Insanity Defense: Where It All Began and its Controversy - Research Paper Example

1. Introduction: Insanity defense – where it all began and its controversy The concept of insanity defense is one of the most debated, most argued and most abstract (in my opinion) concept in the criminal law. It has so many opponents and supporters, that even after centuries of existence, it still generates controversial debates among the authorities in criminal law. According to Bergman P., Berman S. (2009) “The insanity defense is based on the principle that punishment for serious crime is justified only if defendants were capable of controlling their moral behavior and could appreciate the wrongfulness of their behavior at the time the crime was committed.”1 This is explained by the fact that insane people are not in the position to appreciate and to tell the difference between good and bad, right and wrong, legal and illegal. Insanity defense is considered to be a defense by excuse. Insanity defense dates back from Ancient Greece and Rome, however, the first definition that is closer to the modern definition of insanity defense was given by an English Court, in 1843, the insane person being compared to a wild beast. However, an earlier definition explains insane defense as it follows: “If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy do [kill a man], this is no felonious act for they cannot be said to have any understanding will.”2 In the USA, some of the leading historical moments directly connected to the insane defense are: the case Durham v. United States3, (which established the Durham rule, also known as the “Product test”), the drafting of the American Law Institute Test (1953), the Hinckley case4, which led to the adoption of Insanity Defense Reform Act in 1984. Nowadays, more and more jurisdictions choose to rename the insanity defense into mental disorder defense, trying to protect the authors of such crimes from being stigmatized with the label insane. This is the result of the development of human rights protection, this applying not only to good citizens, but also to everybody, disregarding their criminal or/and medical records. As attractive as the insane defense may seem to cold blooded criminals, wishing to avoid justice with an insane plea, all the insane defense cases involve psychiatrists, psychological testing of the person claiming to be insane and the burden of proving to the jury that the crime was committed by a mentally ill person. For example, the case of Colorado v. Connelly5 is the story of a man found not guilty by insanity, and after 10 years, found guilty for the committed crime. 2. The Andrea Yates case The Andrea Yates case is one of the most mediated criminal cases involving insanity defense of the 21st century. Unfortunately, this is due to its dramatic implications. However, in spite of the horrifying implications, the defense attorneys managed to prove her mental instability and avoid her being convicted to prison for life time or maybe even death penalty. Andrea Yates is woman from Texas who one day killed all of her five children by drowning them, and after that, she called her husband and the police and let them know what she had done. The theories regarding this case are numerous and they continue to appear. Some are sure that the woman was suffering from a severe mental disorder, others disagree. The first trial found Andrea Yates guilty and gave her a life sentence. She was granted a second trial one year later and the jury found her not guilty by reason of insanity. The defense attorneys focused on proving Andrea Yates’ mental illness, which according to family, friends and psychiatrists who had treated her in the past, was a FACT. The author will further analyze the presence of the required elements of a crime in the Andrea Yates case. The question remains to be: Did Andrea Yates’ crime satisfy the elements of a crime? The first element of a crime – actus reus – implies the existence of an act that needs to be punished. According to Jeffrey A. Jenckins (2009) “It addresses the question: “What did the defendant do?” 6 In the analyzed case, the actus reus element is obvious: the defendant Andrea Yates killed her five children by drowning them. The second element – mens rea – refers to the mental state of mind of the defendant, meaning that “the defendant must have intended to commit the prohibited act”.7 This means that the criminal must acknowledge the fact that he is doing something wrong and illegal. So did Andrea Yates have mens rea? The first jury, in the first trial, found that Andrea Yates did have mens rea, meaning that she did acknowledge the gravity of her facts, and therefore, the criminal intent component was satisfied. The jury found Andrea Yates guilty for killing her children knowingly and with premeditation. During the second trial, the woman had been examined by the prosecution expert – Dr. Michael Welner. The doctor explained that “he found 60 instances wherein Andrea Yates knew drowning 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah was wrong”8 The defendant herself previously admitted that she had thought about killing her children several times before actually doing it, starting with about two years prior to the murder. However, the second trial found Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity, meaning lacking the mens rea element. This will be further analyzed by the author. Concurrence – another element of a crime – requires the concordance between the intention of the defendant (Andrea Yates intended to kill her children) and the criminal act itself (Andrea Yates did kill her children, as she wished to). This element is also present in the Andrea Yates case. Causation – the last element – means that the intention and the acts performed by the defendant lead to the committing “successfully” a crime, harming somebody. This element is also present in this case, as the children were the ones that died, because of their mother’s intention and harmful behaviour. As it can be seen, all the elements are undoubtedly present in the Andrea Yates case, except for one of them: mens rea. As it has already been mentioned, some claim that Andrea had mens rea, some say she did not. The second jury found that this element was not present in the crime, and therefore, Andrea Yates was found not guilty. Further, the author will analyze the defense’s strategy in defending Andrea and proving that she was not mentally capable of understanding the gravity of her acts. In spite of the prosecution expert – Dr. Welner and other evidence, Andrea pleaded not guilty during the second trial. Dr. Park Dietz made a list of events that had affected Andrea Yates during her life and may have contributed to her mental disorder: 1. “Giving up her career 2. Giving up her possessions 3. Changing her faith 4. Giving up her identity (according to others) 5. Allowing her husband to make all decisions 6. Relative social isolation 7. Five pregnancies (four births and a miscarriage) 8. Living in an RV and a bus 9. Home schooling her children”9 However, in the second trial, the defense had an entirely new weapon to convince the jury of her mental illness - Dr. Richard Pesikoff, a Houston psychiatrist, who strongly believed that Yates was actually mentally disordered. Moreover, the insanity defense used in its favour the fact that the MNaughten test is used in Texas. According to the Texas Penal Code Section 8.01: “(a) I t is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong; (b) The term "mental disease or defect" does not include an abnormality manifested by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.”10 Also, the defense focused on the M’Naughten test defining it in front of the jury as it follows: “A person was not responsible for criminal acts if as a result of a mental disease or defect he did not understand what he did or that it was wrong, or if he was under a delusion (but not otherwise insane) which, if true, would have provided a good defense. The person is unable to distinguish right from wrong”11 However, among the various experts who have testified during the trial, Dr. Samenow explained that mentally ill people do have the necessary judgment to tell right from wrong. The Jury, however, considered Andrea Yates mentally ill and she is now in a state mental facility, with the possibility to be freed in 2041. The second trial found that Yates could not understand the gravity of her actions, and therefore, it was not appropriate to imprison her, a mental facility being considered better and fairer. The question remains: fair to whom? Conclusions: In my opinion, the Andrea Yates case proves how justice and law provisions can be interpreted in favor of whomever necessary. For me, a simple observer, it is obvious that, in spite of her mental disorders, Yates knew what she was doing and she planned it carefully, waiting for the right moment to occur. I believe that 25 years ago, she would have been given capital punishment – death. Nowadays, I believe that the whole “human rights” concept is overused and abused in the modern courts. We are practically forced to respect the human rights of the defendants, of the convicted persons, but we seem to forget about the victim’s rights. In 31 years from now, Yates will be a free person, walking among us. Who can guarantee that another incident like this will not happen again? I believe that there are persons out there who have committed crimes not understanding the gravity and illegality of their actions, but I do not think Yates is one of them. In her version of the story, she explained that she had murdered her children because she was a bad mother. Following her logic, a question occurs: Why not become a better mother (if you really think that you are a bad one) and why chose to slaughter the children? For me, the reasons of the second jury remain a mystery, something I do not agree with. This refers not only to the Andrea Yates case, but also to all the cases in which there was clear evidence that the criminal knew what is right and what is wrong. The Texas law, and not only, is not explicit enough to what insanity means, leaving space for the defense attorneys to do their job – save criminals from being properly punished for their crimes. Criminals, whether they are sane or not, must be taught by the judicial system that what they have done is wrong. They must understand and regret their actions and only then, they should be given the chance to be free again. References: 1. Bergman, O., Berman, S., (2009). The criminal law handbook: know your rights, survive the system. (11th ed.) California: Nolo 2. Colorado v. Connelly 479 U.S. 157 (1986) 3. Dietz, MD. Park (2001). Interview of Andrea Yates. Retrieved from: http://parkdietzassociates.com/files/Excerpts_from_Interview_of_Andrea_Yates_by_Dr._Park_Dietz_2001.pdf. 4. Durham v. United States 214 F, 2D 862 (App. D.C., 1954) 5. Gavin. Andrea Yates murder case. Scribd. Retrieved from: http://www.scribd.com/doc/36013378/Andrea-Yates-Murder-Case 6. Gifis, Steven H. (1984). Law Dictionary (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Hauppauge, NY: Barrons Educational Series, I nc. (Original work published 1975). 7. Insanity on trial. Frontline. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html 8. Jenkins A., J. (2009). The American courts: a procedural approach. USA: Jones & Bartlett Learning 9. Texas Penal Code 10. United States v. Hinckley, 672 F.2d 115 (D.C. Cir. 1982) Read More