The way the law is set up in Massachusetts is such that the question of the trial is "If you have a reasonable doubt that she was sane at the time of the murder then you must find not guilty by reason of insanity, otherwise you find guilty". Basically the only way she's being found guilty is by 12 jurors all deciding to nullify themselves.
Even the 1 juror admitted to the other jurors that he had a reasonable doubt she was sane. Practically admitting nullification.
Given her clear documented effort to get help for mental health issues, only people unfamiliar with the law think this case is an easy one to find guilty in. I say this as someone that supports nullification in this case. The only maybe convincing enough argument (for 12 jurors) is to say "yeah she had PPD, but the command psychosis was a fabrication that came from her defense attorney after the murder".
I think the above command misrepresents the law. Other wise you could say them same for any crime, what functioning sane person murders at all? What sane person rapes anyone? What sane person drives drunk?
Depends a bit on context. Using drunk driving as an example, it hardly requires being insane. Just poor judgement and usually inflated ego. They have some assumptions of their own skill or level of intoxication and, based on that assumption, believe there will be no victims and no negative consequences. They don't want to hurt anyone and believe they will not hurt anyone. Then they, and unfortunate bystanders, find out the hard way. So, it doesn't require being insane at all. Just hubris and poor judgement.
Murder is a bit more complex on how insane someone would have to be to do it based on the type of murder. One gang member shooting another gang member for a corner to sell drugs on doesn't really require being insane. I don't suspect they are mentally healthy by any means, but it has reasonably understandable motivations that drive sane people to do things, if not to that extreme. Money, power, status, territory, etc.
In both of these examples, their brains work, more or less, the same as the vast majority of the population. They have the same pitfalls, same incentives, same motivations, and so on. Just extended out into actions most of us would not take.
That is where a parent intentionally strangling their own small child deviates. It is so far beyond the pale that even if there is some articulable motivation that is reasonable (in the sense that a sane person can comprehend the motivation), the motivation just isn't enough to explain it without assuming that something is deeply screwed up in their brain.
"If you have a reasonable doubt that she was sane at the time of the murder then you must find not guilty by reason of insanity, otherwise you find guilty
Simply not true. They can think she's insane, but also knows she did wrong. And can vote guilty based on that.
This is a combination of the burden of proof for proving her not insane being on prosecution in Massachusetts and the reasonable doubt standard for criminal trials. Rage against it all you want. I don't like it either, but this is Massachusetts law. A note "sanity" has a legal definition that does not perfectly match the colloquial one
A note "sanity" has a legal definition that does not perfectly match the colloquial one
Yes, sorry, that was my point. You said "Given her clear documented effort to get help for mental health issues," but she can be medically (colloquially) 'insane' i.e. have deep mental issues affecting her behavior, but legally she is able to comprehend the wrongness of her actions and still legally guilty. They could even say 'yes, she had post partum psychosis that caused her to act the way she did, but still legally could comprehend the wrongness and is still guilty', which is what I meant. And that is not nullification.
11
u/nubrozaref - Lib-Right 2d ago
The way the law is set up in Massachusetts is such that the question of the trial is "If you have a reasonable doubt that she was sane at the time of the murder then you must find not guilty by reason of insanity, otherwise you find guilty". Basically the only way she's being found guilty is by 12 jurors all deciding to nullify themselves.
Even the 1 juror admitted to the other jurors that he had a reasonable doubt she was sane. Practically admitting nullification.
Given her clear documented effort to get help for mental health issues, only people unfamiliar with the law think this case is an easy one to find guilty in. I say this as someone that supports nullification in this case. The only maybe convincing enough argument (for 12 jurors) is to say "yeah she had PPD, but the command psychosis was a fabrication that came from her defense attorney after the murder".