From MSNBC:
An appeals court on Thursday overturned the capital murder convictions of Andrea Yates, ruling that a prosecution witness gave false testimony that may have influenced the jury that convicted her in the drowning deaths of three of her five children.
The ruling by the 1st Court of Appeals returns the case back to the trial court for a new trial.
The court based its reversal on false testimony by a prosecution witness, psychiatrist Park Deitz, who stated during her March 2002 trial that the killings occurred shortly after an episode of the NBC television show “Law & Order” in which a woman drowned her children and later was acquitted by reason of insanity.
This case was widely debated in the early days of the blogosphere, and I was one of a handful of people arguing that the Yates conviction was wrong. I’m eager to see what happens if the case is retried—long after the media blitz and the pressures prosecutors must have felt to convict have waned.
What follows is my final post on the subject from —from March 17, 2002:
****
Some final thoughts on the Yates case (update: see today’s Houston Chronicle piece, “Yates defense targets appeal,” for the latest on the enormous gaffe by the state’s star witness, Dr. Park Dietz), using Reason associate editor Brian Doherty’s Hartford Courant essay as a sort of springboard. Doherty’s text will be blockquoted; my responses—which will include more general responses to those of you’ve who’ve been interested enough to engage in this debate—will extend to the margins.
Yates Jury Did The Only Sane Thing
Andrea Yates drowned her five children in Texas this past June. She has now been found guilty for three of the murders. (She was not being tried for the other two at this time.)
It took the jury less than four hours to deliberate. The decision seems to have been easy for them. And indeed it should have been. Yates confessed to the murders, and neither she nor her lawyers disputed that she committed them.
One of the most prominent rhetorical moves I’ve noticed in discussions on the Yates case is evident here: Doherty claims that Yates confessed to the “murders.” Of course, no such thing ever happened. Yates confessed to the killings, to be sure; but it was to “murder” that she pled not guilty by reason of mental defect. As one reader pointed out (wish I knew your name, “DWL”): “The point that is so often missed […] is that murder is not killing per se, it’s killing in a particular state of mind […] The insanity defense has to do with whether an individual is capable of forming the relevant state of mind. Thus, it’s silly to argue that Andrea Yates is ‘objectively’ guilty of murder based on the acts she performed, because murder is not just an act but a combination of an act with a particular state of mind.”
What she and her lawyers did argue is that she was not responsible for having committed them. They said she should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Again, “responsible” is misleading in this context. Yates was indeed responsible, in the strictest sense, for the killings; after all, she physically drowned her children. The question, though, is whether or not she was in any state of mind to be held legally accountable for those physical actions. The crux of her insanity defense was that she should not be. If an epileptic undergoing a seizure were to strike someone in the throes of that seizure, would said epileptic be open to charges of assault? Similarly, had Yates’ illness taken another of its manifestations—catatonia (when she first arrived at the Devereaux facility, she was described by the admitting physician as being “nearly catatonic”)—and had her children died as a result of her inaction (say, she left something cooking on the stove, and her children perished in a fire, but she did not, or she drove the car into a swimming pool, killing the kids but not herself), would she be held legally responsible for their deaths?
The difference in this case is that Yates’ actions appear (to “objective” observers—not, it should be noted, to most of her doctors) to be premeditated and purposeful in the sense we normally understand such things. It is crucial to remember, however, that these actions appear such from the perspective of normal behavior. As Psychiatry24x7 notes: “The sudden onset of severe psychotic symptoms” (an acute psychotic episode) “is a mental state involving hallucinations (disturbances of perception) and / or delusions (false yet strongly held personal beliefs that result from an inability to separate real from unreal experiences) […] People with paranoid and psychotic symptoms,”—which Yates’ doctors claim she was suffering from and “which can become worse if medications are discontinued” (as were Ms. Yates’ anti-psychotic meds 11 days before the killings)—“may […] be at higher risk for violent behaviour. When violence does occur, it is most frequently targeted at family members and friends, and most often takes place at home.
“[…] People with schizophrenia may have perceptions of reality that are extremely different from that shared by others around them. They often suffer terrifying symptoms such as hearing internal voices not heard by others, or believing that other people are reading their minds, controlling their thoughts, or plotting to harm them. Living in a world distorted by hallucinations and delusions, people with schizophrenia may feel frightened, anxious, and confused, and may be left fearful and withdrawn […] Partly because of the unusual realities they experience, people with schizophrenia may behave very differently at various times. Sometimes they may seem distant, detached, or preoccupied and may even sit rigidly, not moving for hours or uttering a sound. At other times they may move about constantly, always occupied, appearing wide-awake, vigilant, and alert.”
Yates’ entire documented history of mental illness—which included two stints in the hospital within a few months of the killings (and, subsequently, outpatient and drug-therapy treatment)—points to her psychosis.
Not everyone believes this, however. In his response to my earlier postings on this case, Alex Knapp writes, “When we get to the Yates case, with the facts as I understand them, the nature of her illness did not prevent her from appreciating the nature and quality of her actions.” To this line of argument, I can offer no effective counters; those who believe Yates did not suffer from any form of psychosis are correct to dismiss her insanity defense (because clinical depression, for instance, doesn’t alter behavior in the way requisite to affect the kind of delusional paradigm Yates’ defense claims she was operating under at the time of the killings). And in fact, Dr. Mohammad Saeed—the last psychiatrist to treat Yates before the drownings—argues just that—though nurses’ notes and the observations of Dr. Ellen Allbritton (the psychiatrist who first admitted Yates to the Devereaux facility) would seem to indicate otherwise.
