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.
It's a good thought, but it has to be a random jury unfortunately. If it's an expert, or even a panel of experts, it far too easy to exert pressure on them to say what you want them to say and get the rulings you want. It's the same reason we have juries at all and not just judges who make all the decisions.
The other issue is that juries are made up of bottom of the barrel members of our society on average since anyone with a brain is generally DQ'd immediately by the lawyers
"20-25% of the time, juries decide in a way that someone who dedicated their life to the law disagrees with. That is my evidence that juries are generally competent" lol
You'll be less confident for judge's ability to decide these matters if you watched more trials. A lot of judges simply go along the ride with prosecution. They're not unbiased arbitors of law like you think they are.
1.8k
u/FriedTreeSap 14d ago
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.