How are "insanity defenses" handled according to the CCP?

The approach to handling insanity defenses in the context of the Code of Criminal Procedure involves the requirement that the defendant must demonstrate they were insane at the time the crime was committed. This involves the defendant presenting sufficient evidence to support the claim of insanity, often through expert testimony and evaluations that establish their mental state during the relevant time period.

Insanity defenses hinge on the legal understanding that a person who is not in a sound state of mind may not be culpable for their actions, as they may not have the capacity to understand the nature or wrongfulness of their conduct. Thus, the burden is placed on the defendant to prove their insanity rather than on the prosecution to establish that the defendant was sane, which reflects a nuanced view of mental health and culpability in the legal system.

Other answers may imply that the burden of proof lies elsewhere or even that such defenses are not recognized, but the accepted legal framework is that the defendant bears the responsibility for proving their mental incapacity at the time of the offense.