SUNY Empire State College - Case Study Example

? Case Analysis Megan Brace SUNY Empire College I have read and am aware of the requirements Case Analysis The s expert witness, Dr. Park Dietz, presented inaccurate or false statement in the case of Texas vs. Andrea Yates. It was the court’s decision to reject the appellant’s plea and convict with a guilty verdict. According to the law in Texas, in order to establish an insanity defence, the accused should show that they could not differentiate between bad and good while committing the crime. Did the State prove their case? This case provides explanation with regard to the psychological research in the court’s ruling and supports the court ruling in accordance to the evidence of the psychological research. This paper will show the positive and negative sides of the use of psychological research and testimony within the case of Texas vs Andrea Yates. In the Texas vs. Andrea Yates case, some material and key issues surfaced within the management of the case. The performance of mental illness to the juries or judges, along with, information & evaluation of the impact of mental illness as it relates to criminal conduct and responsibility (Wang, Chen, Chin & Lee, 2005). There are contemporary concerns on the potential impact of mental illnesses within the fairness of the court procedures in capital cases. Additionally, the American Psychological Association indicates that severe mental disorders can significantly reduce a person’s capacities to reason rationally and to suppress conduct that violates the law. The American Psychological Association strongly supports the insanity defence because it offers the criminal justice system a method for recognizing unfair penalty to the mentally ill person. We should not assume that the defendant Andrea is evil. The National Alliance for the "mentally ill" is a grassroots advocacy organization for citizens with severe mental illnesses. Today there is psychosocial treatment, medications, and support that work to improve the most intense symptoms of these illnesses. Did Dr. Dietz decide to ignore various symptoms pointing to the appellant's continued use of medication? It is believed by many that, he should have been more thorough in his detail of her medical follow up. Considering the appellant, there was a time when her mental status appeared unstable and in need of the necessary medical and/or therapeutic interventions to reduce her depression. The court provided information regarding Andrea’s suffering from mental illness and that she had wanted to commit suicide (Godfrey, 2005). On June 18, 1999, the appellant suffered severe depression, which led her to trying to commit suicide through an overdose. The appellant’s mother, while at the appellant’s home noticed that Andrea Yates was almost catatonic, slow to respond to dialogue or no response at all. Some of the factors noted that led to the Andrea Yate’s decline were five pregnancies, home schooling her children, and living in a bus. Dr. Dietz should have noticed that the appellant was not taking her medicines and testified with a lack of support to the medical advice suggested. Mrs. Yates began to withdraw, was not eating well, and had trouble sleeping and established thoughts of being a terrible mother. Dr. Dietz had no knowledge of post-partum disorders. He stopped treating patients in 1981 or 1982 with post-partum depression. He testified that Andrea Yates was sane. She knew she had done something wrong and expressed that “it was the work of the devil”. He told the jurors that she did not have hallucinations but that her mother indicated that she had observed them (Wang, Chen, Chin & Lee, 2005). Andrea Yates had a history of mental illness that included hospitalization and medication. This led to her admission under suicide watch. April 13, 2001, she began an outpatient program at Devereux and May 4, 2001 was readmitted to Devereux and discharged on May 14, 2001. She was prescribed Haldol medication. The degree of stress does not change. What transforms is the ways in which one approaches the situation. A newborn baby in a family may cause difficulty because for the mother who has given birth, there is now a totally different set of challenges (Maslow, Caldera, Pursley, Reifman & Houston, 2002). In this case of Texas vs. Andrea Pia Yates, it was immediately after her fourth child’s birth that, Andrea Yates started to show symptoms of depression. She attempted her first suicide shortly after Luke’s birth. Mrs. Yates had been suffering from post-partum depression. In this case, the appellant, Andrea, had a history of mood instability and bipolar disorder in her family. She had been pregnant and breastfeeding for seven years. It was believed that that was one of the main contributing factors to the post-partum depression and psychosis. Another contributing factor to her depression and psychosis noted was that her psychiatrist had stopped treatment immediately preceding the murders. If Andrea Yates had received better treatment and medical care it could have prevented the murders. These conflicting aspects of the case resulted into the indication of her psychological disorientation during the murder. Dr. Dietz’ testimony seemed to have the greatest impact on the case’s outcome; more so than any other person (Wang, Chen, Chin & Lee, 2005). He persuaded the jury to believe that Andrea Yates was sane and acting cautiously when she committed the murder of her children. Dr Dietz’s testimony warrants a thorough investigation within its own. Something fascinating about Dr Dietz’s testimony was the way his opinions about the appellant’s mental state carried the most authority with the jury. The court has to assure justice in