Andrea Yates Criminal : The Psychological Theory of Crime - Case Study Example

Andrea Yates Criminal Case: The Psychological Theory of Crime Introduction “Andrea Pia Yates, high school valedictorian, swim team champion, college graduate, and registered nurse married Russell (“Rusty”) Yates in 1993 after a four year courtship” (Denno, 2003, p.1), when both were twenty-eight years of age. Before they wed, both agreed to have a traditional marriage complying to the teachings of Russell’s form of fundamentalist Christianity. This sect of Christianity, led by the religious mentor and traveling preacher, Michael Woronieck, was attributed by some to be a religious “cult”. Over the next seven years, Yates gave birth to five children, and suffered one miscarriage. Throughout this time, her mental health was declining steadily. On June 20th, 2001, Andrea Yates drowned all her children in the bathtub, one by one, within one hour’s time. In a few months’ time, she was convicted of capital murder in Harris County, Texas, and sentenced to life imprisonment, which was revoked after three years of her serving her sentence. After a retrial, on the grounds of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) she was transferred to a forensic mental health facility (Denno, 2003). Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to apply the psychological theory of crime to the criminal case of Andrea Yates, who drowned all her children in a bathtub. Psychological Theory as the Basis of Andrea Yates’ Criminal Case A concrete discussion of relevant theory makes the reviewing of criminal behavior more meaningful and understandable (Adler, Mueller & Laufer, 2003). Gaines and Miller (2006) state that Freud’s psychoanalytic theory for criminal behavior is composed of three parts: The id which controls strong urges, the ego which controls behavior that leads to the fulfillment of id, and the superego which is directly associated with the conscience, determining the actions which are right and wrong in the context of a person’s environment. The psychoanalytic theory contends that individuals who exhibit criminal behavior have an overdeveloped ego or an underdeveloped superego. A strong ego leads to such feelings of guilt that a person commits a crime for the purpose of being punished. On the other hand, a weak superego indicates that a person is unable to control his violent urges. Theories such as the psychological theory of crime are frequently based on untestable hypotheses, rather than on empirical data. Hence, the psychological explanations of criminal behavior can be controversial. According to Greene & Heilbrun (2010), Yates had a long psychiatric history prior to her killing her children. She had suffered several psychotic episodes and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and postpartum depression. Consequently, she had undergone numerous hospitalizations, including one just a month prior to the killings, and was under treatment with psychotropic medications. There was no dispute on the fact that Yates had systematically killed her five children. However, the key issue in the case pertained to whether she was “so disturbed by the symtoms of her severe mental illness that she could not be held criminally responsible for the murders?” (Greene & Heilbrun, 2010, p.196). Several psychological reasons are attributed to Yates’ killing of her five children. One was the element of guilt. Delph (2007) states that she felt guilt at having lived with her husband before marriage. Further, she had guilt feelings after her two suicide attempts, realizing that she was needed by her family to look after tehm. She also suffered from guilt at her children behaving in a detached manner with her after she was hospitalized and was away for day treatment care. Moreover, she blamed herself for her father’s death, believing that she could have helped in prolonging his life being a nurse. After his death, she stopped homeschooling her children, resulting in her feeling that her children were tainted and might be retarded, and that she was not raising them properly. She believed herself to be a “bad mother, and that her children were hopelessly damaged” (West & Lichtenstein, 2006, pp.180-181). Yates’ daily life became burdensome for her. The stress of homeschooling, her motherly duties and wanting more children was overwhelming her, states Delph (2007). Andrea Yates’ stress increased with the Yates family living for a few years in a bus, because of the crowded living conditions. She expressed to her husband that she felt guilty for not being able to make a successful home life on the bus. Yates’ belief systems ranged from the ordinary to the bizarre. She clung to the concept of an ideal mother, particularly as sermonized by the couple’s religious mentor and traveling preacher, Michael Woronieck. Among other teachings, Woronieck instilled in Yates that women are sinners as the descendants of Mother Eve, and if they do not raise their children in the right manner, they deserve to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Andrea’s husband “Russell faithfully followed these teachings, and insisted that the natural state of marriage was for man to be the breadwinner while the woman’s role was that of