The Insanity Plea

Questions about Objectivism
1

In light of Andrea Yates judged to be not-guilty for the murder of her 5 children, I was thinking about the insanity plea that got her off. Is there any justice in such a plea, ever? Say someone blows up a small village, or part of the moon, or some other more catastrophic act than murdering your own children, nobody would excuse the person, just because of insanity. Why is someone not at fault for being insane? It’s certainly not the fault of anyone else. Does the justice system consider insanity outside the realm of human control, like a volcano? I don’t get it.

Can someone explain to me the moral validation or lack thereof of being excused for a crime due to fleeting or otherwise “insanity”?

2

I’ll let other people handle the moral question, but I’d just like to mention that Andrea Yates will still be incarcerated for the rest of her life. It will just be in a padded room, rather than behind bars.

3

I’ll let other people handle the moral question, but I’d just like to mention that Andrea Yates will still be incarcerated for the rest of her life. It will just be in a padded room, rather than behind bars.

Why should she even have that? No one is disputing the validity of her crime.

4

It’s certainly not the fault of anyone else. Does the justice system consider insanity outside the realm of human control, like a volcano? I don’t get it.

Yes.

I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist so I don’t have a very valid opinion on the technical aspects of insanity. However, when someone is prone to even temporary fits of not just being unwilling, but actually unable to control his or her actions, it’s not fair to the other prisoners to put this person in the same facility where they will be able to mingle.

Not-guilty by reason of insanity is not a free pass or get-out-of-jail card; a prisoner still has a modicum of rights and can expect to have them respected. A crazy person is a thing that can never expect to exercise judgement on its own behalf for the length of its continuation is existence.

Rightfully, it should be worse to face permanent incarceration in a looney bin, not better.

5

Can someone explain to me the moral validation or lack thereof of being excused for a crime due to fleeting or otherwise “insanity”?

This has to do with what is known as scienter. For example, being in possession of someone else’s property without permission is not what constitutes theft: you have to knowingly take with the intent to convert. That’s why accidentally walking off with someone’s pencil is not stealing the pencil. Ordinarily (following Ockham – “Nec potest per ignorantiam excusari”) it is assumed that people know what acts are right and wrong either because they are proper moral people (the common law approach) or because they have done their citizen’s duty and have read the law (the statutory approach), and therefore the only question would be whether you know the “basic facts” of the act, e.g. who actually owned the pencil. A legally insane person cannot even distinguish right acts and wrong acts, so they cannot satisfy the scienter requirement for conviction.

Remember that law is a species of moral evaluation – it’s the judgment that a certain kind of act is so immoral as to deserve the use of force to correct. All moral evaluation pertains to free choices (note btw that if you are coerced into committing a crime, you also will not be punished), asserting that a particular choice is good or bad. An insane person simply either does not make choices at all, or cannot tell whether choices are good or bad, so they cannot be morally condemned (assuming a rational morality).

The main issue, IMOO, is not the validity of the insanity defense, but the requirements of proof of insanity. Based on what I recall about the case, I concluded that when Lorena Bobbitt was acquitted for snipping off her hubbie’s Johnson on grounds of insanity, the jury was really saying “he had it coming”. In the Yates case, it does seem to me that she’s unhinged, although that’s an amateur judgment on my part.

6

Michael Hurd has an interesting take on this:

http://drhurd.com/index.php?subaction=show…amp;ucat=1&

7

A legally insane person cannot even distinguish right acts and wrong acts, so they cannot satisfy the scienter requirement for conviction.

[…]

An insane person simply either does not make choices at all, or cannot tell whether choices are good or bad, so they cannot be morally condemned (assuming a rational morality).

[…]

The main issue, IMOO, is not the validity of the insanity defense, but the requirements of proof of insanity.

Ok, I agree with you that a person who cannot distinguish right from wrong by definition cannot be morally judged, and I appreciate the legal clarification. However, as JMeganSnow mentioned, a lifelong label of “insane” would be even worse, as that person could no longer be considered human. And we, as higher beings, so to speak, with still the ability to judge for ourselves, would be correct in either locking the insane person up or banishing him from our land, right?

I think that is no light decision to make, but it is a sort of win-win situation for everyone but the criminal, since an insanity plea is essentially condemning one’s self to life as a sub-human or, if found to be sane, life as an incarcerated human.

…

Actually, as I read an article about Andrea Yates’ ruling just now, it occurred to me that it may be right to release a previously insane person if competent doctors decided the person could now function normally.

I am just having a difficult time equating human acts committed while “insane” to natural disasters, both being beyond the scope of human control, since one was actually done by a human.