Yates is labeled as having had postpartum depression. But the proof that this illness somehow compelled her deeds amounts to nothing more intellectually serious than, ‘She did something we can’t imagine anyone in their right mind would do.’
This is true, however, of all sorts of criminals – especially the worst kind. There is no objective lab test that tells us whether or not she is suffering from some disease that makes her unequivocally not responsible for what she did, in the sense that a hemophiliac is not responsible for bleeding continually when cut.
First, Yates’ “postpartum depression” was alternatively diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia—and Doherty, we must assume, is well aware of this. At the very least, Yates seems to have been suffering from postpartum psychosis—a far more serious ailment than depression (though Dr. Saeed, remarkably, disputes this). The proof is in the treatment: Yates was prescribed Haldol,* an anti-psychotic drug, in addition to anti-depressants. Doctors treating her in prison, in fact, lowered her dosage to 10mg, only to re-up the dosage to 15mg when they noticed adverse changes in behavior. Dr. Saeed, you’ll remember, has Ms. Yates taper off Haldol by June 7th, 11 days before the killings—testifying in court that “I believe I had advised discontinuing Haldol because, so far during the course of the treatment, there was no definitive indication of psychosis from my observation, from other trained staff and from Mr. Yates”—a statement vehemently challenged both by other Devereaux staffers and Mr. Yates. Anti-psychotic drug withdrawal, you’ll recall, increases the risk of severe psychotic episodes. Dr. Saeed’s decision to take Yates off the anti-psychotics while keeping her on outpatient status is somewhat troubling, if only in retrospect.
Doherty writes that there is “no objective lab test that tells us whether or not she is suffering from some disease.” Presumably, however, there was a time in our medical past when an “objective lab test” for, say, brain tumors or lung cancer, likewise didn’t exist (and in fact it’s not hard to visualize a time when labs themselves didn’t exist)—which of course has no bearing whatsoever on the actual existence of a disease. I’ve never been to China, for instance, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe it exists…
Her lawyers did not call in medical experts to talk of brain scans or blood chemistry. Instead, psychiatrists testified about what she said and how she behaved. And the jury already knew the most important fact about how she behaved: She had drowned all her children, an act requiring a great deal of planning and effort.
“Experts do agree,” according to Psychiatry24x7, “that the [schizophrenia] is due to abnormalities in brain function, some of which have been detected. Schizophrenia is a disease of the mind, the symptoms of which are attributed to abnormalities in the transfer and processing of information within the brain […] The ability to examine the brains in living people with computer-assisted tomography (CAT) scans has led to findings that some people with schizophrenia have abnormalities in the structure of the brain.” Not all sufferers, however, show such abnormalities. Yates, to my knowledge, was never given a CAT scan in the course of her treatment—a revelation that renders Doherty’s point moot.
Doherty suggests here that the act of drowing her children required “a great deal of planning and effort”—a rhetorical flourish that dodges the facts: In order to drown her children, Yates had to 1) fill up the bathtub, and 2) hold the children under the water until they stopped struggling. This is chilling imagery, certainly—but the act itself didn’t require any “great deal of planning,” and the “effort” was mediated (sadly) by Yates’ delusional sense of purpose.
In Texas, legal responsibility in insanity defense cases hinges on whether the defendant knew the difference between right and wrong. All available objective evidence definitely indicates that she knew what she was doing was wrong. She called 911 to report herself, called her husband and told a police officer that ‘I realize that it’s time to be punished.’
Here, finally, Doherty is completely correct: In Texas, legal responsibility in insanity defense cases does hinge on whether the defendent knew the difference between right and wrong. But there is some question as to whether or not Ms. Yates’ having called the police or acquiescing to punishment is a tacit admittance of guilt in the sense we normally conceive of it. As Rand Simberg noted in his March 7 FOXNews column: “Yes, [Ms. Yates] called the police because she knew that drowning her children was illegal. But if she (insanely, in my humble opinion) thought that the alternative was to consign them to hell, the she also thought that what she was doing was not wrong […] The larger point is that all this is immoral is not necessarily illegal, nor should it be. And vice versa. Yes, we all know that killing your own children is wrong, but not simply because there is a law against it. And not all things that are illegal (such as not reporting the location of the Jews in Nazi Germany) are wrong […] Just because Andrea Yates reported her crime to the authorities, and was willing to accept the consequences…does not mean that she properly understood the moral implications of her act.”
And Rand, too, is correct: Yates knew her husband would try to stop her. So too would she’ve stopped were a police officer to be present in the room (a standard hypothetical raised by prosecutors to determine a defendant’s ability to judge “right from wrong”). Nevetheless, Yates was being held to higher standards than those demanded of her by societal strictures—at least, she thought so, given the nature of her delusions. As Dr. Phillip Resnick, the director of the division of Forensic Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, testified, Yates “faced a cruel dilemma […] If she did nothing, because the children were not being raised righteously, they would burn in hell. She could allow them to end up in hell burning for eternity or take their lives on Earth. It was a horrible dilemma for any mother to have.” In short, in her mind, Yates was protecting her children from the Devil. Society couldn’t be trusted to recognize the “truth” of her children’s dire situation—and in fact, Yates “recognition” that she alone was privy to this information is (perversely) what compelled her to act as she did. Such is the nature of paranoid delusions. The “logic” of her worldview determined her course of action.
Why would she think that? For those willing to take Yates seriously as a human being – not a mindless puppet of wonky brain waves – she has given hints. She told a police officer that she had been thinking of killing her kids for two years, ‘since I realized I had not been a good mother to them.’
