OracleOutlook
🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
p
OracleOutlook
🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum
User ID: 359
p
🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum
User ID: 359
🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard generally is in reference to doubt related to physical actions that occurred. "It's he-said, she-said and there's no cameras, so there's no way to know for sure what happened" is reasonable doubt.
How do you prove someone is sane? I don't even know how you prove someone is sane in the present moment beyond reasonable doubt. How do you prove someone was "sane" at the time of committing a crime beyond a reasonable doubt? And when the courts mean "sane" they mean "understood what they were doing was wrong."
Is it even possible? There's a tautology the defense can always pull - crime is irrational, if someone is committing a crime then they are showing they didn't fully understand what they were doing was wrong, therefore there is always reasonable doubt that the person was sane at the time of the crime.
In the case of Clancy, I think the fact that she concealed it on a phone call while she was in the process of doing it does show the preponderance of evidence shows she knows she was doing something wrong. It doesn't matter how much mental anguish she was in or how mental illness made it seem like killing her kids was preferable to not killing her kids. She was cognizant enough to understand that if others knew of her plans she would have been prevented from doing so. This indicates strongly that she was criminally sane.
But proving sanity beyond reasonable doubt... if the courts presume everyone is insane until proven otherwise how can we have a functional society? I must assume you are insane as well. I must assume the crossing guard and the teacher and the barista are all insane until proven otherwise. A presumption of sanity seems more conducive to a functional society.
More options
Context Copy link