8

Actually, as I read an article about Andrea Yates’ ruling just now, it occurred to me that it may be right to release a previously insane person if competent doctors decided the person could now function normally.

If they can do it consistently on their own recognizance, maybe . . . you can’t always trust schizophrenics to take their medication, and they are often completely impossible to handle without it. If someone has committed murder, etc. because of some mental condition they developed, can you really trust them to seek out help before it’s too late?

I’d say, they can earn back the right to use their judgment on minor issues (in a case this extreme), but they can never earn the right to say “I don’t want to take my medicine today” or “I don’t feel like attending therapy”.

9

Michael Hurd has an interesting take on this:

http://drhurd.com/index.php?subaction=show…amp;ucat=1&

(First, I’ll plagiarize Megan’s disclaimer and use it for myself: “I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist so I don’t have a very valid opinion on the technical aspects of insanity.” But this stuff is interesting to me, so I’ll go out on a limb and state my oppinions; take them for what they are..)

I’ve read several articles, such as this one, in which Dr. Hurd seems to take a position in which many types of mental illness, even severe ones, could be cured if only the victim would “take responsibility” and just shape up or something. Maybe I’m misreading him, or maybe he knows something I don’t know. But it seems to me like he attributes too much to volition at times. I’ve only read a few of his articles, though. Does anyone else who’s more familiar with him get a similar impression? (I know he’s a prominent Objectivist, and I’m not trying to dismiss him, it’s just that I want to know if I’m totally missing the point, or if it’s just his style of writing, or what.)

Based on what I’ve gathered from following the Yates case, I don’t see how it’s in any way controversial to say that she was suffering from severe, probably organically originating delusions at the time of these murders.

I’d say there’s a clear, qualitative difference between the moral status of someone who actually hears the voice of God or the devil ordering her to murder her children, vs (for instance) a terrorist who believes it is God’s will for him to murder Jews, because of his ideology.

Both individuals are making a choice based on their evaluations of reality, but the first person is acting on an interpretation of reality that has been distorted by her body in a way she couldn’t control, predict, or understand (and, in fact, from what I’ve heard she sought treatment and was institutionalized until her insurance ran out, prior to the murders), whereas the second person, through ignorance, prejudice, and evasion, (but possibly a faulty moral faculty, which might be organic, as is hypothesized to be the case in at least some “primary psychopaths” who have clear signs of brain damage, but this is not as of yet very well understood by scientists, and much less well by me), has chosen not to regard the rights of others.

A crazy person is a thing that can never expect to exercise judgement on its own behalf for the length of its continuation is existence.

Are you arguing here that crazy people haven’t even a modicum of rights, as do (sane) prisoners? How are you defining “crazy person” here? Certainly mentally ill people are limited in their ability to judge, but is it necessarily true that they can never judge appropriately for themselves?

10

I am just having a difficult time equating human acts committed while “insane” to natural disasters, both being beyond the scope of human control, since one was actually done by a human.

You should have no trouble. Moral evaluation is meaningful only in terms of choice. If cats were conceptual, volitional being, you ought to be able to perform a moral evaluation of the actions of your cat. The fact of being human is not directly relevant – what matters is a particular fact about humans. If cats had it, they could go to jail. When humans don’t, they shouldn’t go to jail.

11

I’ll let other people handle the moral question, but I’d just like to mention that Andrea Yates will still be incarcerated for the rest of her life. It will just be in a padded room, rather than behind bars.

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.”

12

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.”

The residents are periodically reviewed, but from what I understand, Andrea Yates’ lawyers, the prosecuting lawyers, and other experts have been saying in interviews since the trial that they think it’s highly unlikely that she will ever be released, given her degree of psychosis.

I am just having a difficult time equating human acts committed while “insane” to natural disasters, both being beyond the scope of human control, since one was actually done by a human.

I had it explained to me this way-- Have you ever had a dream, in which you did something you would never do in real life? Maybe something horrible? Someone who is criminally insane is like you are in that dream. They are controlling themselves (in some respects), but not really (in other essential respects). They are grasping what’s going on, but not really. The horrifying difference is-- for them there are real life consequences. But in terms of the moral value of their decisions, in the context of their mind and what they’re capable of knowing, they’re similar to a person in a dream state.

That might be a better analogy than a natural disaster, for understanding the criminal’s state of mind. The natural disaster (or a deadly disease, or old age) just shows you something that can actually kill a person without being morally responsible.

13

The residents are periodically reviewed, but from what I understand, Andrea Yates’ lawyers, the prosecuting lawyers, and other experts have been saying in interviews since the trial that they think it’s highly unlikely that she will ever be released, given her degree of psychosis.

