Andrea Yates and Insanity Defense - Case Study Example

Andrea Yates and insanity defense The trial of Andrea Yates is one of most significant instances of insanity defense. It is an interesting case that has been tried in the U.S. Court. Andrea Yates committed a heinous crime of killing her five children. She went through two trials. Although in the first trial she was convicted of killing her children and sentenced to life in prison, in the second trial she was given the verdict of ‘not-guilty’ for the reason of insanity. (McLellan) The case elements The crime committed by Andrea Yates, a Texas resident, still haunts the whole nation. The crime was really shocking and has created a huge difference to the age old perception of motherhood. June 20, 2001, which had started as a normal day in the Yates family living in the suburban area of Houston, brought some tragic misfortunes to the family. Following her daily routine, Andrea Yates, a suburban housewife, made breakfast for her five children and then the hell broke out in the family when she drowned each of her five children one by one in the family’s guest bathroom. The eldest among the children, Noah, was just 7 years old and the youngest one, Mary, was only of 6 months. Her other three children whom she killed were John, 5 years old, Paul, 3 years old and Luke, 2 years old. Once she found all of them to be dead after drowning them in the bathtub, she spread the bodies of her four children out on her bed, and left Noah, her eldest child, floating in bathtub. After committing this horrifying crime, she called the police as well as her husband for disclosing the crime she had committed. (McLellan; Keram) There is no doubt that no crime could be more heinous than killing one’s own children. However, looking at the nature of crime committed by a mother, questions are bound to arise regarding the mental status of Yates at the time of the crime. It was her psychological disorder which prompted her to commit such crime and considering her psychological problem her defendant demanded insanity defense in the first trial. She was under treatment and was taking drugs even two days before the incident occurred. She claimed of having odd visions and hearing sounds which was not real. She believed that for the good of her children she must kill them. The act was committed when her husband had left her alone with the children despite the doctor’s instructions against it. However, in the first trial, she was accused of committing the crime of killing her own children and sentenced to life. (Keram) She was declared not guilty only in the second trial and released on medical grounds of insanity defense and sent for treatment. The trials and arguments presented Although it was agreed that Yates was psychotic but the case of insanity defense required stronger evidence and the defendant had to prove that she was incapable of distinguishing the right from the wrong during the commitment of the crime. Therefore in the month of March during the trial, Andrea Yates was found guilty by the jury after rejecting the case of insanity defense which could not be successfully asserted. The nuances of the Texas court were quite narrow and therefore the centuries’ old law could not adopt the insanity defense case despite the testimony of her attempt to suicide twice before this murderous incident. It was also proved that she had been hospitalized four times before the drowning of her own children and all these evidences were recorded in the medical documents. Yet the law believed that despite being delusional, she could have been released on grounds of insanity defense if she was unable to recognize the good from the bad or the right form the wrong. Now here lay the catch because she herself has called the police to admit her offense. However the option of death penalty was refused by the jury despite prosecution’s demand. Yates was sentences to life imprisonment. She was granted the eligibility of getting a parole only in 40 years. After around three years, this conviction was reversed by the Texas Court of Appeals when the psychiatrist of California and the witness of the prosecution, Dr. Park Dietz confessed to his false testimony during the first trial. He submitted that he has mixed up the facts he said at the witness box and he was offered $500 an hour to mislead the jury by the prosecutors. He also stated that he “opposes the very law that he helped prosecutors apply to Yates and jurors used to deny her insanity defense” (Roche). The first trial was long and filled with mixed emotions. On one hand the jurors had to go through a complex set of evidences including family videos of Andrea with her children during the cheerful times, the photographs of bath tubs where the children were drowned and videos where Andrea admitted that she could not be a good mother to a detective and that she was going to kill her children. On the other hand, Joe Owmby and Kaylynn Williford on side of prosecution pointed out that “the victims were young and innocent and their deaths were cold and calculated”. (Roche) The court paid $500 an hour to Dr. Dietz in order to prove the insanity of Andrea through a conversation. This interrogation went on for two days and revealed interesting facts about her mental status. It was testified by the jail psychiatrist Melissa Ferguson that medications had made her think of voices and images which did not exist and thus be influenced by them. The Satan within her spoke to her she confessed to Melissa, “It was the seventh deadly sin. My children werent righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them they could never be saved,..They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell” (Roche). He husband Russell Yates also testified her attempts to suicide and consequent admission to the hospital. He also said that Dr. Saeed who gave her the drug Haldol had withdrew that drug owing to his concerns regarding its side effects and did not prescribe it despite her worsening conditions a couple of days before the disaster. This proved the cause and effect relationship between the medications and her delusions. Dr. Dietz’s persuasive interrogation revealed that Andrea thought if she did not kill her children they would be tortured by Satan. The convict also revealed that Satan she knew Satan would leave her after the murders because Satan ‘destroys and then leaves’ (Roche). She also justified her call to the police, saying that despite being guided by the devil she knew that murder would be “perceived as bad, despite her higher purpose” (Roche). She was even aware of her psychotic state. Dr. Dietz however emphasized that she did know that murdering was bad and that she was actually killing the children and not saving them. He also testified that she was influenced by a TV series Law and Order where a similar incident occurs that day. However this claim was declared as void later. The jurors were confused but finally she was declared guilty by the law. (Roche) Thus, in her first trial, Yates had been convicted of the crime and sentenced to