homemaker” (Forlizzi, 2006, p.60). Yates struggling with mental illness was further exacerbated by the pressures of being a homemaker and taking care of a large family. “This set her up for disaster” (West & Lichenstein, 2006, p.181). She considered her husband Rusty to be controlling and manipulative, probably because she had no say in how many children they had, since Rusty wanted as many children as God would allow. Feeling extremely inadequate, she was obsessed about how her children would turn out. She did not want to fail in her role as mother. Moreover, “her religious beliefs included the existence of demons and their ability to possess” (Delph, 2007, p.5). This belief system is common among several people; however, Yates had religious delusions about actually being Satan. When she considered herself, she believed that she could hurt someone. Further, she suffered from referential delusions, and thought that her television was speaking directly to her. Andrea Yates also had particular character traits that played a part in her illness. She felt anxiety and experienced loneliness. While growing up, she felt like a “mistake” and “the forgotten baby” being the last child. As a child, she tried hard to please her parents, and avoided confrontations and arguments. Shy and studious as a teenager, she was a competitive swimmer, high school valedictorian, and worked as a qualified nurse (Delph, 2007). Yates was described by her friends and neighbours as a gentle woman and a loving mother, and she was considered to have a giving, sweet nature. As the essence of the caring mother and loving daughter she home-schooled her children and cared for her ill father before his death. After Yates’ father passed away in March, 2001, friends noticed a radical change in her demeanor and appearance. Andrea appeared lethargic at all times, with a ghostly-white face and pronounced dark circles under her eyes. “She paced through the house all day, walking in circles, shaking, and scratching her scalp so hard her hair fell out” (Forlizzi, 2006, p.61). She also neglected her personal hygiene, her feet dirty and black, her hair matted and greasy, and teeth unbrushed for months. The thirty-six year old mother feeling overwhelmed and trapped, confessed to her close family members about hearing Satan’s voice. Her doctor again prescribed her Haldol, a drug used for treating severe psychosis. Many may consider it necessary to judge a mentally ill mother who committed such an act as insane. Adler, Mueller & Laufer (2003) state that “Andrea Yates pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity”, on being sentenced in March 2002 to life imprisonment for drowning her children in a bathtub. Contrastingly, from news accounts and court records, it is evident that Andrea discouraged her attorneys’ efforts to plead insanity, though she faced possible execution. Defense for her case was already hampered by the unusually strict Texas insanity standards, and the state’s renowned culture of strict retribution. Yates insisted that there was nothing wrong with her mind, and that she deserved to die. She appeared to be awaiting punishment for her sins. This self-blame did not surprise those close to her, and they could testify that she had been tormented by bouts of mental illness; “in fact both the prosecution and the defense agreed that she was mentally ill” (Denno, 2003, p.2). In an interview with the police immediately after the killings, the only question that Yates asked them was when she would be tried. The next day, she told her prison psychiatrist that she was guilty and deserved punishment. In her mental competency for trial report, it was noted by the psychiatrist that despite Andrea experiencing both auditory and visual hallucinations, she claimed that she was fine and had no mental problems. Andrea only admitted that she had been depressed in the past and had experienced irrational thoughts. She believed that her medications had helped the depression, but may also be responsible for the psychotic problems. Similarly, Yates maintained an aversion to taking any medication, because of her pride, as stated by her. The psychiatrist found Yates to be incompetent to stand trial because her denial of mental illness, and withdrawal of information about it, prevented the defense’s access to information that may be important in her defense. The psychiatrist also observed that “she is easily confused and manipulated and has a diminished emotional capacity, likely preventing her from presenting herself appropriately in court” (Denno, 2003, p.54). Yates’ Psychological Delusions and Hearing the Voice of Satan According to Ayres (2006, p.338), “Yates suffered from postpartum psychosis and perhaps bipolar disease”. When she had four sons three years before the murders, she had tried to commit suicide by taking an overdose of her father’s sedatives. Following a short stay in the hospital, she again tried to commit suicide by slitting her throat with a steak knife. Yates psychosis manifested also as a vision in her mind urging her repeatedly to get a knife. She also had visions of a person being stabbed. Her psychosis was successfully treated with injections of the antipsychotic drug Haldol, and she was warned that having more