My mistake if that's how I make it sound. I agree, you can be both. But in many cases we don't try them in court as both. We pick one. In this case it was decided he was sane.
'Sane' has nothing to do with criminal vs victim. It's also a myth that you get off easy if you're legally declared insane - sentences for those people are so routinely longer than regular prison sentences, that lawyers advise against pleading insanity.
In any case, if you're a defendant in criminal court, you're being tried as a criminal, whether or not you're a victim. Defendants aren't declared 'victims' and tried differently.
In one case, it is a crime that happened recently and resulted in many deaths.
In another case (with the same individual) it happened way past the statute of limitations and to a single person.
Judicial systems are not really designed to handle systemic shifts (with the exception of supreme courts) and are specifically limited in where they can weigh judgement on.
For the systemic changes modern governments use legislative bodies.
Using the word "sane" isn't helpful here because it has a very narrow legal definition.
A person with a psychotic illness may well not be "insane" in the eyes of the law if they were not operating under their illness at the time of their crime.