There is a huge difference between highly unlikely and never. Should a doctor determine she is safe for release there is only one person standing between her and freedom, a judge. There are judges who let rapists and child molesters go free. Personally, I think someone who commits such horrible acts should never be allowed to go free.

An insane person simply either does not make choices at all, or cannot tell whether choices are good or bad, so they cannot be morally condemned (assuming a rational morality).

If an insane person can’t make moral choices and act in a moral manner then aren’t they no more than brute animals? Putting a destructive a-moral human to death would be just the same as putting down a bad dog. Why should a person such as Andrea Yates be afforded any extra protection and pity.

It simply boggles my mind that there are people including objectivists that consider indefinite (meaning it could be a lifetime or only one year depending upon the whim of a doctor and a judge) confinement for multiple murders is an acceptable punishment. If you claim she cannot make rational decisions about right and wrong and therefore cannot be morally condemned fine. But if my dog, incapable of morally determining right from wrong, viciously attacks (or even kills) someone he is rightly put down. How is Andrea Yates any different from a vicious dog?

14

A legally insane person cannot even distinguish right acts and wrong acts, so they cannot satisfy the scienter requirement for conviction.

As I understand it, that is the key. The criteria for the plea is “Can the supposed insane person distinguish right from wrong?” However, what is not often mentioned is that you CAN be both insane and still able to distinguish right from wrong. And that’s important because in Andrea Yates’ case, she was clearly able to distinguish right from wrong, even in her state of delusion. Everything I’ve watched and read on the subject has reinforced to me that beyond any shadow of a doubt, she knew for sure that what she was doing was completely wrong. Note that it was Satan telling her to kill her kids, not God. And she knew the difference and knew which one was evil and which one was good.

Was she insane? Yes, probably. But could she tell right from wrong? Yes. Therefore, the insanity plea should not apply. I fear that the sympathy for sufferers of post-partum depression out of political correctness may have influenced the case.

Furthermore, I find her delusion only slightly beyond typical religious extremism. As I’ve pointed out in another thread, if you truly believe in eternal heaven and eternal hell, wouldn’t we be justified in doing anything we could to ensure our kids end up in the right place for eternity? Nevertheless, she still knew what she was doing was wrong.

15

Here is something that really made me mad about this ruling: The definition of insanity is that you don’t know that what you did was wrong. When Yates murdered her kids, she called 911 and said “I just did something bad.” Call me crazy, but doesn’t that indicate that she knew that what she did was wrong?

She admitted at the time of the murder that she knew it was wrong, yet somehow the court thinks she didn’t know what she was doing.

16

If an insane person can’t make moral choices and act in a moral manner then aren’t they no more than brute animals?

Your same question would go for a child as well. I recommend Don Watkins’ essay on broken units. I recall that he has another essay (I forgot where – presumably on Anger Management) which focuses on the distinction between the actual and the potential which is relevant. If a person is totally and irrevocably insane, then they do not have a rational faculty (they may have had one once, but it is gone). Barring that, like a child an legally insane person temporarily lacks the capacity to distinguish right and wrong. An animal, on the other hand, can never make the distinction.

It simply boggles my mind that there are people including objectivists that consider indefinite (meaning it could be a lifetime or only one year depending upon the whim of a doctor and a judge) confinement for multiple murders is an acceptable punishment.

To follow Burgess’ tradition, let me say that I’m not familiar with objectivism, though I do know of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism. You seem to not have understood the point about moral evaluation and perhaps you don’t correctly grasp the nature of punishment. A person who is incapable of distinguishing right and wrong is deserving of no punishment. Confinement for umpteen years is not about punishment, it is about containing a potential threat.

17

A person who is incapable of distinguishing right and wrong is deserving of no punishment. Confinement for umpteen years is not about punishment, it is about containing a potential threat.

I haven’t read your article yet but I will be sure to look into it. However for arguments sake lets say I accept your claim. I would absolutely agree with you that the issue then becomes containing a potential threat but I disagree with your characterization of the problem. First off there is no “potential” threat but in fact an actual threat. There are plenty of people in this world who are mentally disturbed but they don’t necessarily act on their impulses. Andrea Yates has demonstrated quite clearly that she is an actual threat.

So then I come to the issue being one of containment. Why stop at containment and not death. Clearly such a person as Andrea Yates is a very destructive person whether by choice or not. It is therefore imperative that she be removed from society (I’m sure you agree) so why not put her to death?

Perhaps we’re differing on our views of justice and punishment. Assuming that Andrea Yates was temporarily insane does not change the fact that she committed a crime. In fact the very notion of “Innocent by reason of Insanity” is a contradiction in terms. She killed her children whether or not she is insane doesn’t matter. Were it not for her the children would be alive. She perpetrated the act and is consequently responsible for that act.