children would increase her risk of psychosis. Despite these reasons, Yates avoided taking her medications, and also concurred with her husband on having as many children as possible. Yates’fifth child was a daughter. Three months later, when her father passed away, she suffered another episode of depression, which involved a downward spiral into a psychotic condition in a matter of weeks. She picked on spots on her scalp until they bled, she held baby Mary in her arms for continuous lengths of time, terrified to put her down, she stopped eating, drinking, and speaking, and suffered from recurrent hallucinations. Moreover, she slept only for one or two hours at night (Ayres, 2006). Andrea Yates was hospitalized again in a very depressive state, experiencing auditory hallucinations. Released ten days later, she was again hospitalized. Her doctor considered it necessary to taper off her anti-psychotic medicine, after which she declined again into a psychotic state, within a few weeks, and drowned her children. Yates was interviewed by psychiatrists in jail, she told the doctors that she was Satan. The reason she gave for killing her children was that she was a bad mother, and that they were damned by her bad mothering. Yates believed that she had to kill the children in order to save them, “ensuring their lives in eternity at the expense of her own damnation” (Ayres, 2006, p.339). She told another psychiatrist that taking her children’s lives was beneficial also because if the State of Texas executed her, they would kill Satan who was within her. While in jail, her auditory hallucinations of Satan’s voice continued to occur, through the intercom system in her cell, similar to her past hallucinations of being spoken to through television cartoons and movies. She was convinced that Satan was within her, and that “she could prove it by shaving her head to reveal the numbers 666 and the mark of the beast” (Ayres, 2006, p.339). Yates’ insanity defense was supported by the nationally known Dr. Phillip Resnick who testified that she was severely mentally ill, psychotic, and was unaware of the incorrectness of her actions; however, the state’s expert witness, Dr. Park Dietz, opposed the insanity defense. He testified that had Yates been the loving mother who had wanted only her children’s good, she would have offered them words of comfort that they would be with Jesus or God. Although Yates’ mental state was testified by experts, no video tapes were available of interviews that took place during the first weeks after her arrest. “The jury deliberated for three-and-a-half hours before deciding that Yates was guilty of capital murders” (Ayres, 2006, p.340). Deciding that Yates would not be a future threat to society, the jury recommended a life sentence after deliberating for thirty-five minutes, following the punishment phase of trial. The Psychological Basis for the Defendant’s Competence to Stand Trial “The Andrea Yates case highlights the importance of evaluating a defendant’s competence to stand trial” (Greene & Heilbrun, 2010: 196). Whether Yates understood the nature of the charges and the possible consequences of those charges is a highly significant factor. An interview with Yates’ mother revealed that when Andrea Yates was in prison for the murder of her children, she had asked her mother who would be taking care of her children. Further, whether Yates was taking her antipsychotic medicines at the time of the murders, as well as during the trial were questions raised in examining her case. The accepted national standard for competence to stand trial is an adequate present ability to consult with one’s attorney, with a reasonable extent of rational understanding, as well as a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings being undertaken against the individual. Thus, competence to stand trial refers to a defendant’s capability to function meaningfully with complete understanding of the legal proceeding. Judges can determine defendants to be incompetent if they perceive serious deficiency in the latter, relating to “understanding the legal proceedings, communicating with their attorneys, appreciating their role in the proceedings, and making legally relevant decisions. In the criminal justice system, the most frequently assessed issue is the defendant’s competence to stand trial. The fundamental reason for determining the defendant’s competence is that “criminal proceedings should not continue against someone who cannot understand their nature and purpose, and assist in defending against prosecution on these charges” (Greene & Heilbrun, 2010, p.196). This rule is applied at every stage of the criminal justice process, but it is emphasized mostly during pretrial hearings related to two topics. These are: pleading guilty and accepting a plea bargain, or pleading not guilty and proceeding to trial. At Yates’ trial, her defense was one of post-partum depression, with experts testifying on both sides. In 2002, when Andrea Yates’ trial drew to a close, she was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison, with a possibility for parole only after forty years. However, after she had served three years of her sentence, the court declared a wrong trial, and her conviction was