Was her thinking of the murders for two years proof that she was insanely obsessed and thus not responsible – or proof that the crime was premeditated, which traditionally makes the criminal more responsible? It depends on how you choose to look at it, not on objective psychiatric science.
Here, Doherty attempts to tether his argument to several powerful ideological beams: personal responsibility and free will. He suggests that any consideration of Yates’ illness depends on vagaries in the process of formulating a coherent narrative of the illness and the killings, not on “objective psychiatric science”; and having raised the specter of interpretative relativism, he then goes on to imply that we have a choice about how we can “read” Yates’ claims to illness (and so to her insanity defense). To Doherty’s way of thinking, the only way to “take Yates seriously as a human being” is to concede that she had free will—that her illness didn’t control her. And free will suggests choice—which carries with it an appeal to personal responsibility. But no one would think to accuse a gravely ill cancer patient of being “a mindless puppet of wonky tumors,” or an Alzheimers sufferer of being “a mindless puppet of wonky artery hardenings”—though it’s quite clear that these diseases affect behavior in specific ways.
Great literature from the Bible to Shakespeare and beyond is full of stories of people driven by the dark impulses of the human heart to commit awful acts. Did Lady Macbeth imagine bloodstains on her hands because she was mentally ill or because she was wracked with guilt and grief?
Huh? Lady MacBeth isn’t real, first of all, but even so, the imaginary bloodstains on her hands don’t appear until Act IV, three acts after she convinces Macbeth to kill Duncan. Is it crazy to believe in the prophecies of a gaggle of witches? Probably so. But certainly not for the same reasons Yates believed the voices in her head…
We don’t know why Andrea Yates felt that she had not been a good mother and deserved punishment. Such knowledge requires a deeper understanding of her heart than psychiatrists’ obsession with chemicals will ever lead them to. But she tells us that that is what she felt. Those who embrace the insanity defense seem scared to admit that a human being could choose to commit evil acts. But they can, and they do.
On the contrary, I believe humans choose to commit evil acts all the time. And when they do, the weakness in their moral center should be exposed for what it is. But Doherty begs the question here: he’s suggesting that Ms. Yates’ actions were “evil” (and by extension that she chose to act in an evil way). But it is Yates’ very ability to chose that is at issue in this case.
To my way of thinking, those who acknowledge (“embrace” the insanity defense, Brian? Like, give it a hug, you mean? A pat on the ass, that sort of thing? C’mon…) the existence of severe mental illness are willing to acknowledge that not all tragic events are the product of design. Consequently, you can have “evil” results following from accidental causes.
The jury did the right thing. It looked at the clear facts, not muddy speculations about mental states, and judged fairly. By the standards Yates and her lawyer presented, any criminal with a motive other than one everyone might agree is ‘rational’ – like monetary gain – ought not be held responsible for his or her crimes. That standard makes a mockery of both responsibility and the integrity of the criminal justice system.
The death penalty, which Yates might face, complicates the question in the minds of those opposed to that most final of punishments. But by any civilized standards, Yates deserves a serious punishment for her most serious of crimes.
Well, the jury did what it could, given the legal parameters it was allowed to operate within, and given the purview of the law. But consider that “The law also barred any mention to jurors of what Yates’ future would have been like had she been acquitted”—(potentially) leaving jurors with no legal savvy with the belief that a “not guilty” verdict could mean certain freedom for Yates…
*Myria adds this note, in answer to Richard Bennett’s query about Dr. Saeed’s desire to wean Ms. Yates off of Haldol. Dr. Saeed testified that he thought the Haldol might be interfering with the anti-depressants Yates was taking—though Russell Yates reported in a follow-up visit 2 days before the killings that she is not improving:
Haldol (Haloperidol) comes in a couple of different forms, Haloperidol is given orally. Haloperidol Lactate is given orally, via IM, or via IV injection or infusion. Haloperidol Decanoate is given via IM. I can’t say for sure, of course, but my assumption is that Mrs. Yates would have been taking an oral as the IM seems mostly to be used in cases of noncompliance (very long half-life – about three weeks) and the IV in emergencies.
In some instances Haldol can cause impaired liver function and/or obstructive jaundice, although those two fall into the “rare or very rare” category. The pharmacology information I could dig up was somewhat sketchy (not uncommon, we’re really unsure of how a lot of these drugs work exactly), but based on basic hepatic physiology (specifically the first pass effect) my assumption would be that the risk of that is higher – probably substantially – with the oral form than it would be with IM. It may be dose dependant (probably is) but it doesn’t appear to be a long-term issue. Somewhat to my surprise, hepatoxicity is *not* a known adverse reaction. Not that it much matters, but some recent studies indicate that Silymarin would probably counteract the negative liver effects, not that her doctors probably knew that.
Looking at the adverse effects list it seems pretty clear that the major negative effects of Haldol fall into two categories – CNS (unsurprising) and endocrine (also unsurprising).
The potential CNS adverse effects can include severe parkinsons, severe hallucinations, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome, among others – NMS can be fatal. Tardive Dyskinesia and Tardive Dystonia can occur, the risk appears to be dose and duration dependant, and can be irreversible and even fatal.
