As seen here, and around the world
A jury in Houston, Texas has found Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity.
This is her second trial. The 42-year old woman was convicted in 2002 of drowning her kids in the bathtub at her surburban Houston Home. The verdict was overturned on appeal last year after it was found that a pathologist provided false testimony in her first trial.
Yates will be placed in a mental health facility, possibly for the rest of her life.
Jurors reached a verdict after three days of deliberations. Wednesday morning, they reviewed the state’s definition of insanity and then asked to see a family photo and candid pictures of the five smiling youngsters.
After about an hour of deliberations, they said they had reached a verdict.
There are many controversial elements to the matter of the insanity plea. I do not like the pervasive influece of psychiatry in the court room. A discusssion of the ethical concerns can be seen here (PDF)
I would likely be more happy with a system where the fact of "Did they do the crime?" is determinely separately from "Are they responsible?" and other extenuating circumstances. In other words, you could have a verdict where a person is found both guilty and crazy.
Queen Victoria was incensed that caught assassins were found ''not guilty.'' She prevailed on the English Parliament to pass a statute, in effect until 1964, that read ''guilty but insane.''
I would also have a separate factor for determining if a person is a continuing threat to society, to cover situations such as child molesters, and other repeat offenders. It is hard to say that Yates will continue to be a threat to society, although there are many factors involved.
See also this article for a discussion of the flaws in the Insanity defense, entitled Yates case exposes holes in insanity-plea laws. As it notes:
Experts on mental illness say that regardless of her trial's outcome, Andrea Pia Yates will be imprisoned in a personal hell for the rest of her life.
No comments:
Post a Comment