life in prison on the basis of a major ground that Yates was quite competent, both physically and mentally, to stand the trial for killing her five children. Her mental competency to face the trial had actually made the jury believe that Yates had a good sense of understanding the nature of charge she was facing and was also quite able to defend herself. In her first trial, the jury that had been judging her offence was composed of eight women and four men. While considering the murder charges against Yates, the jury had followed three weeks of testimony and spent four hours to find out whether Yates was actually guilty of all the murders. Finally they had convicted her of the crime. The verdict in the first trial had just ruled out the claim of insanity in spite of having several proofs of her mental illness. (Vatz; Turley) This verdict had raised a lot of disappointment and anger not only to the consultants of Yates, but also among the people in the field of mental health, press and even among general masses. A number of strong and famous personalities of the nation raised their voices against the verdict of the first trial. For example Richard Cohen, a famous columnist of Washington Post, argued that “it’s hard to say who is crazier here - Yates or the system that is trying her”. (Vatz) Terry O’Neill, the vice president of National Organization for Women was also very much disappointed with the verdict that had come during the first trial. Terry argued that “psychosis is so obvious and her mental illness is so heart-wrenching that clearly she’s entitled to treatment and not punishment”. (Vatz) The verdict practically got no support from public also. The case of the 42 years old Andrea Yates was brought for a retrial in January, 2005 when Dr. Diatz admitted his false testimony. This second trial was longer than the first. She was found not guilty by the jurors owing to her insanity on Wednesday, the third day of deliberations during the capital murder trial. The trial went on for 13 hours and finally jury decided she was insane while committing the murders. She pledged for a verdict of not guilty owing to reasons of insanity at the court for the second time on January 9, 2006 and she was released on bail on February 1, 2006. She was taken to a mental health centre for treatment. Although the jury never denied the act of murders she committed but declared she was suffering from postpartum psychosis during the act. The time taken to reach the verdict was three times longer than in the first case. As before, “Under Texas law, a person can be found insane if, because of a severe mental illness, he or she does not know the crime is wrong” (“Yates Found Not Guilty In Second Murder Trial”). Her ex-husband and family supported her throughout both the trials. She was finally charged of multiple slayings (guilty of killing three of her children) and not capital murder. Her defense attorney was George Parnham and according to him, “the right thing was done and mental health has been addressed. Thats so important. This case is almost a watershed for mental illness in the criminal justice system.” (“Yates Found Not Guilty In Second Murder Trial”) Although the prosecutors accused the verdict of being unjust, the defense attorney states that she was a danger to none but herself and would be sent for treatment soon. Also he reported that the accused was on antidepressants and anti-psychotic drugs. Although the evidences did not change much during the second trial the way of thinking and the approach changed to a great extent. In this case, mental health was strongly addressed unlike holding onto the rigid terms of the law. Review and analysis From the above trials it is clear that the approach of the jury during the two trials were starkly different. In the first they refused to find her insane because it was not proven that she had no sense of distinguishing the right form the wrong during the act. Also, the emphasis of Dr. Dietz on the fact that she knew she was killing them on one hand and the belief that Satan was making her commit the crime were contradictory. She had called the police which signify she at least knows that her act would be looked upon as that of guilt and offense. Instead of escaping she came to the law to try herself. This on one hand proves she was different from the usual criminals who tend to hide their crime and at the same time, like other normal people she knew her offense. Therefore one may say that the first trial was conducted on the basis of the rigid law terms and more than anything else the persuasive judgment of Dr. Diatz which emphasized on the convict’s guilt. However the confession of Dr. Dietz who had played a major role in the jury’s decision during the first trial brought about the opportunity for the second trial. The strong voices against the first verdict might have had an influence during the second trial where the jury took longer to decide but decided in favor of the defendant. The second trial and verdict was less persuasive and more logical because the mother here had no practical or rational motive to kill these children. Why would she kill them? If she were to avoid responsibilities, her husband and his mother were there to support her and it was clear from their supportive presence during the trials that they did not hold any vengeance against her. Her ex-husband was rather sympathetic and did not think that in her conditions she should spend her life in prison instead of undergoing proper treatment. This proves that she was not hated by the ones very close to her. The odd beliefs of Satan and doing good to her children by murdering them only emphasizes her insanity because, given her condition, she would gain nothing, materially or immaterially otherwise by killing these small children. Works Cited 1. Keram, Emily. A. The Insanity Defense and Game Theory: Reflections on Texas v.Yates, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, (2002) Vol. 30, No. 4, 470. 2. McLellan, Faith. Mental health and justice: the case of Andrea Yates. The Lancet, 2006, 368 (9551): 1951–1954. 3. Roche, Timothy, “Andrea Yates: More To The Story”, Time, U.S. retrieved on March 22, 2009 from: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,218445-1,00.html 4. Turley, Jonathan. The Insanity Defense and the Limits of Legal Reason. 2005. Retrieved on 18th March, 2009, from http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/17/the-insanity-defense-and-the-limits-of-legal-reason/ 5. Vatz, Richard E. "Murderous mothers: a challenge for the insanity defense: Andrea Yates killing of her five children is the most-recent case triggering a clash between psychiatrists and prosecutors - Psychology". USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education). FindArticles.com. 2002, retrieved on March 18, 2009 from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2690_131/ai_94384326 6. “Yates Found Not Guilty In Second Murder Trial”, Houston News, July 26, 2006, retrieved on March 22, 2009 from: http://www.click2houston.com/news/9577412/detail.html Read More