The Insanity Plea

[DavidOdden]

While it is true that a bear which killed a child may not be "guilty" in a legal sense, park rangers or whoever may legally kill the bear in order to protect other people from it. How is this any different from a person who is lacking cognitively?

The difference is that man has rights which are recognized under the law whereas bears do not. The law prescribes particular conditions under which a person can be executed, whereas there are no such legal protections for bears. I presume you understand why man has rights and bears don't.

I have always subscribed to the notion that anyone who actively injures someone else, without prior action from that person to injure them, means that the person is insane, and because of this they should either be put somewhere where they will not be a danger to anyone except themselves or executed.

That is clearly wrong: most people who deliberately injure others are evil, not insane. You can't say that the fact of injuring a person is proof of insanity, since man is volitional. In addition, the term "insane" is too broad, in this context, since ordinary insanity isn't a defense against a murder charge.

In regards to the Yates case, I believe that she "owns" her children in a very real sense

How in the world can you beileve that? Do you also approve of slavery? One man cannot own another.

[Shinokamen]

I mean that when a man infringes upon the rights of others, the gov't may impose penalties that curtail his rights, correct? A man who has had his rights thus curtailed may not have much more than the bear.

You're right, insanity is too broad in that sense, but would you say that a man who attempts to rationalize an amoral act is acting in his right mind? People seem to be using the insanity plea a whole lot lately.

One man can not own another man, not as property, but wouldn't you agree that parents have a certain amount responsibility for and to their children? This is not so much different from owning a pet. If your pet injures someone, you are responsible; if your child injures someone, there is a good chance that the parent will also be responsible. This is because it is the parent's resposibility to teach a child right from wrong. A pet will not learn to distinguish right from wrong, but can be trained not to attack people. Your responsibility in owning a pet is to teach it not to attack people.

A woman can get an abortion because the fetus is "hers," correct? Although children have far more rights than fetuses, and the act of killing them is not justified in this, if her husband does not think that the killing of his children was wrong, then I don't see who is mad about the case. As I said before, as long as my children, or any other children that I care about are not in danger, I don't care if he doesn't. As I said, I believe that the children were half his.

[DavidOdden]

A man who has had his rights thus curtailed may not have much more than the bear.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "not much more". The ultimate curtailment of rights is to be executed, and yet once you are executed you still retain your remaining property rights. Besides, in order to get to that stage of curtailment, there is a rigorous process to be followed, and that curtailment is only open in the most marginal of circumstances.

You're right, insanity is too broad in that sense, but would you say that a man who attempts to rationalize an amoral act is acting in his right mind?

Note that an immoral act is one that is "decidedly wrong", whereas an amoral act would be one performed when ordinary mores are inapplicability -- e.g. the liferaft scenario. I don't know what the difference between "insane" and "in your right mind" is -- I suppose insanity is more severe and long-lasting. What I think we can clearly say is that such a person is immoral, and there could be a major element of evasion facilitating his immorality. Consideration should be given to someone who has an organically defective brain, but only to the extent that the disease overrides his rational faculty.

One man can not own another man, not as property, but wouldn't you agree that parents have a certain amount responsibility for and to their children?

Sure, but that's not a matter of ownership. There are a few similarities between children and pets (cuteness, housebreaking problems, and no cpacity to care for themselves), but more differences than similarities (you can have a sick dog put down to save the annoyance, pain and cost of medical treatment), but you can't do that with children. Stray dogs are often killed after a week (I myself escaped by just one day) but abandoned children are never euthanised.

A woman can get an abortion because the fetus is "hers," correct?

No, it's because it's her body and therefore she has the right to do what she wants with it, including fetal-removal. The property status of fetuses doesn't enter into it. (It could in principle, given surrogate motherhood, but that's a separate matter for a contract law thread).

if her husband does not think that the killing of his children was wrong, then I don't see who is mad about the case.

Anyhow, the children were humans, not fetuses: they had rights. The husband's wishes aren't particularly relevant, beyond the usual "interest of relatives" interest, which is considered in dispensing justice in murder cases. But none of that has anything to do with children being property. The law is supposed to protect everybody, not just "unowned people". Most emphatically, no parent, child or spouse should have the right to negate the fact of there having been a crime committed. There is no right to say "I don't care about my children, you may find this person innocent of murder". I'm frankly not to down with the idea of relatives getting a say at all, but that's a separate thread ("Victim Impact Statements").

[Dismuke]

First of all the fact that such impairments "can and do exist" is something I have difficulty buying.