withdrawn. Thus, in a retrial, in July 2006, Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) and is now hospitalized in the Texas state forensic hospital system. “Post-partum depression has a valid scientific basis as a distinct clinical entity, and has been proven to severely affect women’s mental health, including their ability to perceive their environments accurately” (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2008, p.177). However, the jury’s acceptance of this reason as a defense for women who have killed their children, is not evident. According to Manchester (2003), the American courts are inconsistent in responding to infanticides, and some have suggested statutory reform similar to those statutes adopted in other countries. Courts in the United States continue to evaluate postpartum depression defenses and other mental illnesses under the current insanity defense. The commonly used insanity defense test applied across the United States jurisdictions is considerably narrow, and renders the proving of legal insanity extremely difficult for even the most severaly psychotic women affected by postpartum depression. “Therefore the Yates case is most significant because it demonstrates the pressing need for insanity defense reform to address the realities of postpartum psychosis and other mental illnesses” (Manchester, 2003, p.714). The prosecution did not adequately investigate or acknowledge Yates’ postpartum risk factors, particularly with regard to the extent of neuroendocrine alterations and psychosocial adjustments. The risk factors for postpartum disorders encompass a broad range of psychological, social and biological influences. These factors include “an individual’s personal and family history of depression, biochemical imbalances, recent stressful events, marital conflict, and perceived lack of support from the partner, family, or friends” (Denno, 2003, p.26). Yates experienced all the postpartum risk factors, and also several family and environmental life stressors associated with postpartum depression and postpartum psychosis. Further, Yates had a family history of mental illness. Her brother and sister were undergoing treatment for depression, another brother was bipolar, and her father had also suffered from depression. Thus, Yates’ “family history of mental disorder, particularly bipolar disorder, along with Andrea’s pre- and post-pregnancy experiences with depression” (Denno, 2003, p.29) were factors that would increase the possibility of postpartum psychotic features. Conclusion This paper has highlighted Andrea Yates’ criminal case on the basis of the psychological theory of crime. Yates’ psychological delusions, her hearing the voice of Satan, and the psychological basis for the defendant to stand trial were examined. It was found that despite severe mental psychosis, Andrea Yates consistently expressed the desire to plead guilty and was reluctant to use an insanity plea in her own defense. Insanity and competence to stand trial are two major issues in the criminal justice system. Greene & Heilbrun (2010) reiterate that whether a criminal defendant was insane during committing a criminal offence is one of the most controversial questions that forensic psychiatrists and psychologists assist the court to decide. Yates’ mental condition is reflected in the highly complex and conflicting aspects of her case, where contradictory maternal feelings compelled her killing all her children. Therefore, Freud’s psychoanalytic theory of criminal behavior is found to underscore the Yates’ killings, her strong ego creating such feelings of guilt that it led her to commit the crimes in order to be punished. ---------------------------------------- References Adler, F., Mueller, G.O.W. & Laufer, W.S. (2003). Criminology. Edition 5. New Jersey: McGraw-Hill. Ayres, S. (2006). Newfound religion: Mothers, God, and infanticide. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 33(2): pp.335-354. Delph, J.B. (2007). Andrea Pia Yates: The biopsychosocial model. Abnormal Psychology. University of Texas at Arlington. Denno, D.W. (2003). Who is Andrea Yates? A short story about insanity. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 10(1): pp.1-60. Forlizzi, K.P. (2006). The mommy myth: Perfect mother or maternal monster: Press coverage of Women who kill their children. A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Department of Communication, Boston College. Retrieved on 21st June, 2011 from: http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/communication/pdf/thesis07.forlizzi.pdf Fulero, S.M. & Wrightsman, L.S. (2008). Forensic psychology. Edition 3. The United States of America: Cengage Learning. Gaines, L.K. & Miller, R.L. (2006). Criminal justice in action. New York: Cengage Learning. Greene, E. & Heilbrun, K. (2010). Wrightman’s psychology and the legal system. New York: Cengage Learning. Manchester, J. (2003). Beyond accommodation: Reconstructing the insanity defense to provide an adequate remedy for postpartum psychotic women. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 93(2-3): pp.713-735. West, D.A. & Lichtenstein, B. (2006). Andrea Bates and the criminalization of the filicidal maternal body. Feminist Criminology, 1: pp.173-187. Read More