If someone pleads "insanity", in a murder criminal case, where should the burden of proof lay? The defense or the prosecution?

[Twodogs0525]

Updates

3 d

When I say "Burden", I mean burden of proof. Should the defense provide burden that their defendant was insane or should the prosecution provide the burden that she wasn't insane?

[Marshast]

The prosecutor needs to prove every element of the murder and intent. The burden of proof must be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Claiming insanity alone is not enough:
These must be evaluated: Psychiatric evaluation and expert testimony
Medical treatment and records
The defendant’s behavior before and after the murder.
Were they mentally aware and competent?
Did they understand what they were doing was wrong?
Did they plan to conceal, escape, or destroy evidence (which would contradict the claim of insanity)?

[Anonymous]

If the defense is claiming the perpetrator is insane the burden of proof should be their responsibility to prove.

[Twodogs0525]

Thank you!

[Opinion Owner]

Your welcome

[msc545]

Reasonably if a person pleads Insanity then the burden of proof should rest on the defense to prove it

[jshm2]

Neither.

It's common law that you cannot have a mentally unfit person stand trial.

There is no case.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

You have to prove it first 🤦‍♂️

[purplepoppy]

I'd plead temporary insanity and argue circumstances at the time would have drove anyone insane long enough to commit murder and since murder is an insane act and I'm no longer murdering people I'm now cured and free to go.

[RachyRach]

Defense. Prove you're insane.

[FrodoSkywalker007]

Defense certainly