http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/072706dntexyates.5a82bb4.html

Well, Andrea Yates has been found not guilty by reason of insanity after a very hard-fought trial. Any thoughts on the matter? From the little I know from reading the news on this trial, the psychiatric testimony had seemed to be in the State's favor on this one. Was there a significant difference between this trial and the last, or just a matter of two different juries?

Did you notice (if you saw the verdict read on TV) that Andrea Yates looked shocked when they read the verdict? That's because she knew she was guilty. I just don't see how someone who methodically kills 5 kids, during the little window of opportunity where her husband and mother-in-law are gone, and then calls the police on herself didn't know what she did was wrong. Sure, the woman was crazy. But she wasn't legally insane.

with the media "buzz" around the first trial and even the appellate process, i'm not sure the testimony of jesus himself would have changed the outcome.

for some perspective, this verdict has managed to beat out World War III for the top headline.

I wasn�t asked in any professional capacity to evaluate Andrea Yates, and am not privy to all the evidence, so the following represents only my personal opinion.

It troubles me that any person would even consider, that it would even arise as a possibility that:
a) The defendant was not really psychotic, she just found the children to be a drudge and taking the lives of these five children was a selfish act of her own � or even to punish her husband.
b) The defendant was not really psychotic, because how could she methodically plan and execute such a heinous act were that not the case?
c) The defendant was psychotic, but only became psychotic after confinement (Dietz�s testimony), ergo was sane at the time of the act.
d) The defendant was psychotic but was sane at the time of the act because her delusions (or command hallucinations) were believed, she thought, to come from the devil and not God. Since what God directed would be good and what the devil directed was ipso facto, evil and morally wrong.

Far more consistent with the facts to conclude that:
The defendant was grossly psychotic, and had been so for years, and believed she was protecting the children from a worse fate, yet was aware � as her defense psychiatrist Phil Resnick, MD testified � that her actions were illegal, not because of some delusional belief, but the awareness that the larger social community would regard her act as wrong.

The prosecution in this case appeared to focus less upon the Bigby standard, (which some may say is bad law, but is the law in the State of Texas). In that case, the Court of Criminal Appeals held as follows:
�In other words, appellant believed that regardless of society's views about this illegal act and his understanding it was illegal, under his "moral" code it was permissible. This focus upon appellant's morality is misplaced. The question of insanity should focus on whether a defendant understood the nature and quality of his action and whether it was an act he ought to do. Zimmerman v. State, 85 Tex. Crim. 630, 215 S.W. 101, 105 (1919) (on rehearing). By accepting and acknowledging his action was "illegal" by societal standards, he understood that others believed his conduct was "wrong."

In short, from a strictly technical point of view, the prosecution�s case was made by the defense.

The defense on the other hand, faced with such testimony, could but appeal to the general public�s notion that any mother who would take the lives of her children is mentally ill, and does not deserve punishment but life-long treatment � and hope that they jury would disregard the interpretation of the state�s highest criminal court. They apparently did.

I know this was a hard fought trial, and the prosecutors did a wonderful job. However, I agree with the Jury. Enough said.

You can take up the dollars on a vote against me.

We cannot know for sure, but it is important that in similar cases - and we hope there are few or none - the case doesn't turn on the issue of "whether she thought it was right..." (as the media put it in this case). For that is a misapprehension of the rule, it is not the defendant's moral code or, for that matter, their bizarre delusions which may drive the behavior that is at issue (albeit such are a predicate) but whether despite the presence of psychotic delusions, the defendant understood that the larger social community would regard the act as illegal or wrongful. That is exactly what happened in Bigby.

... and looking at the forest, I think this verdict puts the final nail in the "we need to change the insanity defense" platform of many mental health advocates. I think post-partem mothers-cum-murder-defendants are now batting 1.000 in their insanity defense cases this decade (at least the ones I've read about in the press). How can they argue the law needs to change if they keep winning???

I'm sure the prosecution team is saddened by the outcome, but it sounds like they did their best to do justice for those kids -- and in the end, that's all you can ask.