whatever case. There should be no form of discrimination within the court system. However, the defence in Yates’ case pressed their argument on her mental illness, which could have resulted into her killing of the children. Noticeably in the case, psychological experts called upon had conflicting views on the appellant’s mental health. However, the prosecution’s story about her dementia was clear and consistent with the cultural norms of Harris county Texas (Amsterdam & Bruner, page 110). The prosecutor in this case although Yates might appear to have been possessed, she was well aware of what she was doing. Mrs. Yates appeared to give testimony which was consistent with the prosecutions. From the judgement drawn, the doctor who attended to Yates lacks expertise in post-partum depression or psychosis. Nevertheless, it was assumed that this disorder must have contributed to the psychological distortion of Mrs. Yates. This must have impacted negatively on the final verdict drawn. The showcase of discrimination is probable where there is insufficient prove. Both sides agreed the defendant is mentally ill and the death penalty is at stake (Renee, 2002). In the case of Texas vs. Andrea Yates, every psychological examination differed from each other, which confused the judges even the more. The controversy and debate over her conviction implied that there may be other adverse explanations as to why the sentence was determined; rationales mostly pointing to the retributive aspect of Texas law and society (Wang, Chen, Chin & Lee, 2005). According to the appellant in this case, death penalty was fair. As such, it required that every juror conform to the sentence or otherwise mar their work as judges. The Texas insanity standards are a total rule of law, before the legal commentator (Gumble A, 2002). In the case of Texas vs. Andrea Yates, Dr. Dietz seemed to be focused with the physical evidence linked to the crime than with the defendant’s background. He considers an additional history of intellectual evidence, which included examining the crime scene, analyzing autopsies, and interviewing witnesses. The proper method for fair equitable practice would be to have both types of evidence when coming to a conclusion. In the case of Texas vs. Andrea Yates, Dr Dietz established confusion with the defence’s expert witness’s statement indicating that Andrea had delusions for many years, hearing disorder as well as violent sights. Although other defendants pleaded insanity, Andrea Yates had a record of psychological disorder before committing the crime of murder. The defence could have had experts who had treated Andrea at the trial to rebut Dr. Dietz words (Gaylin, W Page 22). Dr. Dietz stated that the prosecutors should strive for the truth using the necessary evidence. In contrast, defence lawyers should support their clients. Therefore, the prosecution’s goal is in line with a thorough search for information (Godfrey, 2005). In the direct and cross-examination within the case of Texas vs. Andrea Yates, Dr. Dietz talked about the impending murder cases. The doctor’s assertion was that he could not remember treating patients with post-partum depression for a long time. As such, he was not certain if he treated Mrs. Yates on this condition. Dr Dietz was a specialist for the Law and Order television program, which Andrea Yates was a fan. He said that Andrea Yates could have gotten the idea from an earlier episode that was aired the day before murdering her children but in actuality the incident was never aired. Dr Dietz’s mistake in the Law and Order episode on postpartum depression was elicited when Parnham was cross-examining him. Dr. Dietz’ incompetency in this disorder informed the psychiatrists of the legitimacy concerning the illness. Andrea Yates had demonstrated different characteristics and symptoms. Dr. Dietz did not have solid evidence about Andrea Yate’s postpartum risk factors, especially the level of neuroendocrine alterations and emotional adjustments. Andrea experienced many of the postpartum risk factors. During Andrea Yates testimony, she explained “It was the seven deadly sins. My children were not righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved.” She told the jail psychiatrist, "They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell." This shows that, in her mind it was the right thing to do. She believed she had to murder them. In the courtroom, Dr. Dietz used a PowerPoint presentation to show how he reached his conclusion that Andrea Yates knew what she was doing. “Before you did it,” Dietz asked Andrea during one videotaped session, “Did you think it was wrong?” She answered, “No.” “If I did not do it, they would be tormented by Satan. It was a poor choice. I should not have done it.” She continued, “There was sadness, but I still felt I had to do it.” Dr. Dietz was able to support and validate his opinions; Andrea Yates knew right from wrong because after committing the crime, she called the police and her husband (Godfrey, 2005). The defence argued that Andrea’s psychological disorder contributed to her crime. Her long history of mental illness and the frequent visits to doctors substantiated a severe mental health condition. As a result, various security experts were called to testify regarding her mental state at the time she killed her children and the treatments used (Rivieres-Pigeon, Saurel-Cubizolles & Lelong, 2004). The number of psychiatrists used to examine Yates at different times conflicted in their views. This variety within opinion provided the defence with opposing views to give to the jury possibilities as to why Andrea Yates had committed such a heinous crime; the prosecution’s more consistent theme was that her