Andrea Yates not guilty by insanity defense!

[PokerPacker]

Ummmmmm, wait a second. Wouldn't a bullet be cheaper?

I agree, make them suffer. I know that sounds harsh, but Susan Smith drove her kids in a lake and it was proven that they sufferred a horrible death.

i think a shot to the head would be "humane" and swift.

on that second paragraph, though, you go against the 8th amendment. cruel and unusual punishment.

[cjcdaman]

on that second paragraph, though, you go against the 8th amendment. cruel and unusual punishment.

That's true. I guess I didn't really mean for them to suffer. But they could at least do it better than "putting someone to sleep".

[rdsknbill]

Tie a big ass rock to her ankles and end her the way she ended the lives of those 5 innocent kids :mad:

[Larry]

Executing people should not cost any money at all. Listen, if youre gonna be put to death, you most likely deserve it. Yet we spend ungodly amounts of money to make sure the death doesnt offend anyone. Its total BS. Hang the b**ch and get it over with. Thatll cost the govt one piece of rope. Hell, I'll supply it.

Well, heck. That'll just save us a bunch of money. (And saving money is, after all, the purpose of our justice system, right?) All we need is to adopt the standard of "most likely deserves it", and heck, things'll just be so much better.

[Cdowwe]

Well, heck. That'll just save us a bunch of money. (And saving money is, after all, the purpose of our justice system, right?)

No, the purpose of the system is to get justice without costing me and the rest of the tax payers money that doesnt need to be spent.

All we need is to adopt the standard of "most likely deserves it", and heck, things'll just be so much better.

Not sure why you even brought this up, for this case. She killed her children. She drowned them. She doent most likely deserve the death sentence, she definately does.

This is what makes me so sick (not to you Larry, in general). People like this kill innocent humans, yet are able to get off the death penalty because they are insane. INSANE? Of course theyre insane. Every murderer is F'ed up. Every rapist is F'ed up. Insanity is just a cover up for some F'ed up dumb***** with a good lawyer.

[Larry]

Not sure why you even brought this up, for this case. She killed her children. She drowned them. She doent most likely deserve the death sentence, she definately does.

But the jury didn't think so.

Unanimously.

They're all wrong. All 12 of them.

[hu-bison-skinsfan]

That's just window dressing by the court. Unless a complete idiot is running the place, she isn't going ANYWHERE. There are some people in Clifton T. Perkins Mental Hospital in Jessup that have been housed there since the 50's. I think she would have a hard time convincing even the most gullible shrink that she is sane, and ok to be set free.

This deserves a bump.

[Destino]

Blood lust isn't justice. If the woman is crazy then justice has been served. If she's not then justice has not been served. That's how this plays out if you value justice over vengeance.

Clearly the jury felt the woman was crazy and that's that. She will likely never be released so frankly I don't care if the cell is padded or not - same ****.

[Cdowwe]

But the jury didn't think so.

Unanimously.

They're all wrong. All 12 of them.

The jury also let OJ walk free. Youre actually using juries as a defense? Im not saying they were wrong to think she was insane, thats fine. But I dont think insanity should get you off the hook. Everyone who kills someone on purpose is insane and F'd up.

[SkinsFanInTennessee]

I say they drown her..revive her...drown her..revive her...and repeat 3 more times...

[Mooka]

Everyone who kills someone on purpose is insane and F'd up.

Uh, you might wanna think that one over again.

[aszumilo]

As Ron White said, "crazy is rolling your turds into little balls and eating crayons". What she did was methodically end the lives of innocent children. I have no sympathy for her or for her idiot ex-husband, who defends her actions. I think he is the insane one. As someone else here said, jail would be the safest place for her if she did that to my kids.

[DCRunner]

Yates was mentally ill. Before, during and after the drownings. She is simply not responsible in the criminal sense for her actions. That makes her not guilty. This was absolutely the right verdict.

This isn't about how anyone feels emotionally about the children or how sad it is. Of course everyone feels horrible and it is terribly sad. This is about what the law says about criminal responsibility and how we assign it. Yates' case has always seemed a no brainer to me. Post partum psychosis is very real. Maybe some reading into the subject would be in order here for those who have become so emotional about it.

She'll eventually be released - as she should be - because this type of psychosis is controllable. Which is even sadder because she could have been helped. Blame the crazy idiot religious fundamentalist preacher and his wife who bombarded here with crazy talk about Satan and continued to write her about how Satan was taking over her life. And, of course, her dear husband who stood by doing nothing to help her while she deteriorated.