Why do you have difficulty "buying it"? Because it might mean that someone might use that fact to subsequently "excuse" a person you think is guilty of murder? If so, that's rationalism. The reason I ask is because you are saying that you have difficulty buying into the existence of a phenomenon which is not especially uncommon. Visit any institution for the severely mentally impaired and you will see LOTS of people in such a condition.

And, strictly speaking, one does not even have to have a mental defect to have such an impairment (lack of volitional control over one's actions) from a moral and legal perspective. Children under a certain age are also presumed to be not capable of being responsible for their actions - and, for that reason, the law treats them very differently.

Children are not allowed to enter into contracts and they do not have the full liberty over their actions that an adult has. If a five year old becomes ticked off at his baby brother and, somehow gets hold of his father's gun and shoots his brother - well, the kid is not going to be tried for murder. At that age it is presumed that his mind is not developed to such a point where he is able to fully grasp cause and effect as it relates to his actions and is not developed enough that it is able fully and consistently exert the mental self control which is necessary to subordinate his various emotional whims to his rational judgment.

However for the sake of argument let’s assume I agree with you. If such a person lacks that ability they would seem sub human; a creature to be treated as the "wild" animal it is. Let it go about its daily life as it wishes but don't think twice to put such a beast down when it has demonstrated that it is a killer (of humans).

Actually, the specific error you make here was covered in one of Dr. Peikoff's lecture courses - I am having difficulty remembering which one. Your error here is basically that of equating a concept with its definition. In reality, a concept includes ALL characteristics of its referent. A definition merely refers to the essential characteristics which epistemologically differentiate the referents of the concept from all other existents.

In this case here, while it is true that the definition of man is "rational animal" - it does NOT follow that a person who has a non-fuctioning rational capacity is somehow no longer a human being. A person who is a vegtable is a human being - he is a human being with an impared rational faculty. The same is true with a person who is severely retarted. And the same is true with someone who is insane. And, because they are human beings, they have rights - though, like children, they may not be in a position to be aware of or exercise their rights. While one might be able to draw certain valid similarities in certain instances between the mental state of such people and animals - they are NOT mere animals and should not be treated as such.

The fact that a person has an impared rational faculty is an example of a context that both the legal system and a moral philosopher must take congnizance of. They must do so because that context is a fact of reality.

In the case of children, the condition is temporary and it becomes the role of a child's parents or guardian to safeguard the child's rights and act on his behalf - which is how the legal system addresses that particular context. In the case of an adult who is retarded beyond a certain point, a guardian may very well be necessary as well - and that is another example of the legal system addressing a particular context. And, from a moral perspective, an adjustment in context is also necessary. Under normal circumstances, people would tend to morally frown upon a 30 year old being totally supported by his parents without making some sort of materially productive contribution to the household or going to school so he can become productive in the future. But if that 30 year old is profoundly retarded to the degree he is not able to hold a job - well, people properly take that context into consideration and it is NOT a moral blemish on the retarded person.

People such as those you describe need to be institutionalized - not just left to roam and fend for themselves as was the case when the Leftists opened up the assylums on grounds that they were "cruel." This is particularly true if a person is so impared that he becomes a danger to himself or especially others.

One doesn’t need to be a psychologist or legal scholar to determine if insanity is a valid plea or not, in a moral sense (which is what I’m interested in).

Well, first of all, it is not the proper function of a court of law to determine matters of morality. There are a great many actions which are profoundly immoral that a court has no business dealing with. Courts deal with matters of LAW - so, yes, you DO need to be knowledgeable about legal matters if you are discussing a court case.

That having been said - one does not need to be a psychologist or a legal scholar to determine the moral implications of insanity. That is a philosophical issue - and not a very difficult one at that. Morality presupposes volition. If a person lacks volitional control - well his subsequent actions are neither moral nor immoral in the exact same way that a dog's behavior is neither moral or immoral.

Again, a court of law does NOT decide matters of morality. What a court of law must determine in such a situation is whether an action is CRIMINAL.

If I get ticked off at something you post in this Forum and decide to silence you by killing you - well, that would be an example of murder.

If I accidentally stumble while carrying a long stick and, during my fall, stab you to death with the stick - well, you will be just as dead. But my action was an accident - and so long as I was not engaging in negligent behavior which resulted in my stumble, I would not be guilty of anything either criminally or morally.

