Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
23. Which of the following proposed reforms would be unconstitutional?
The legislature of a state is debating reforms in the law governing insanity. Two reforms have been proposed. Proposal A would eliminate the insanity defense altogether. Proposal B would retain the defense but place on the defendant the burden of proving insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. Opponents of the reforms argue that the proposals would be unconstitutional under the due process clause of the United States Constitution.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is correct. Proposal A is constitutional because this state is not required to allow for defendants in criminal cases to present an insanity defense. Proposal B is constitutional because if the state does choose to recognize insanity as a defense, it is well within its constitutional power to shift the burden to the defendant to prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, neither proposal is unconstitutional.
A is incorrect. Eliminating the insanity defense under Proposal A would not violate due process because states are not constitutionally required to recognize such a defense. Proposal B is not unconstitutional either because a state may determine whether the prosecution or the defense is required to bear the burden of proof and may require a criminal defendant to prove an affirmative defense such as insanity.
C is incorrect. As explained above, defendants do not have a constitutional right to present an insanity defense. As a result, this state is within its power to eliminate such a defense without violating a defendant's constitutional protections under due process.
D is incorrect. Again, states have the ability to determine whether the prosecution or the defense bears the burden of proof as to an affirmative defense. Therefore, this state may properly shift the burden of proof for an insanity defense to the defendant under Proposal B.