not easy to establish that one's mental disorder affected their ability to discriminate between right and wrong. At the same time, jurors are often not told about what constitutes insanity and what the verdict – not guilty by insanity – means. Hence, while the burden of proof should be on the defendant, certain changes in the legal system are required to make this process more efficient.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 2

Question

Chapter 19, Problem 1Q-P636

Summary Introduction

Introduction

Earlier, the burden of proof was on the prosecutors. They had to prove that the defendant was criminally insane, unable to distinguish between right and wrong. However, this law and the definition of insanity have changed over time.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Suggested response

Just like the burden of proof to prove someone guilty of a crime lies on the prosecutor, the burden of proof to prove someone insane should lie on the defense. Insanity defense has been misused in the past. However, still a legitimate defense, certain criteria should be met to establish the applicability of this defense.

Requiring to prove someone completely sane could lead to the acquittal of people who are wrongfully using this defense. It can be a difficult task to prove that someone is sane, since few who engage in criminal behavior live an otherwise healthy life. Most criminals show some form of bizarre tendencies and dysfunctions in the daily lives. Thus, the focus should be on proving that these individuals are, without a doubt, criminally insane.

However, the definition of insanity given is narrow and subjective. This further complicates matters as it is not easy to establish that one's mental disorder affected their ability to discriminate between right and wrong. At the same time, jurors are often not told about what constitutes insanity and what the verdict – not guilty by insanity – means. Hence, while the burden of proof should be on the defendant, certain changes in the legal system are required to make this process more efficient.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 3

Question

Chapter 19, Problem 1Q-P636

Summary Introduction

Introduction

Earlier, the burden of proof was on the prosecutors. They had to prove that the defendant was criminally insane, unable to distinguish between right and wrong. However, this law and the definition of insanity have changed over time.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Suggested response

Just like the burden of proof to prove someone guilty of a crime lies on the prosecutor, the burden of proof to prove someone insane should lie on the defense. Insanity defense has been misused in the past. However, still a legitimate defense, certain criteria should be met to establish the applicability of this defense.

Requiring to prove someone completely sane could lead to the acquittal of people who are wrongfully using this defense. It can be a difficult task to prove that someone is sane, since few who engage in criminal behavior live an otherwise healthy life. Most criminals show some form of bizarre tendencies and dysfunctions in the daily lives. Thus, the focus should be on proving that these individuals are, without a doubt, criminally insane.

However, the definition of insanity given is narrow and subjective. This further complicates matters as it is not easy to establish that one's mental disorder affected their ability to discriminate between right and wrong. At the same time, jurors are often not told about what constitutes insanity and what the verdict – not guilty by insanity – means. Hence, while the burden of proof should be on the defendant, certain changes in the legal system are required to make this process more efficient.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 4

Question

Chapter 19, Problem 1Q-P636

Summary Introduction

Introduction

Earlier, the burden of proof was on the prosecutors. They had to prove that the defendant was criminally insane, unable to distinguish between right and wrong. However, this law and the definition of insanity have changed over time.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Suggested response

Just like the burden of proof to prove someone guilty of a crime lies on the prosecutor, the burden of proof to prove someone insane should lie on the defense. Insanity defense has been misused in the past. However, still a legitimate defense, certain criteria should be met to establish the applicability of this defense.

Requiring to prove someone completely sane could lead to the acquittal of people who are wrongfully using this defense. It can be a difficult task to prove that someone is sane, since few who engage in criminal behavior live an otherwise healthy life. Most criminals show some form of bizarre tendencies and dysfunctions in the daily lives. Thus, the focus should be on proving that these individuals are, without a doubt, criminally insane.

However, the definition of insanity given is narrow and subjective. This further complicates matters as it is not easy to establish that one's mental disorder affected their ability to discriminate between right and wrong. At the same time, jurors are often not told about what constitutes insanity and what the verdict – not guilty by insanity – means. Hence, while the burden of proof should be on the defendant, certain changes in the legal system are required to make this process more efficient.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 5

Chapter 19, Problem 1Q-P636

Summary Introduction

Introduction

Earlier, the burden of proof was on the prosecutors. They had to prove that the defendant was criminally insane, unable to distinguish between right and wrong. However, this law and the definition of insanity have changed over time.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Suggested response

Just like the burden of proof to prove someone guilty of a crime lies on the prosecutor, the burden of proof to prove someone insane should lie on the defense. Insanity defense has been misused in the past. However, still a legitimate defense, certain criteria should be met to establish the applicability of this defense.

Requiring to prove someone completely sane could lead to the acquittal of people who are wrongfully using this defense. It can be a difficult task to prove that someone is sane, since few who engage in criminal behavior live an otherwise healthy life. Most criminals show some form of bizarre tendencies and dysfunctions in the daily lives. Thus, the focus should be on proving that these individuals are, without a doubt, criminally insane.

However, the definition of insanity given is narrow and subjective. This further complicates matters as it is not easy to establish that one's mental disorder affected their ability to discriminate between right and wrong. At the same time, jurors are often not told about what constitutes insanity and what the verdict – not guilty by insanity – means. Hence, while the burden of proof should be on the defendant, certain changes in the legal system are required to make this process more efficient.

Answer 6

Chapter 19, Problem 1Q-P636

Summary Introduction

Introduction

Earlier, the burden of proof was on the prosecutors. They had to prove that the defendant was criminally insane, unable to distinguish between right and wrong. However, this law and the definition of insanity have changed over time.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Suggested response

Just like the burden of proof to prove someone guilty of a crime lies on the prosecutor, the burden of proof to prove someone insane should lie on the defense. Insanity defense has been misused in the past. However, still a legitimate defense, certain criteria should be met to establish the applicability of this defense.

Requiring to prove someone completely sane could lead to the acquittal of people who are wrongfully using this defense. It can be a difficult task to prove that someone is sane, since few who engage in criminal behavior live an otherwise healthy life. Most criminals show some form of bizarre tendencies and dysfunctions in the daily lives. Thus, the focus should be on proving that these individuals are, without a doubt, criminally insane.

However, the definition of insanity given is narrow and subjective. This further complicates matters as it is not easy to establish that one's mental disorder affected their ability to discriminate between right and wrong. At the same time, jurors are often not told about what constitutes insanity and what the verdict – not guilty by insanity – means. Hence, while the burden of proof should be on the defendant, certain changes in the legal system are required to make this process more efficient.

Answer 7

Chapter 19, Problem 1Q-P636

Summary Introduction

Introduction

Earlier, the burden of proof was on the prosecutors. They had to prove that the defendant was criminally insane, unable to distinguish between right and wrong. However, this law and the definition of insanity have changed over time.

Answer 8

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Suggested response

Just like the burden of proof to prove someone guilty of a crime lies on the prosecutor, the burden of proof to prove someone insane should lie on the defense. Insanity defense has been misused in the past. However, still a legitimate defense, certain criteria should be met to establish the applicability of this defense.

Requiring to prove someone completely sane could lead to the acquittal of people who are wrongfully using this defense. It can be a difficult task to prove that someone is sane, since few who engage in criminal behavior live an otherwise healthy life. Most criminals show some form of bizarre tendencies and dysfunctions in the daily lives. Thus, the focus should be on proving that these individuals are, without a doubt, criminally insane.

However, the definition of insanity given is narrow and subjective. This further complicates matters as it is not easy to establish that one's mental disorder affected their ability to discriminate between right and wrong. At the same time, jurors are often not told about what constitutes insanity and what the verdict – not guilty by insanity – means. Hence, while the burden of proof should be on the defendant, certain changes in the legal system are required to make this process more efficient.