Andrea Yates Sane Or Insane

Do you think it is right for a person to murder someone and say that they did it because they are mentally ill? It is wrong for a person to get out of their punishment for their action by using the insanity plea. If someone commits a crime and has no previous record of being insane, how could they become mentally ill? The only reason people use the insanity plea is to get off the hook for committing a crime. The insanity defense plea is probably one of the most controversial of all the criminal defense strategies, and at the same time is one of the most used. In many cases, when it has been used, it has tended to cause public debate. Opinion polls indicate that 90 percent of the public believes the insanity defense is overused and a ticket to freedom (Maier, 1998). The insanity defense plea is split into two types; one being not guilty by mental disease or defect and not competent to stand trial (“Criminal Defenses”).  The insanity defense plea should not be used in a capital murder case, unless a previously diagnosed mental illness is recorded.

The insanity defense has been quite a controversial subject. It has been used by some of the most baleful criminals in history. Its controversy derives from the belief that people who plead insanity are excused from the fault of their crimes. Surprisingly however, this defense is rarely used because of how hard it is to prove legal insanity. Less than one percent of criminals choose to plead insanity and of those who choose to plead insanity the success is quite low at 25 percent.( Rolf. p. 2) This defense has been around for centuries. It can be dated back to the 14th century. Kings were willing to pardon crimes to those who were deemed “mad”. By the 18th century the “ wild beast” test was developed by some English courts. However, the

I do not believe that all individuals accused of a crime should be able to use an insanity defense because it would morally unjust. Some people who commit a crime do know what is happening and that is was wrong at the time of the cime. If the defense chooses to belive the criminal is insane then they should be given the substantial- capacity test to ensure that they did

2. This criticism is on the moral basis and the consequences. This section suggests that the crime is of more importance, then the moral imperatives. It also addresses the way a criminal, who does plea insanity, should be trialed and punished for the crime. It is suggested, that the criminal should be convicted and the mental illness should be taken in consideration at the time of sentencing. If this method would be used by the court, it would allow the judge to determine the length of imprisonment, within a hospital prison, and the defendant would have to provide prove of improvement to the once dangerous behavior. Retrieved from; West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008).

The insanity defense has become popularized by criminal television shows, but it is not used as portrayed. According to Dr. Zachary Torry, a psychiatrist, the defense is actually used in one percent of cases and not even one-fourth of those cases will succeed in front of a jury (Torry). Furthermore, the legal definition of insanity is very different than the societal definition. As stated by George Blau, a criminal defense lawyer, “insane” does not describe someone who is psychotic or crazy, but it instead describes someone who does not know the difference between right or wrong. They are found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) because one of the three traits of a crime is not evident. The three traits are a guilty mind (mens rea), a prohibited act, and a pre-established sentence (Blau). For the insane, there is no mens rea because someone cannot feel guilty for an act that they do not know is wrong. Therefore, those found NGRI have a different punishment than those convicted of a crime. Their sentence is often time at a mental institution where treatment is available, but the sentences can be irregular and unchecked by government associations. Therefore, the insanity defense may need to be amended, by requiring monitoring of the cases and adopting the mens rea approach or to be completely abolished because of its potential improper use and a lack of proof.

The stories about Andrea being insane and having a psychological disorder do not prove to be true. According to Dr. Puryear, “Mrs. Yates was insane at the time driven by delusions that they were going to hell and she must save them.” If her doctor was aware of her status before all this happened, why did he let her be at home? Yates should have been helped and treated, since Dr. Puryear claims she had suffered from psychotic delusions. Dr. Puryear said “This woman did not now right from wrong,” as he stated to Court Television Network, on February 2,2002. It is somewhat strange how Mr. Yates claims he had no suspicions of her being unhealthful in the mind. What kind of married couple will not be able to detect this in their partner? Some of the jurors believed Andrea was mentally ill, but they also believed that she knew right from wrong. This is a key element in determining if the Andrea meets the legal definition of insanity.

Andrea Yates was a mother of five who lived in a Houston suburb. Andrea suffered from serve postpartum depression and psychosis which unfortunately lead her to drown all five of children in a bath tub one afternoon. Andrea was charged with capital murder and was given life in prison with the possibility of parole after 40 years. However, she filed an appeal, and her original sentence was overturned, and she was found in innocent in 2006 on reason of insanity. I’m going to explain her upbringing and her mental health influenced her to murdering her children.