If I get high on drugs to such a degree that I end up having reduced control over my mental and physical faculties and end up killing you as a result of an accident - well, I will probably not be convicted on the same charge of murder as if I killed you in cold blood. But I would likely be convicted of some sort of homicide due to the fact that I made the decision to take the drugs. If, as a result of the drugs, I had zero control over my mental faculties and strangled you to death without ever being consciously aware that I was doing so - well, the court would probably recognize that I was temporarily in a state similar to insanity but still convict me on grounds that I choose to take the drugs.

The point, once again, is that context is everything - and this is particular true in court cases because the role of the court is to determine the application of the relevent legal principles to the VERY SPECIFIC and frequently highly UNIQUE context at hand.

While you claim you are not a psychologist or a legal scholar and consequently can’t form an opinion on the matter it seems as though you do have an opinion. You certainly seem to accept, without question, that a person’s volition can be 100% impaired, from time to time and for some reason, and therefore they are not morally responsible for their actions.

One does not need to be a psychologist or legal scholar to make judgements with regard to issues of morality. Nor does one have any more need to be a scholar in psychology to have the knowledge necessary to recognize that the existence of insanity in human beings is a fact of reality than one needs to be a scholar in astronomy or physics to know that the world is round. To deny that some people in this world are insane is approximately on the same level as a person who still claims that the earth is flat.

Now, exactly how one determines whether or not a person is insane - well, that requires specialized knowledge. And how one uses that knowledge to make the judgment as to whether or not any particular individual is insane or is perhaps faking it - that, too, requires specialized knowledge. And how one goes about proving that such a person is insane in the context of a pending case in a court of law (as opposed to a diagnosis merely for the purpose of treatment) - that requires specialized knowledge of both psychology and law. And, once proved, to what degree a court of law should take insanity into consideration and what the legal ramifications of it also requires specialized knowledge.

People who lack such specialized knowledge and go around spouting off opinions in those areas run the risk of making asses of themselves - and if they do so allegedly in the name of Objectivism, they end up giving the philosophy an undeserved bad reputation. There is nothing wrong with someone who lacks specialized knowledge from attempting to understand a specialized issue and forming opinions on it based on what limited amount of knowledge he has on the subject - but ONLY so long as he acknowledges to both himself and to anyone he might be involved in discussions with that he is NOT an expert in that field and that he fully recognizes that there exists a strong potential that there are a great many highly relevant facts that he is simply not aware of and, thus, has not taken into consideration when forming his opinions. If he does not and he enters into discussions with people who DO have that specialized knowledge as though he is some sort of great authority on the subject - well, regardless of whatever merit his strictly philosophical points may have, the reasonable conclusion that those people will draw is that he is a highly pretentious know-it-all.

That is why it is very important to draw and keep firmly in mind the line between one's philosophical knowledge and the particular specialized knowledge which is necessary in order to properly apply it in various circumstances and fields of study.

I suppose those people are lucky. While you would condemn “normal” individuals for their acts you would give a blank check to a “crazy” person. She killed 5 kids but that’s ok, she’s crazy it’s not her fault. I assume you would call that justice.

Assuming that Yates was indeed insane (I have no opinion whether she was or wasn't), then yes, she would need to be treated differently than a normal individual because she was NOT a normal individual. As to whether or not it is her "fault" - well the concept "fault" presupposes a volitional consciousness. IF she indeed lacked such a volitional consciousness at the time of the killings, then the concept of "fault" would not be applicable in this instance. What is NOT in doubt is that Yates' actions CAUSED the children to die. But the mere fact that one's actions cause another person to die does not, in and of itself, make the person guilty of murder or some other crime. Whether or not it is murder (as opposed to an accident or negligence or legally sanctioned assisted suicide, etc) depends entirely on the specific context involved. Insanity is a phenomenon that is a fact of reality, and, if an insane person kills another, that is part of the overall context which a court must take into consideration.

What of people who grow up in an abusive household? What about a kid who is mercilessly teased and grows up to be a murderer? It would seem they should be protected as well. They had a tough life growing up you know. They didn't know any better. We must take pity on them it’s not their fault.

But the fact that we live in a popular culture which attempts to absolve people of responsibility and attempts to create legal "excuses" for people does not really change the fundamental issues involved. What you are talking about IS a problem - there is no doubt about that. But just because some people attempt to corrupt and abuse the insanity defense and to muddy the water on such matters does not mean that the insanity defense is, in and of itself, invalid. Lawyers today twist all sorts of valid legal concepts and procedures to their advantage in rather disgusting ways. If a lawyer makes a mockery of "reasonable doubt" and a jury buys into it - well the fault does not lie with the entirely proper and valid principle of reasonable doubt. The same is true with product liability - the vast majority of such cases these days, I suspect, are nothing more than legalized fraud and looting on the part of ambulance chasing trial lawyers. It is disgusting - and all of us pay for it big time in the form of higher prices and reduced services in the marketplace. But that abuse does not mean that there are not valid reasons why we have a system in place for product liability lawsuits and that all of them are inherently fraudulent or irrational.