acts were reasonable and conscious. The prosecution was based on Dr. Dietz’ sequence of events. The juror’s explanations for their verdict suggested that they were considerably persuaded by the prosecution’s presentation of the case. They believed that the way in which Andrea Yates murdered her children appeared planned and organized. One of the most difficult hurdles the case confronted was Andrea Yates resistance to assisting in her case. In conclusion, Texas vs. Andrea Yates case confronted with a large amount of legal and social issues. In this case there were various problems revealed concerning mental illness and extensive discussions were carried out in finding a solution. A crucial issue pertains to the limited language within the Texas insanity law. Dr Dietz stated that Andrea probably would not have been convicted if the insanity standard had had more tolerant components to it, such as the ALI test (Bloch, Rotenberg, Koren & Klein, 2005). The jury convicted Andrea and sentenced her to life in prison base on the prosecution’s statement that she was sensible and knew what she was doing. The severity of Andrea Yates’ mental illness was shown negatively in her case. It constituted her desire to be punished and it utilized the number of doctors who were involved in her life. All of these factors contributed to the confusion and controversy over psychiatric philosophies, characteristics and interventions; ultimately confusing the jury as to whom Andrea Yates was. There were other key factors which influenced the outcome of Texas vs. Andrea Yates Andrea’s case. The penal nature of Harris County and the death qualified jury, along with, the unusually severe and nebulous constitution of Texas’ insanity law. The testimony of Dr. Dietz was primarily focused on his treatment despite his reputation for emphasizing facts and his inability to provide a much simpler testimony of Mrs. Yates’ mental illness; his level of speculation was troubling. There were no practical reasons for his conclusions. His extensive speculation and reasoning showed the lack of expertise in postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. Experts should compliment their profession with the ethical standards and legal procedures should provide equitable balance and check to what kinds of stories can be told. Dr. Dietz was not responsible for his lack of education. It is not the responsibility of the expert witness to provide answers to questions that are never asked or to draw conclusions. In the case of Texas vs. Andrea Yates, the legal system did not get a clear picture of Andrea Yates during the trial. The court should have demanded a more thorough explanation of the psychological research before making a final decision. In the case of Texas vs Andrea Yates, the key evidence was presented through false testimony; consequently the appellant did not acquire legitimacy (Ross, 2005). Hopefully when the case is appealed there will be clarity forthcoming regarding the factors and the role of psychological factors within offenders that commit capital crimes. References Benvenuti, P. et al (2001). “Postnatal depression and the impact on infant-carer attachment strategies: A case report”. Archives of Women’s Mental Health, 3, 155-164. Retrieved on February 13, 2007, from Academic Search Premier Database Bloch, M., Rotenberg, N., Koren, D., & Klein, E. (2005). “Risk factors associated with the Development of postpartum mood disorders.” Journal of Affective Disorders, 88, 9-18. Retrieved on February 13, 2007 from Academic Search Premier Database Dennis, C. (2004). “Can we identify mothers at risk for postpartum depression in the immediate postnatal period using the Edinburg Postnatal Depression Scale?” Journal of Affective Disorders, 78, 163-169. Retrieved on February 13, 2007 From Academic Search Premier database Dennis, c., & Ross, L. (2006). “Depressive symptomatology in the immediate postnatal Period: Identifying maternal characteristics related to true- and false- positive Screening scores.” The Canadian journal of Psychiatry, 51, 265-271. Retrieved on September 28, 2006, from Academic Search Premier Database Dennis, c., & Ross, L. (2005). “Relationships among infant sleep patterns, maternal Fatigue and development of depressive symptomatology.” Birth, 32(3), 187-193. Retrieved on February 13, 2007 from Academic Search Premier Database Godfrey, J. (2005). “Toward optimal health: Donna E. Steward, M.D. discusses prenatal Depression.” Journal of Women’s Health, 14(9), 803-807. Retrieved on February 13, 2007, from Academic Se31·ch Premier database Inandi, T., Bugdayci, R., Dundar, P., Sumer, H., & Sasmaz T. (2005). “Risk factors for Depression in the first postnatal year.” Social Psychiatry, 40, 727-730. Retrieved on September 28, 2006 from Academic Search Premier Reich, W., & Silbert, M., & Spence, J., & Siegel, H. (2005). “Self-structure and postpartum dejection in first-time mothers.” The Journal of Psychology, 139(5), 426-438. Retrieved on February 13, 2007, from Academic Search Premier Database Rivieres-Pigeon, C., Saurel-Cubizolles, M., & Lelong, N. (2004). “Considering a simple strategy for detection of women at risk of psychological distress after childbirth.” Birth, 31(1), 34-42. Retrieved on February 13, 2007 from Academic Search Premier Database. Ross, L. (2005). “Perinatal mental health in lesbian mothers: A review of potential risk and protective factors.” Women & Health, 41(3), 113-128. Retrieved on February 13, 2007, from Academic Search Premier Database. Wang, S., Chen, C., Chin, c., & Lee, S. (2005). “Impact of postpartum depression on the mother-infant couple.” Birth, 32(1), 39-44. Retrieved on February 13, 2007 from Academic Search Premier Database Read More