On the endocrine side, looking at the list I’d guess that most of it is caused by a large increase in prolactin caused by the drug. Prolactin is tied in an inverse loop to dopamine (likely explaining the prolactin increase as, among other things, Haldol acts as a dopamine receptor antagonist), but it is also tied indirectly to estrogens and progestogens as well as IGF. Those are in turn tied to the LH/FSH axis, SHBG levels, and a host of other feedback loops. In other words, effect one and you have a kind of cascade effect the severity of which is going to vary. Among other things, gynocomastia (presumably in men), breast engorgement/lactation/pain, various forms of menstrual changes, skin photosensitivity, and various forms of libido changes have all been reported. There is some debate about an increase of breast cancer risk, though apparently no hard data. In the absence of data to the contrary it’s probably safer to assume there is, given that most breast cancers are hormonally dependant. While not mentioned, many doctors seem to feel that a sustained increase in prolactin levels increases the chance of a prolactinoma. I’ve my doubts, seems to me that’s backwards (high prolactin levels area symptom, yes, but probably not a cause), but it can’t be discounted entirely.
There’s some discussion of potential cardiovascular and hematologic effects, but those appear to be mostly dose dependant and/or mostly transient.
Looking at the adverse effects list I don’t see anything that would indicate long term hepatic damage as a major risk. Doesn’t mean it isn’t, just that it apparently isn’t a generally accepted risk factor. However this drug is certainly not something you’d want to be taking long term if you can at all avoid it. Any drug of this type is going to be fairly nasty on the bod, it’s the nature of the beast, and this one is a lot more mild than some of the ones I’ve looked at, but still. Further, titrating drug type and dose is a common practise, as is trying to get someone off of a drug like this if you feel they’re manageable.
That she was taken off of it just doesn’t surprise me that much, nor does it seem certain that the temporal connection implies causality. If she was on the IM there certainly would not be a connection – again the half-life is 3 weeks. For the oral I didn’t see a half-life given, but it would be present in detectable amounts at least 28 days later. You don’t just stop a drug like this and have its effects go away the next day – ain’t how it works.
For detailed debate, see the comments section here.
****
update: a dissenting point of view.
I remember that post. Very informative debate. Jenna went to a master’s program in psych at Wake for a little while, so she’s all about some psychology. Incidentally, she took your side of the debate Jeff, and I (being the cold-hearted son of a bitch that I am) was pro-slammer. Interesting turn of events indeed. Thanks for the warning though. By the time I get home, she’ll be waiting at the door with a piping hot plate of I-told-you-so-biaaatch.
If it wasn’t psychosis, there would have to be a motive. Even Lady McBeth had a motive. I don’t see any above; has anyone suggested one?
People speculated at the time (if I’m remembering correctly) that Yates was just fed up with the drudgery of being a mom and resented the kids—none of which jibed with the facts on the ground.
The defense made too much of the post-partum depression, and simple-minded press coverage turned it into a colossal red herring. The woman was, is, and ever shall be schizophrenic. Whether post-partum depression or inappropriate meds or all of the above ticked off the florid episode that led to the murders, it’s the schizophrenia itself, not the episode trigger, that the jury should have focused on.
Excellent. And a Belmont sized post!
Sigh. My head is pounding. I came upon your site well after the Yeates trial – or else I couldn’t have become a fan of yours. This post has seriously upset me. I happen to be a prosecutor in the office that prosecuted Yates.
You ask: What is the purpose of our penal system? Well – YOUR legal system and OUR legal system are two very different things. Quite frankly, over the last ten years, I have grown quite weary of people outside my state, criticizing our office. That the TEXAS legislature has come up with a legal definition of insanity as a justification for homicide that is displeasing to you—what can I say? A defendant is not entitled to any justfication defense at all. It’s a statutory defense that the legeslature could do away with during their next legislative session, and there’s nothing anyone could do about it. There is no constitutional right to an insanity defense.
I mean – have you ever even read the Texas penal code? The fact that Yates was suffering from a severe psychological problem was never in debate. The fact that her family, friends, medical providers let her down is pitiful. But she’s guilty of murder. Mental health issues notwithstanding. And you’re wrong – there is no legal challenge to our definition of “insanity” The definition is whatever the Legislature says it is. And the legislators answer to those of us that vote in Texas.
Let me just say this: The purpose of the criminal justice system in Texas is to ensure a fair and impartial trial to those who stand accused of crimes, and my role as a prosecutor is to see that “justice is done”. I assure you, justice was done here. Do I pity Yates? Sure. But I weep for the seven year old that asked what was wrong with Mary – as he saw he floating in the feces-filled tub, then valiantly fought his mother as she bruised him by holding him under the water as he drowned.
Yates might end up getting a second trial, because her first was flawed. That’s what out system ensures. But she deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison for what she put those kids through.
Your detailed analysis is spot-on as usual, Jeff. This was a tragic story all around.
The double whammy came after reading to the end of the post and seeing little Satchel’s innocent grin beaming up from the previous post.
Maybe serendipitous, but powerful all the same…
SophieZ —
I have no desire to reargue this case. I’ve noted that the jury did the right thing under Texas law—but that I believe Texas law is flawed in dealing with these types of cases.
You disagree. And if that means you no longer wish to read anything else I write, so be it. But I stand by what I wrote—even to this day. Bringing up images of the Yates children just before they died is a cheap tactic; I’m not FOR their death, or in any way trying to justify their suffering. But I am saying that Yates—on her medication—wouldn’t have done what she did.
Is Andrea Yates any more or less responsible than Jeffrey Dahmer?
I’m not familiar with the particulars of Dahmer’s case (other than the hunting, killing, and eating of humans).
Yates sought treatment repeatedly. She was on drugs. She tried to have herself admitted. Did Dahmer do all this? I don’t know.
Back later.