One other thing to keep in mind - even in a fully rational legal system devoid of the fraud, corruption and epistemological chaos that is so epidemic today, there will always be certain court cases which decent people will be disgusted by in terms of creeps being allowed to go free. That is because the entire court system with regard to criminal matters is very heavily slanted with built in biases in favor of the accused - and the prosecution, i.e., the government, has a great many restrictions and burdens it must deal with when attempting to make its case. There is a valid reason for that. First, it is the premise that an innocent person being sentenced to prison or worse for a crime that he did not commit is so unthinkably horrible that it is even worse than the possibility that the person who committed the crime ends up walking free. Such a premise is necessary if one recognizes individual rights. Second, any criminal trial basically amounts to an individual person, usually of modest means, having to square off against an entire government with access to what amounts in this context to unlimited financial resources. Because a corrupt government is a far greater potential danger in terms of the abuse of individual rights than the very worst sort of individual criminal, it is necessary for safeguards against governmental abuse of power to be out in place.

[Penny]

I am working on a school project - The Validity of the Insanity Plea

I would like to get some opinions from the people regarding this controversial issue.

Is the insanity plea valid?

Is it misused?

Should it be used/considered during sentncing?

Do we need the insanity defense?

Would love to hear any opinions ranging from personal views to constitutional and criminal procedure.

[Ifat Glassman]

Such a thing as "insanity" does exist, and it can result from psychiatric disorders.

However, if someone does have such a disorder, I find it hard to believe it would abrupt just "all of a sudden" as the person is committing the crime.

However, since an average person does not always have enough knowledge to identify a disorder in themselves, I believe there is room in the courthouse for the insanity plea.

I can point out to one case of insanity. Quite a spooky story: about a man called Charles Whitman: until his 20's was normal and successful. At that time he started experiencing eruptions of rage, headaches and irrational thoughts.

It slowly deteriorated until eventually he killed his mother, his beloved wife, and sniped 13 more people...

It turned out he had a huge tumor in his brain pressing against his Amygdala, which is a region in the brain responsible for emotions.

Check out his suicide letter, quite amazing:

I don't quite understand what it is that compels me to type this letter. Perhaps it is to leave some vague reason for the actions I have recently performed. I don't really understand myself these days. I am supposed to be an average reasonable and intelligent young man. However, lately (I can't recall when it started) I have been a victim of many unusual and irrational thoughts. These thoughts constantly recur and it requires a tremendous mental effort to concentrate on useful and progressive tasks. In March when my parents made a physical break I noticed a great deal of stress. I consulted a Dr. Cochrum at the University Health Center and asked him to recommend someone that I could consult with about some psychiatric disorders I felt I had. I talked with a Doctor once for about two hours[1]and tried to convey to him my fears that I felt come overwhelming violent impulses. After one session I never saw the Doctor again, and since then I have been fighting my mental turmoil alone, and seemingly to no avail. After my death I wish that an autopsy would be performed on me to see if there is any visible physical disorder. I have had some tremendous headaches in the past and have consumed two large bottles of Excedrin in the past three months.

And another note: I'm sure there have been cases the insanity plea was misused. Can you provide us with a definition of "Insanity" from the perspective of the law? It would contribute a lot to the discussion.

Oh yeah, and welcom to the forum, sorry if I spooked you with the story .

Edited September 21, 2006 by ifatart

[Penny]

Thanks for the WARM welcome...lol What a great story and very interesting suicide letter. I have had some battling myself wondering the validity of the insanity plea. Until here recently I have often questioned the insanity plea - just simply thinking like a lot of people - if you are human how can you commit such henious acts. But I guess after reading the medical side of it I have to agree with you on there being room in the courtroom for it.

Here is the legal definition of insanity - as this is the definition that is used in the legal proceedings and not the medical definition.

Insanity - Any mental disorder severe enough that it prevents a person from having legal capacity and excuses the person from criminal or civil responsibility. Insanity is a legal, not a medical, standard.

