Andrea Yates-The insanity defense
In Andrea Yates original trial, she was sentenced to life in prison with possible parole after 40 years for capital murder and she was considered not insane because she could recognize what she did as wrong. In Texas, the supreme court uses the M’Naghten rule in order to decide whether or not the defendant is insane. Basically, they test whether or not the defendant knew that their action was wrong if they did they are considered sane and if they didn't then they are insane and are thus not guilty because of insanity.
Andrea Yates was able to identify what she did as wrong and was therefore seen as guilty and sentenced to life in prison. Although she knew what she did was wrong, I believe that the fact that she was able to justify what she did, shows that she was insane at the time of the crime. Andrea Yates drowned her five children in their own bathtub and she took steps to plan the murder such as removing the mat in the tub so the kids would have no traction when they struggled against her. By murdering her children, she believed that she was saving them from hell because they had been committing sins, which was her fault, and that overall she was a bad mother. She genuinely believed that her children were going to burn in hell if she didn't kill them but when she killed them they would be going to heaven. In her mind, by killing her children she was sending them to heaven which justified the horrible act of killing them.
I believe that although she was able to recognize her actions as wrong because she was able to justify murdering her five children she should have been deemed insane and therefore sentenced to not guilty due to insanity. Thankfully, a prosecutor lied in the trial about a "law and order" episode and said that it gave her the idea of drowning her kids which allowed there to be an appeal. In the appeal, she was convicted not guilty by reason of insanity and was sent to a psychiatric center. I believe that this ruling was much more fair and reasonable because even though she could identify what she did as wrong, which makes her sane according to the M'Naghten rule, she was able to justify it which makes her insane. For this reason, I think that it should be added to the insanity defense that if a defendant knows what they did as wrong and is able to justify it with something that shows their insanity, like the devil, talking to them, then they should be deemed not guilty by insanity.
https://www.texascriminallawyerblog.com/state-supreme-court-limits-use-insanity-defense/
Andrea Yates was able to identify what she did as wrong and was therefore seen as guilty and sentenced to life in prison. Although she knew what she did was wrong, I believe that the fact that she was able to justify what she did, shows that she was insane at the time of the crime. Andrea Yates drowned her five children in their own bathtub and she took steps to plan the murder such as removing the mat in the tub so the kids would have no traction when they struggled against her. By murdering her children, she believed that she was saving them from hell because they had been committing sins, which was her fault, and that overall she was a bad mother. She genuinely believed that her children were going to burn in hell if she didn't kill them but when she killed them they would be going to heaven. In her mind, by killing her children she was sending them to heaven which justified the horrible act of killing them.
I believe that although she was able to recognize her actions as wrong because she was able to justify murdering her five children she should have been deemed insane and therefore sentenced to not guilty due to insanity. Thankfully, a prosecutor lied in the trial about a "law and order" episode and said that it gave her the idea of drowning her kids which allowed there to be an appeal. In the appeal, she was convicted not guilty by reason of insanity and was sent to a psychiatric center. I believe that this ruling was much more fair and reasonable because even though she could identify what she did as wrong, which makes her sane according to the M'Naghten rule, she was able to justify it which makes her insane. For this reason, I think that it should be added to the insanity defense that if a defendant knows what they did as wrong and is able to justify it with something that shows their insanity, like the devil, talking to them, then they should be deemed not guilty by insanity.
https://www.texascriminallawyerblog.com/state-supreme-court-limits-use-insanity-defense/
I agree with what you said about the fact that she could justify what she had done showed that she was insane. I think that that test for insanity is true in most cases but not in all cases- sometimes people can do something that they know is wrong and still be insane, for example they might hear a voice telling them to do something and even though they know it is wrong, they are still clearly insane for doing it.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that it is important to not unnecessarily incriminate people who have mental illness', I think we must be careful with how lenient we are with insanity pleas. The concept of justifying your murder could chopped and changed to suit people who want to simply get away with murder. We must treat the insanity, as an accomplice to the murder, arguing that without the mental illness, the murder would have never occurred. Similar to how Pamela Smart was charged with murder.
ReplyDelete