I remember wondering when the story first broke if there were crimes (actions, lest I be judgmental) that are so heinous, so against human nature that insanity (real or manufactured) could not be a defense. I thought if there ever was one, this would be it.
Jeff, is there a crime so heinous that you would not accept insanity as defense?
I’m not sure that’s how it works. Either you’re physically insane or you’re not. Whether you’re legally sane is a state by state issue.
But what really swayed me in this case is the lengths Yates went to to get treatment. Remember, she tried to have herself committed right before this happened.
Whoa. Can I get the Cliff Notes to this post?
Speculation aside
The woman should never be allowed into society at large, ever again. Never. Whatever it takes to achieve that goal…prison, hospital or the grave, it must be taken.
Well, the killing and the eating in the Dahmer case kinda tells it all, doesn’t it? Does seeking treatment make a difference? I mean, someone is either sane or not. Are you abdicated of responsibility if you seek help? My husband is always arguing that Dahmer shouldn’t have been found guilty (that he was nutty as a fruitcake.)
So are you saying that were it not for a failure in her access to correct care, the murders would have been avoided, and the injustice lies therein? Or do you believe that the injustice lies in the legal definition of insanity in the state of Texas? I’m not baiting you or anything, I just want to see where the chips fall.
I’m no lawyer. But my question is, what happens to her? If she is found not guilty by reason of insanity, what is done with her? Does she go free? Can she be forcibly confined?
Because if she did this, whatever her reason, she should never be allowed out in public ever again.
Jeff, you are right, that is not how it works – legally.
But this case strikes a very personal cord in so many people, so my question is more philosophical. I gather you feel very strongly that Andrea Yates was actually insane at the time of the killings. My question grants you that.
But can you imagine a case where the crime was so atrocious that even actual insanity is not a defence. (No examples please, just a yes or no.)
I am not trying to trick you or pursuade you that you are wrong, because I am not sure you are. But I know you feel strongly that this case is not one of those instances.
Yeah, but how many jurors nowadays have no legal savvy? Legal culture is so ubiquitous on television—true-crime shows, courtroom dramas, cable news legal experts, CourtTV—that I’d bet the average joe is pretty well aware of what an insanity acquittal really means. He’s not afraid the defendant’s going to waltz out of the courtroom and back onto the streets. He’s afraid the defendant’s going to go off to the state mental institution, do a year’s worth of treatment, be adjudged “sane,” and then waltz back onto the streets. Which, needless to say, seems somehow inadequate as a response to drowning five screaming children in a bathtub. So in order to ensure that the defendant does hard time somewhere, he and his fellow jurors find her sane and guilty. The crime is made to fit the punishment.
You see the same thing happen (in the other direction) in voluntary manslaughter cases, which typically involve a husband walking in on his wife in bed with another man and shooting the guy dead. VM carries a lesser sentence than murder based on the theory that the husband acts in the heat of passion, when he’s less than fully responsible for his actions, and therefore lacks the requisite intent for a murder charge. This smells an awful lot like an “irresistible impulse” defense, which most states have explicitly rejected when presented in the insanity context. But we allow it here. Why? Because we really believe the husband lost control of himself? Or because the bastard he shot had it coming? I bet as often as not the juries in such cases start by deciding that they don’t want the defendant to serve life for shooting the man who cuckolded him, and then they work back from there to find the mental state that will justify the punishment. It ends up being less of an intellectual process than a moral one.
I don’t think there’s much in the Dahmer corralory; he evaded detection and Yates sought help, but both committed unthinkable crimes. seeking help doesn’t exacerbate or negate the crime. but Steve notes a bothersome thing about the insanity defense – how can someone be insane while committing a crime, but be sane the other 99% of the time?
it’s possible that someone can pass as sane some of the time, since human behavior is steeped in complexities that border on insanity; humor and irony, for example. but can someone be sane sometimes and not others? I struggle with this possibility, although I have experience with a speech/learning disability that deals with “cues.” someone who has this condition often uses some of the same factors others do to arrive at a conclusion and then make a decision to act, but neglects others or includes things that aren’t relevant. magical thinking is one example/outcome of this disorder. seemingly uninformed, impulsive responses are another. there is a speech-learning treatment that is very effective for this disorder.
this seems to correlate with schizophrenia except in degree. many little questions like this need to be resolved, but the larger one remains with Andrea Yates: she acknowledges killing her children. she is aware of what she’s done. that twilight (paradoxical) domain of awareness of psychotic behavior is very troubling, but freedom for Yates or a failure to convict is not the answer.
Jeff, Steve above is right, this case is so personal to so many. I am a lawyer and can’t really fault your analysis. I don’t however, favor loose definitions of legal insanity, it should be a very tough standard to meet. At the time, I didn’t think Yates met the definition.
Ultimately, what perspective a person takes probably depends on their view of psychology and psychoanalysis as a science/art. I will admit to having precious little trust in it.
But can you imagine a case where the crime was so atrocious that even actual insanity is not a defence. (No examples please, just a yes or no.)
I’d say no, unless the nature of the crime (torturing someone to death for a month) invalidated the concept of acute insanity – the question becomes one of voluntary will. A psychopath with chronically violent behavior may be compelled to committ certain acts, yet be deservedly up for harsh punishment because he was fully aware that his behavior was wrong. (Dahmer)
An acute psychotic episode/break, especially in someone that was actively seeking treatment, is a different story altogether. The person is not fully culpable for their actions, no matter how horrible. If you were given a drug at a hospital that placed you in a trance-like state, and you stabbed your nurse to death while you were in this alternate consciousness, should you face the electric chair? You did it, right?
