NCJ Number
9163
Date Published
Unknown
Length
17 pages
Annotation
PROCEDURAL, POLICY, AND CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST A MISSOURI STATUTE WHICH REQUIRES DEFENDANTS TO PROVE THEIR INSANITY WHEN THE DEFENSE IS RAISED.
Abstract
IT IS ARGUED THAT THE RULE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE STATE PROVE GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. SINCE TWENTY-TWO STATES, THE FEDERAL COURTS, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALREADY PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROVING SANITY ON THE PROSECUTION WHEN EVIDENCE OF INSANITY IS INTRODUCED BY THE DEFENSE, IT IS CONTENDED THAT A CHANGE TO THIS RULE WOULD WORK. MEDICAL SCIENCE HAS ADVANCED TO A STAGE WHERE SIMULATION OF MENTAL ILLNESS IS EASILY DETECTED. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON THE REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS ARE USED TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RULE.