On another note ... did anyone notice the Houston Chronicle article that ran earlier this week immediately before or during deliberations, the one that said Yates would never get out of the loony bin if found NGRI? Sounded close to jury tampering to me ...

Shannon, technical question: The act with which charged occurred prior to the inception of 46C, but the trial and the decision to rely upon an insanity defense are well after 46C was enacted. Does 46C apply or will post-disposition proceedings be heard under the now-repealed 46.03? The issue is important for purposes of the standard for confinement and release.

Is it possible that defendants already committing homicide will act more atrociously to avoid criminal liability? Are mothers killing more than one of their own chidren a special class? Will we see fathers committing similar heinous acts judged the same way? I don't know, but I agree that current insanity law seems to work: Yates, Laney, & Schlosser within the last 5 years is proof enough.

Personally, I prefer a "Guilty, but Insane" verdict (recognizing that such a verdict does not mesh perfectly with our law) with commitment to a mental hospital for life. Crazy animals should never be let loose.

[This message was edited by John Stride on 07-26-06 at .]

I commend the prosecution for their efforts. The verdict is very unfortunate. I also believe we need to change the laws to allow for a Guilty, but insane verdict. The sentence should be life in a mental institution. If they become "sane", then they should go straight to prison.

The victim of a heinous crime doesn't care what the defendant "thought" about when they committed the act. The ACT is what is important when we are talking about violent crimes like these.

Andrea Yates is guilty of murder, the jury got this one wrong.


John L. Pool

If this were a basketball game, the State would now be ready to play the tiebreaker.

As for the verdict, a good jury made a decision. So be it. I just wish those that want to impose their own personal feelings about insanity would show the same respect when the verdict is guilty.

I don't think guilty but insane does it. If you don't know the difference between right and wrong, you shouldn't be punished for doing wrong after we treat you to the point you understand. That would be like punishming my kids when they turn 5 for something they didn't know was wrong when they did it at age 3.

Guilty but insane seems like mere marketing--changing the name of the product--to make it easier for a jury to buy. The real problem is that we have no good system in place to maintain custody of mentally ill people who are dangerous. Governments used to lock away all sorts of people, but swung the other way in the 1970's so that now it is very hard to maintain custody the mentally ill who are dangers to themeselves and others. Non-dangerous mentally ill folks don't need to be locked up. Andrea Yates does need to be locked up, but not in prison, and a judge should not have to re-justify detention every year in a case like hers. My two cents.

[This message was edited by John Rolater on 07-26-06 at .]

Well, as long as insanity is considered a treatable condition, annual reviews are likely to continue. The guilty but insane verdict gets around that problem by holding the defendant responsible. So, there is a bit of a distinction with a difference. The not guilty by reason of insanity moves everything into a civil arena.

But, will Due Process allow someone to be punished for something they did not understand was wrong? In Clark, the Supremes allowed the States to craft their own versions of insanity, but guilty but insane seems to eliminate insanity as a defense altogether. Will that hold up?

Seems to me there is a difference between something that is treatable--like a blocked artery in a heart--and something that requires daily supervision, like an indefinite course of strong anti-psychotic medicine. Cannot the burden be put on the mentally ill person to show that they are cured rather than upon the State to show they are a danger?

This is a permissible verdict in some states. Is there something unique about Texas law that prevents it? But, John R., your concern is a valid one (hence, my caveat about such a verdict meshing with the law).

Also the acts of the insane are often so terrible that, regardless of whether they "get better," should they ever be released?

Have other states' laws on guilty but insane held up to this sort of challenge? The only thing standing in the way in Texas is the current law, I figure.

This is food for thought:

http://www.nmha.org/position/ps18.cfm

API also seems to think that those found guilty but insane simply end up in the prison system without proper care. That may be true in some other experiences, but that does not have to be so in a new system. We know Texas can provide medical care while people are incarcerated--expecially drugs for mental health care.

Hey, John--now you took down your post prompting this one!!!!

Interesting phrase: "as long as insanity is looked upon as a treatble condition".

yeah, treatable by psychobabble.