In a similar way, violent schizophrenics lack control of their own behavior, except it’s their natural state that compels the horrible behavior. Finding someone like that guilty of murder is very possible, but it would probably rely on their awareness of what type of behavior will occur when they don’t take medication or get treatment, and a conscious decision to stop taking the drugs that keep them non-violent.
So while it’s understandable that many people (esp. conservatives) react with an instinctive hard-ass approach to a woman that comitted such a horrible crime, this is aided by a lack of empathy or sympathy for not being in control of one’s own behavior. Like really not in control.
And there is a difference between chronic, methodical insanity (a la Dahmer) that involves an understanding of right and wrong and a litany of complex decisions over a significant period of time, and an acute break where someone commits a horrible act while they are out of their gord.
“So are you saying that were it not for a failure in her access to correct care, the murders would have been avoided, and the injustice lies therein? Or do you believe that the injustice lies in the legal definition of insanity in the state of Texas? I’m not baiting you or anything, I just want to see where the chips fall.”
Why must it be one or the other? Her doctor failed her. And the law in Texas as written doesn’t allow for the realities of certain psychotic conditions.
Listen, folks. I’ve answered all these question—either in this essay or in the comments section to the first essay, linked at the bottom of this one. I’m not looking to re-argue this thing; having done it once—and sourced my arguments—I feel no compulsion to rewrite them today. These were my thoughts 3 years ago, when all of the ancillary information about Yates and her husband and past treatment and the like were all fresh in my mind. Since then, I’ve had a child of my own. And I still don’t think the law in Texas dealt w/ this particular illness properly.
I have no great faith in psychology, but there is NO DOUBT that certain mental illnesses are physically based and can be corrected with the proper medication.
But to answer the few remaining questions people have: yes, there are crimes so heinous that I don’t think people should be able to claim insanity—but that still doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to. And Yates was not going to be set free; the alternative was care in a psychiatric hospital.
I don’t get it. Where’s the joke?
You are hereby sentenced to 30 days…In the ELECTRIC CHAIR! Bullseye.
Intelligence works against people like Yates. They are more able to hide the full extent of their illness.
A very liberal friend of mine and I were discussing a psychologist whose voices told her to drown her two year old. In custody, and awaiting trial, the psychologist committed suicide. I expressed sympathy for the woman. My friend shocked me by saying it was for the best since who would want to come out of mental illness and have to live with the fact that you killed your child.
As someone who has had a family member with mental illness, I have seen psychosis up close and personal. I do not feel that a psychotic person should be held accountable for a crime committed while impaired. My family member would remember her behavior during psychosis after she was back to normal. She would describe the fear and terror that she felt. However at no time would she say she could have done anything differently! She was terrified of having psychotic episodes and faithfully took medication to ward them off.
It is sad that no one was able to see that Andrea Yates was spiralling downward. But I believe she was psychotic and not responsible for her behavior.
I respectfully disagree that mentioning the victims and their experience is a “cheap trick.” Too often in violent crimes the victims are shoved aside in the effort to “understand” the perp.
I will concede the Yates, from all evidence, experienced a “psychotic break” when she killed her children. However, I think because she killed her children, so must be removed from society for society’s protection.
We received psychiatric evaluations on a once a year basis for those defendants who have had their criminal proceedings suspended while they are declared incomptent to stand trial. At least two of the cases I’m familiar with are women who tried to kill their children (one by driving her car erratically down the freeway and ordering her kids not to wear seat belts, eventually trying to drive down a ravine; another who stopped on the shoulder of a freeway and ordered her very young children out of the car and told them to hold hands and walk into traffic). Everyone agreed that these women were not “truly responsible” for their actions, but it didn’t abrogate the responsibility of CA to protect the surviving children and the community by confining these women to lockdown care. And, in reading the yearly reports, these women will never be the same, nor ever be in a position to live “outside”. When they broke, they never come completely back…and many times, when THEY are feeling better they try to eschew their meds and therapy.
We hold pedophiles, who operate under a psychological compulsion, responsible for their actions. We should do no less with people like Yates.
Umm… please excuse typos and errors of grammar in previous post.
sheesh…
“Too often in violent crimes the victims are shoved aside in the effort to “understand†the perp.”
By whom? Certainly not by me. And I object to anyone suggesting that because I support a reexamination of Texas’ insanity statutes, I’m somehow unaware of the suffering of those children, and so need a graphic reminder. As if that’s what’s been keeping me from agreeing that we lynch Yates—I just wasn’t sufficiently disgusted by what her children had to go through.
As to pedophiles, if they ask to be castrated and we refuse to castrate them and then turn them loose, even though they’ve begged for help…
Jeff
I’m sorry if you think I was directing it specifically to you… I work at a DA office..have for 7 years .. I’ve seen things as bad or worse than the Yates case.
As you may note, I have note disagreed either with your call to examine the Tex insanity laws NOR even said Yates should do prison rather than a hospital. Indeed, I agree she WAS “insane”, clinically if not legally.
That does not mean I want her loose in society, medicated or not.
BTW, castration doesn’t keep pedophiles from molesting.
This is part of the process of balancing personal responsibility with society’s responsibility to protect its citizenry. We have to reason together and reach a consensus on such balancing, ever mindful of both perps and victims and what we owe both.
Who is chemical castration intended for, do you know?
Anyway, I think pedophiles, once they know they are pedophiles, have an obligation to distance themselves from children or suffer the legal consequences. Is it lawful, do you know, for pedophiles to preemptively turn themselves in? Because if not, it should be.