Emotional Insanity - Insnaity produced by a violent excitement of the emotions or passions, although reasoning faculties may remain unimpaired; a person that for a period creates creates complete derangement of intellect. Emotional insanity is sometimes described as an irresistable impulse to do an act.

Insanity Defense - An affirmative defense that a mental disorder caused the accused to commit the crime. Unlike other defenses, a sucessful insanity defense results not in aquittal but instead in a special verdict ("not guilty by reason of insanity") that usu. leads to the defendants commitment to a mental institution

These definitions were cited from the Blacks Law Dictionary Seventh Edition.

I am definitely going to look up that case. It seems very interesting and may be very useful for my project.

Thanks for the feedback - may I ask what your profession is or what brings the law intrest to you? Also, where did you get the suicide letter. I may like to present that in my presentation but need to cite the source. Thanks for your help - OH, no spook here

Such a thing as "insanity" does exist, and it can result from psychiatric disorders.

However, if someone does have such a disorder, I find it hard to believe it would abrupt just "all of a sudden" as the person is committing the crime.

However, since an average person does not always have enough knowledge to identify a disorder in themselves, I believe there is room in the courthouse for the insanity plea.

I can point out to one case of insanity. Quite a spooky story: about a man called Charles Whitman: until his 20's was normal and successful. At that time he started experiencing eruptions of rage, headaches and irrational thoughts.

It slowly deteriorated until eventually he killed his mother, his beloved wife, and sniped 13 more people...

It turned out he had a huge tumor in his brain pressing against his Amygdala, which is a region in the brain responsible for emotions.

Check out his suicide letter, quite amazing:

And another note: I'm sure there have been cases the insanity plea was misused. Can you provide us with a definition of "Insanity" from the perspective of the law? It would contribute a lot to the discussion.

Oh yeah, and welcom to the forum, sorry if I spooked you with the story .

[DavidOdden]

There is actually a thread on the question here. The defense -- if proven -- is valid, but the real question regards the standards of proof for legal insanity. It should not be used during sentencing, for the following reason. Any person may allege innocence for reason of insanity, and if they prove their case, then they are not guilty which means that there is no sentencing. If their do not prove their allegation, then it would be improper to introduce an unproven allegation into the sentencing phase. I haven't studied examples of the insanity defense, but I think it is unlikely that jurors are scientifically qualified to evaluate the evidence objectively.

[Groovenstein]

As for your definition of the insanity defense, I recall from my bar review that there are four versions of the defense in use in the various United States jurisdictions:

1. M'Naghten Rule (most common) - At the time of his conduct, the defendant was unable to understand the wrongfulness of his actions or to understand the nature and quality of his actions;

2. irresistible impulse test - At the time of his conduct, the defendant did not have the capacity for self-control and free choice;

3. Durham rule - The conduct was the product of mental illness; and

4. Model Penal Code test - The defendant was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

If you plan to use these in your work, I strongly recommend that you confirm them yourself. If you want to know more about what they mean (for example, what the hell does it mean to say the defendant didn't have the capacity for self-control and free choice???), try finding some cases that discuss them.

[DavidOdden]

1. M'Naghten Rule (most common) - At the time of his conduct, the defendant was unable to understand the wrongfulness of his actions or to understand the nature and quality of his actions;

2. irresistible impulse test - At the time of his conduct, the defendant did not have the capacity for self-control and free choice;

3. Durham rule - The conduct was the product of mental illness; and

4. Model Penal Code test - The defendant was unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

It's interesting that there are these 4 ways of slicing the pie. The substantial capacity test (4) is, IMO, the best characterization, and the irresistible impulse test is the worst, since the latter drives the largest wedge between knowledge and action, seeing man as an occasionally wild and involuntary animal given to murderous outbursts that can't be helped. Insidiously, the Durham rule is good and bad -- it's good because it puts emphasis on the fact that it is only quite exceptionally that man does not grasp the profound graveness certain wrong acts (you'd have to be nuts to think that murder is okay), but it's bad because it opened the door for expert-testimony snow jobs.

Also, 18 USC 17 is a good statutory approach to the matter.

[Groovenstein]

Also, 18 USC 17 is a good statutory approach to the matter.

That appears to be the M'Naghten Rule, with a requirement that the conduct be the result of a "severe" mental disease. (I don't know if the M'Naghten Rule has a severity requirement. That was not part of the bar review.) So you like M'Naghten then, even though you don't think it's the best?