Many people with schizophrenia never learn how to deal with their problems and in the case of Andrea Yates that was one of her problems. Early treatment and therapy could have prevented a tragedy like this one. Denial from her family also plays an important factor in this case. Andrea should have been institutionalized and forced to treatment, way long before she deteriorated in such manner. Her husband was in denial and probably her immediate family too. They are to blame as much as her for this tragedy. A big question will remain forever unanswered. Did Andrea Yates know she was doing something wrong when she drowned her children? Only God and her really know the answer. Personally I believe she knew she was doing something wrong. She just didn’t know how to deal with it. Having schizophrenia or a psychotic sickness does not exempt anyone from doing bad things. I guess living for the rest of your life knowing you killed all of your children is punishment enough. All we can learn from this case is that the main goal is help the person with schizophrenia learn to sort out the real from the unreal and hopefully with the advances in today’s science there will be better treatment in the future.

However, following a court-ordered psychological evaluation, Judge Robert Rinfret found her to be not guilty by reason of insanity. In so doing, Rinfret ordered a new evaluation as means to determine how to dispose of her criminal case.

The criminal justice system is a system of law enforcement that is involved in prosecuting, sentencing, and punishing those who have committed a criminal offence. When every member of society is aware of their individual rights and the laws enforced, the criminal justice system is very effective, but when a contributor to society is mentally insane and commits a criminal offence everything changes. In Frontline’s A Crime of Insanity, a twenty-six year old psychology student, Ralph Tortoricci, walked across the Albany campus of the State University of New York with a hunting knife and a Remington .270 rifle. He took a class hostage and later wounded a nineteen year old sophomore. Ralph obviously committed a crime but the problem is: was he

In murder cases, most defendants prefer to seek the other defence such as diminished responsibility and non-insane automatism due to stigma attached.

My insanity case is People v. Wilbur, 226 Ill. App. 3d 733 (3rd Dist. 1992). In this case, the defendant was a 14-year-old being charged as an adult for a murder that happened in 1988. It was said that child showed that he didn’t regret what he had done. The child admitted to the crime. The defendant’s expert witness said that the child suffered from schizophrenia and that he has heard “voices” in his head. The jury came to the verdict of guilty but mentally ill. The 14-year-old was sentenced to 60 years in prison. The trial court case was appealed is now in the hands of the Appellate Court of Illinois. Two expert witnesses disagreed on the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the murder. One saying that he was able to conform his acts to the law. The other saying, he was not. (pg. 736). The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

In 2010, a California mother named Jennifer Bigham drowned her 3 year old daughter, Alexandrea Bigham, in a bathtub. After extensive evaluation and testing, it was determined that Bigham was not guilty by reason of insanity, thus allowing her to enter an institution for both treatment and counseling. In 2013, after three years of institutionalization, Jennifer Bigham was released to reenter society as a free woman. As deemed by multiple professionals and doctors Phil Trompetter and Jocelyn Roland, she was no longer a threat to herself or society, and would be able to reclaim the life that she had so viciously lost during her psychotic break three years prior. Her utilization of the insanity plea, which argues that a defendant is not responsible

The insanity defense has been affirmed as “a defense asserted by an accused in a criminal prosecution to avoid liability for the commission of a crime because, at the time of the crime, the person did not appreciate the nature or quality or wrongfulness of the acts” (Insanity). In terms of economic and futuristic principles the plea is viewed with hesitation. The concern comes from the belief that criminals will act insane up to their trial date to convince the jury they are insane (Starr), and it’s cost because sending all those deemed mentally not guilty by reason of insanity to the proper institutions.

Ms. Orndorff was examined by two mental health experts before trial and was found that she had a propensity of dissociating emotions and actions from conscious awareness. However, she did not suffer from any mental disorder supporting an insanity defence. Ms. Orndorff introduced a testimony in attempt to establish that she had amnesia after shooting, but she did not purse an insanity defence. Hence, the jury found her guilty of both charges. Even though she presented an evidence of the DID diagnosed after the conclusion of the guilt phase of the original trial, the trial court ruled that even if the jury found that Ms. Orndorff had DID, its presence would not permit the jury to acquit her, because no evidence established that her mental disorder