By the way, I should clarify that I meant to say “cheap RHETORICAL tactic” to SophieZ, above. This doesn’t diminish the respect I have for her position.
As you may know, chemical castration is controversial and not acceptable in many jurisdictions because, frankly, whether it works or not is not clear.
Jeff, sorry we’re all making you rehash this again, I for one, wasn’t around the last time. As for Yates, none of us know whether she knew she was killing her kids or not. We will never know.
The tough part for the outsider observer, which most of us are, save Darleen, is even comprehending such a thing. You son is now one. My daughter is 22 months tomorrow. What kind of physchosis could make us kill them? It’s f-ing unfathomable to me, and to most people. And If I had killed my five children in a psychotic state, and then became same…a quick death would be my only hope for peace.
You’re correct that none of us will ever know, SteveL. But not being omniscient doesn’t mean we can’t look at the available medical data on psychoses and conclude that Yates was most probably (physically) delusional.
It seems to me that people who are dismissing the chemical realities of this type of psychosis are engaging in a bit of projection—using their own inability to comprehend such a thing as Yates did as a benchmark for determining guilt or innocence. Personally, I am glad that I have never experienced a psychotic break, and so haven’t experienced what it must be like to live in that state. But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t hope for compassion and treatment if I ever did have a psychotic break.
If a person is willing to diddle a baby, he is more than willing to ignore reporting laws or stay away orders. I suggest you peruse the Megan’s Law website to see how many have skipped.
You missed my point, Julie. Darleen wrote:
…to which I responded that pedophiles, once they know they ARE pedophiles, should voluntarily surrender or sequester themselves in lieu of any kind of effective treatment. When they don’t—which, as you point out, is often the case—then they clearly need to be held legally responsible for their actions.
Whereas Yates repeatedly tried to get help, repeatedly told doctors of her delusions, twice had herself admitted, etc. etc. So what I’m saying is, in the case of the pedophile, s/he is consciously ignoring problem; the same does not obtain in the Yates case. Which is why the analogy fails, I think.
My apologies.
No need to apologize.
I’m sorry this thread has put so many people on edge. I think I’ll just go back to talking to my apple. He understands me.
I dunno, I think the occasional knock-down drag-out debate can be refreshing. Certainly clears the air a bit.
No. A nice little conversation with an apple—that clears the air. Because who can stay mad at an apple?
I think one of the frustrations with the insanity defense is the slippery slope nature of it, and the sense (real or imagined) that all kinds of actually sane people are getting off scot-free through the use of it by crafty lawyers.
This may be one of those cases where it actually applies, but as many here have pointed out, that doesn’t mean the person in question should ever go free. There is a greater concern (certainly on my part) that when someone is confined to pyschiatric care (vs. jail) they will be released prematurely.
And I think the idea that people are getting off willy-nilly is a myth. Sorry.
Paul —
Don’t know if this is still the case (it’s been 3 years), but in this comment I note that “statistically speaking, those sentenced to spend time in institutions are incarcerated slightly longer than they would be had they been sentenced to prison for the same offense.” No source listed, but I’m sure I had one at the time.
Julie,
I did say “real or imagined”, precisely because I suspected that it may be a myth. Or at least partially so—of course the ones who get off are often high publicized, and that offends people’s sensibilities.
Jeff,
That would be encouraging to know, but I suspect only in a backhanded kind of way, i.e. the problem being that the jail sentences are too short, not necessarily that the psych sentences are too long (or even long enough).
Jeff, I think this was a good thread. Very emotional, but that does not detract from it.
However, I like the stuff where you talk to the apple as well. Every now and then a charged topic is presented, and that is a “good thing”.
Plus, I think (qualified severely since I have never met you) I understand your position. I have intimate knowledge of people who have severe difficulties with reality, and I have heard echoes of that in some of the arguments posted here. Some of them truly have completely disconnected with what I would consider objective reality, but not in a sense that would endanger anyone who is vulnerable. Not anecdotal information here. First person.
I think the person in question was failed by the system, but that does not release her from what she did. I really have no idea what should be done. I doubt justice would be served by her death, but I also think she should not be allowed to have any more children. And that is a scary point since reproductive rights (if such things exist) have been, to this point, unassailable. Because, I have absolutely no right to decide who should have children and who should not, and neither does anyone else. That right is left to G-d. Not to make religion a cop-out, because I don’t see it that way. Even without religion, I have no standing to say who has kids and who doesn’t. And neither does anyone else.
Sometimes I like to see an conversation with your Levi’s. but that does not detract from posts like this one. I wish your muse would visit me.
I think this is about as fine a debate as you can get. The Yates case mixes personal philosophy, life experiences, politics etc. all in one. (I would still rather read a page from the Martha Stewart Chronicles, but I digress.)
There are two issues that resonate with me as I wrestle with how I feel. First, I have an instinctive reaction against the criminal (Yates) as a victim. She was a victim of her doctors’; her husband; her religion – pretty much everything and everyone but her. To portray her as such always strikes me as a 1L argument. It can happen, but I am always skeptical when I hear that line of reasoning. (A professor said once, if you want to be a good lawyer, forget it; if you want to be a successful lawyer, make it part of the fiber of your being.)
Second, Bill from INDC uses the Jekyll & Hyde approach (I think the term “Temporary Insanity†dumbs down the real episode Mrs. Yates and others go through). To wit, the sweet demur, mousey Mrs. Yates was consumed by her alter ego, who went on a killing rampage. Bill makes a distinction between this instance and the Dahlmer case where he was always Mr. Hyde and therefore culpable, and the Jekyll and Hyde “caseâ€Â, where Dr. Jekyll is not responsible for the actions of Mr. Hyde. (For you literary buffs, I know there were white powder potions involved, but allow me the basic metaphor.)