The federal statute also requires clear and convincing evidence. Not everywhere does. Alaska, for example, requires only a preponderance, i.e. more likely than not. (Link. Go down to 1.42E.) I don't know which is more common, but I'd guess it would be clear and convincing. (The "tough on crime" swan song being what it is.)

[Penny]

Thanks so much for everone's insight. Is has been very helpful and has provided some new insights for myself. Does anyone know if there is a medial definition exsits on insanity and where i could fine it?

That appears to be the M'Naghten Rule, with a requirement that the conduct be the result of a "severe" mental disease. (I don't know if the M'Naghten Rule has a severity requirement. That was not part of the bar review.) So you like M'Naghten then, even though you don't think it's the best?

The federal statute also requires clear and convincing evidence. Not everywhere does. Alaska, for example, requires only a preponderance, i.e. more likely than not. (Link. Go down to 1.42E.) I don't know which is more common, but I'd guess it would be clear and convincing. (The "tough on crime" swan song being what it is.)

[W.J. Wilczek]

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

[Ifat Glassman]

Here is the legal definition of insanity - as this is the definition that is used in the legal proceedings and not the medical definition.

Insanity - Any mental disorder severe enough that it prevents a person from having legal capacity and excuses the person from criminal or civil responsibility. Insanity is a legal, not a medical, standard.

Emotional Insanity - Insanity produced by a violent excitement of the emotions or passions, although reasoning faculties may remain unimpaired; a person that for a period creates creates complete derangement of intellect. Emotional insanity is sometimes described as an irresistable impulse to do an act.

Insanity Defense - An affirmative defense that a mental disorder caused the accused to commit the crime. Unlike other defenses, a sucessful insanity defense results not in aquittal but instead in a special verdict ("not guilty by reason of insanity") that usu. leads to the defendants commitment to a mental institution

These definitions were cited from the Blacks Law Dictionary Seventh Edition.

I must say that I find these definitions revolting. I especially dislike the "emotional insanity": it allows every man with no self control, who allows himself to act like an animal to get away with it. "Irresistible impulse to do an act"... just disgusting, when you think of the things that can be justified using this law.

may I ask what your profession is or what brings the law interest to you? Also, where did you get the suicide letter. I may like to present that in my presentation but need to cite the source. Thanks for your help - OH, no spook here

A little late, but here is my response: I am a student of biomedical engineering. The law is not of great interest to me, but I asked for the definition of insanity out of curiosity and also because I figured it would help the discussion and improve it's quality.

I got word of this case (of Charles Whitman) in a lesson dealing with emotions in the brain in a course in neurophysiology. You can find his suicide letter in the wikipedia link.

[mdegges]

I'm writing a paper on this case for my criminal justice class.. so disturbing. Yates was found guilty in the first trial, but she was given a second trial because one of the prosecution's witnesses mentioned that the case was strangely similar to an episode of Law & Order (where a mother drowned her kid in a bathtub and pretended to be mentally ill to escape murder charges). It had become known that Yates frequently watched Law & Order, so jurors may have thought she got the idea to fake a mental illness from the show.. unfortunately, that episode did not actually exist, and Yates was given a second trial due to the potential biases that witness' testimony might have caused. It was in the second trial that she was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

 

One of the most suprising things I've read about the Yates trial is this: "To the surpise of many, the grieving husband refused to condemn his wife. "I don't blame her a bit" he said, "If she recieved the medical treatment she deserved, then the kids would be alive and well. And Andrea would be well on her way to recovery."

 

Sounds fishy to me. Right after Yates killed her kids, she called her husband and said, "It's time. I finally did it" and hung up. Time for what? Did what?? Did the husband know what his wife was talking about? Had she talked about murdering their children before? Did he agree to it?

 

It's also fishy that the husband says his wife deserved medical treatment, and if she got it, everything would be okay.. like it's the state's fault his wife murdered their children, because the state didn't provide her with free medical care based on her need.

 

Seems like BS on all counts.

Edited March 28, 2013 by mdegges

[mdegges]

Is this really the case? I'm not familiar with the details of the case, or the workings of insane asylums (is that term non-pc nowadays?), but I thought that the residents were periodically reviewed and released when “cured.”

 

I always assumed (probably due to watching too much L&O ) that the insanity defense was used all the time to get people off with a lighter sentence. It's actually only used in <1% of felony cases, and only succeeds about 25% of the time. When it does succeed, the majority of the time the prosecution and defense agree it's appropriate before the trial even begins. Also, on average, individuals who are considered legally insane end up spending an equal or greater amount of time in psychiatric hospitals than they would in prison. -Source