Like I said before I have yet to read your liked article but because you brought up children I’m compelled to respond. I don’t think that children lack the capacity to distinguish right from wrong. Certainly you and I and everyone else on this message board had opportunities to do horrible things in our childhood. Perhaps it was knowing where dad’s gun was (and that guns kill people) or being able to reach the butcher knife (and know it causes pain) yet even as a child (which according you means the inability to distinguish right from wrong) I never shot anyone and I never stabbed anyone. Why? Because even as a child I can recognize what causes pain and what death means and what it would mean to inflict that on someone else and that that is wrong.

18

Perhaps we’re differing on our views of justice and punishment. Assuming that Andrea Yates was temporarily insane does not change the fact that she committed a crime. In fact the very notion of “Innocent by reason of Insanity” is a contradiction in terms. She killed her children whether or not she is insane doesn’t matter. Were it not for her the children would be alive. She perpetrated the act and is consequently responsible for that act.

Being the “but for” cause of someone’s death doesn’t alone mean someone is culpable or responsible in a legal or moral sense however. For example, imagine a person who picks up what he thinks is a toy gun, points it at a man and pulls the trigger, only unknown to him it is actually a real gun and the man is killed. The person is certainly the “but for” cause of the man’s death. In a real sense he killed the man. But it would be strange to say that he is culpable or responsible for the man’s death.

This is why the criminal justice system is so focused on intent, rather than simple “but for” causation. You need intent PLUS causation to be culpable in most cases, and these requirements are found in the definition of the crime. For instance, the crime of murder might require “knowingly, intentionally or willfully causing the death of a person.” If you didn’t have knowledge/intent of your actions, even if a person was killed, by definition you didn’t commit the crime of murder.

19

I would absolutely agree with you that the issue then becomes containing a potential threat but I disagree with your characterization of the problem. First off there is no “potential” threat but in fact an actual threat.

Since the thread is more general – it’s not just about Yates – my comments were more general. Any actual threat is, of course, also a potential threat. So not only should a potential threat be confined, an actual one should be. I have not seen the trial transcripts or any of the factual evidence presented at the trial, so I have no basis for judging Yates’ mental state, now or at the time.

So then I come to the issue being one of containment. Why stop at containment and not death.

The question is when it is proper for the state to execute a person: that’s a complex question. If you’re up for a separate thread where you argue some position about the right of the state to execute people, go for it. Until I see your reasoning, I’ve got nothing.

It is therefore imperative that she be removed from society (I’m sure you agree) so why not put her to death?

Why put her to death when it is not necessary?

Perhaps we’re differing on our views of justice and punishment.

No question about it. That’s why I’m encouraging you to consider the general principles of justice and the role of punishment in achieving justice. I imagine that we agree on the matter of reparations – a person should pay for the damage that they cause (even without scienter). Then the question is, under what conditions is it proper for the government use additional, non-reparative force? Why is it right to punish? That really should lead to the answer as to when execution is justified.

Assuming that Andrea Yates was temporarily insane does not change the fact that she committed a crime.

I’m curious whether you think that (innocently, non-negligently) causing a traffic accident that results in a death is committing a crime. I presume that you are aware of the vast numbers of perfectly proper acts that are nevertheless crimes, for example failure to file or pay federal income taxes, possession or sale of vast numbers of controlled substances, manufacturing or selling pharmaceuticals without a license, cutting hair for money without a license (and the list goes on). Is your argument a narrow legal one about the wording of the homicide statutes in Texas, that the scienter requirement should be explicitly part of the definition of homicide? I’m just confused about the relevance of bringing up the issue of an act being a crime. Or are you simply saying that causing the death of another person is murder?

I don’t think that children lack the capacity to distinguish right from wrong.

Nor do I, in general. However, they do have diminished capacity to make rational judgments, which is why there is no such thing as volitional intercourse with a child under 15 (give or take a couple of years depending on jurisdiction), and they cannot be contractually bound at age 8. A child of about 3-4 years old is sufficiently incapable of grasping the notions of right and wrong (generally, even if they have learned specific instances of the concept “wrong”) that it would be quite a miscarriage of justice to execute a 3 year old for killing a person. Would you define justice in death-related cases as executing any person who acts lead to the unlawful death of another? This all comes down the the central question “What is justice; how does punishment relate to justice?”.

20

Was she insane? Yes, probably. But could she tell right from wrong? Yes.

I haven’t read any of the factual material surrounding that, and they didn’t have a blow-by-blow on TV up here. So exactly what evidence was brought out for and against?