I buy the Jekyll and Hyde approach in theory, but can fathom it in practice. Part of it is the “crafty lawyer suspicionâ€Â, but part of it is my belief that if you are found not guilty, you are done, no stigma attached. Here are the keys to your car, have a nice life. I do not that society has of can have a way to deal with a Dr. Jekyll short of locking them up and throwing away the key, which seems unjust if you see the person as Dr. Jekyll, but quite just if all you see is a future Mr. Hyde.
If Yates is truly not guilty, then she should be set free. Free to go back to her home, her husband and her family. (Oops.) And after sometime, should she and Mr. Yates decide to have additional children…
I had better stop here.
Speaking hypothetically – if the doctors had listened to her and diagnosed her mental illness, should she have had her children taken away? Meds don’t always work, and the mentally unstable don’t always take them.
statistically speaking, those sentenced to spend time in institutions are incarcerated slightly longer than they would be had they been sentenced to prison for the same offense
I’ll accept that ever without a source because it makes logic sense; sentences are determinate while psychiatric incarceration continues as long as the doctors figure the person is still mentally ill. In the cases I cited above, the women are still in state hospitals, at least one past the “normal” sentencing time for attempt murder.
As “man bites dog” will garner the ratings, those instances where it appears that someone walks for a moment of “insanity” will play while the routine commitment of others will not be noted. Anecdotally, juries sometimes do things that make one go “WTF were they thinking?” and sometimes it comes down to who they have more sympathy for…victim or perp … regardless of circumstance. This, too, will feed into any myth of “insane perp walks free because of insanity defense.”
Heaven knows, just a few months ago I was in the midst of throwing my blog behind defeating CA’s Prop. 66 (which would have gutted the 3 strikes law) and was constantly shooting down the myths tied to THAT (ie the infamous and erroneous ‘steal a slice of pizza, go to jail for life’
.
Touching nerves or not, your post and this thread has been great. Thank you.
As someone who has had a family member with mental illness, I have seen psychosis up close and personal. I do not feel that a psychotic person should be held accountable for a crime committed while impaired.
As a diagnosed schizophrenic who also battles psychosis and myriad other symptoms, I’m here to tell you that this is a load of crap and no one should buy it.
I’ve spent enough time with other schizophrenics and psychotics to understand that mental illness tends to exacerbate what is ALREADY THERE. Yates was already the type to kill her kids, if the mental illness accomplished anything, it was giving her a nudge down the path she was already on.
Trust me, we do not want this woman mixing with the general population ever again.
Yes, I’m mentally ill. No, mental illness is not an acceptable excuse to be used for committing crimes. It is my responsibility to seek and accept treatment when needed, and also to accept the consequences that arise when I fail to.
Yes, I’m mentally ill. No, mental illness is not an acceptable excuse to be used for committing crimes. It is my responsibility to seek and accept treatment when needed, and also to accept the consequences that arise when I fail to.
But Sean. That’s precisely the point the Jeff is trying to make: She did seek treatment; the good doctors wouldn’t provide it! She tried repeatedly to get committed, but it was no-go. Short of killing herself at that point, she did what you are demanding.
I have faced Dr Dietz and his traveling road show in other cases. What finally outed in the Yates case has been his MO for years. Frankly, it is the shtick that has made him a prosecution darling and heir to the seat just vacated by Texas’ infamous Dr. Death. Studies show that shocking and dramatic vignettes, regardless of their veracity, are far more persuasive to jurors than actual psychiatric diagnoses or scientific data like PET scans and psychometric testing. Reading through the intelligent and thoughtful postings of people on this site reinforces my belief that the insanity defense is itself insane in its arbitrary and capricious applications and in the fact that it is hopelessly complex for juries to comprehend.
Check out “The Mad, The Bad & The Innocent: The Criminal Mind on Trial” for more examples of grisly crimes, insanity defenses and the vagaries of the law.
That jurors in the Yates case could be swayed by a sole expert witness with a bogus TV story and reject the testimony of 9 bonafide clinical and forensic psychiatrists and psychologists who had in some cases treated Yates for psychosis many years previous and warned that she might become a danger to her children because of her command hallucinations, is a sad testament to our ignorance and prejudice surrounding mental illness. It is also a reflection on our tabloid TV mentality when we reject the learned opinions of responsible and legitimate researchers in the field such as Dr. Phillip Resnick( who testified for the Yates defense) who pioneered the psychiatric study of women who kill their children in favor of master self-promoters and hired guns like Park-Dietz. Dr. Dietz’s tab, as paid by the taxpayers of the state of Texas, reveals that being an expert witness and driving home a conviction is a lucrative career indeed. At the very least the people and the defendant deserve honesty and integrity in expert testimony. In the interests of justice, the public needs to be carefully educated as to what an insanity defense and other psycho-legal determinations such as competency to stand trial really involve. Moreoever, they need to be assured of the intricate legal process of commitment that ensues after a defendant is adjudicated as Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. Prosecutors never want the jury to know that a defendant declared insane does not just walk out of a hospital. There are a series of successive legal hearings which provide for the community safety. In fact, longitudinal studies show that defendants adjudicated as NGRI spend far more time in maximum security mental hospitals than they would in jail had they been convicted of the crime. Also, there is no parole from madness.