And Park Dietz is an idiot. He didn't just make a mistake, he lied big time at the first trial. And the lie he told very easily could have played a huge role in her first conviction. He is the forensic psychiatrist who testified at Hinkley's trial. That jury rejected his testimony and, as you'll remember, Hinkley was acquitted. At the time, D.C. was the only jurisdiction in the country where defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity were required by law to be sent to a mental facility for treatment not to be released until they're okay.

[MaddogCT]

I don't get the concept of "not guilty by reason of insanity" IT is like saying you didn't commit the crime cuz you are insane.

It should be "guilty by reason of insanity" than it is you commited the crime cuz you are insane.

The reason its not "Guilty by reason of insanity" is based on one word.

Intent. If you hit me with a 2x4 by mistake, you could not be charged with assault. If you hit me with a 2x4 on purpose, i.e. intent, then you could be charged with assault.

For a person to be legally insane (a legal term , not a medical one), means that person could not form intent. And if you can not form intent, then you are not guilty. And that is why when this judgment is handed down its called

"Not Guilty, by Reason of Insanity."

:logo:

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Mass, considering you were so rightfully honored with the ass-clown icon for a long time , and since you are often as guilty of as many clown-comments as any of us that have ever posted here , I do consider your judgment. There are some clowns working in those boxes, as there are anywhere.

All I'll say on that is: If I'm the ass-clown, I don't want to think of what label should go on most of the posters here.

But since I often work with a number of those guys, I can tell you that the majority of them are doing the hardest and most thankless kind of work for the least pay and the worst clientele that exists in their field. It is frustrating and taxing, and it's only commitment to the profession and professional ethics that make it worth bothering. And most hate the way the legal system works too in these matters. Most are very big on trying to make it clear that 90% of people with diagnosable mental disorders are and should be held accountable for what they do.

I don't doubt that many, if not most of them are nice people who think they're doing good work, Jumbo. I also don't doubt that many of them think the way the legal system views mental disability is a joke. My problem is that they pay lip service to that disagreement without actually taking any ACTION to try and remedy the problem.

Most feel that a lot of this is money and time thrown down a drain in a majority of cases, other than for research benefits or appealing to some ideals of humane treament for prisoners. I'm hard-edged on that issue. The majority are among the biggest supporters for modifications of the legal system to restrict and better define these "insanity defenses."

The problem is that something needs to be done until those changes to the legal system can be made. I think we all know those changes are going to be a long time coming, if they ever come at all. In such a situation I believe it is up to those individual citizens who have the ability to act extra-legally to do something about the problem.

For example....

In the town I grew up in there's a POS named David Peterson who is still living as a "guest" of Connecticut Valley Hospital, the state's only "maximum security" mental institute. He's there for life because he walked away from the institution (max. security used to mean the doors were locked from 8pm to 8am) in the late 1980's and stabbed a young girl named Jessica Short 38 times in broad daylight on Main Street. He'd already been declared mentally unfit for trial once regarding an assault. They sent him back to CVH and maginally improved the security. The town nearly revolted over the miscarriage of Justice. Even the employees of CVH that I've met over the years believe Mr. Peterson deserves the eternal dirt-nap. Yet none of them who have some contact with him have "accidentally" slipped him the wrong meds or improperly "flavored" his dinner.

[Rocky21]

Anybody ever heard of Szasz's Myth of Mental Illness?

[Cdowwe]

Uh, you might wanna think that one over again.

Shoulda said kills innocent people. Im thinking you were making a reference to the military? If not, let me know

[Jumbo]

Mass_SkinsFan--All I'll say on that is: If I'm the ass-clown, I don't want to think of what label should go on most of the posters here.

:laugh: Personally, I think it would be fun if you were in charge of that for awhile, regardless of how I might suffer the consequences

I don't doubt that many, if not most of them are nice people who think they're doing good work, Jumbo. I also don't doubt that many of them think the way the legal system views mental disability is a joke. My problem is that they pay lip service to that disagreement without actually taking any ACTION to try and remedy the problem.

It's not about them being "nice" people. The majority, IME, are very intelligent people, though, who have as different a personality grouping as most any other slice of our society minus their professional commonality. Niceness is immaterial.

Your idea that "they" pay lip service without doing anything to change is first: over-generalizing--many fight it, others don't; second: incorrect, IMO, as indicated by what I state later in my first post--there are several very active groups in the profession trying to modify laws and legislation, donating time and money to those efforts from a profession where neither is in abundant supply. There are also other actions individuals take. And third: egotistically presumptuous (though you were trying to be nice). And I am just busting on you a bit here as I did in my first post .

The problem is that something needs to be done until those changes to the legal system can be made. I think we all know those changes are going to be a long time coming, if they ever come at all. In such a situation I believe it is up to those individual citizens who have the ability to act extra-legally to do something about the problem.

Well dude, if we’re still talking about the topic, some of these people do push it that far by refusing to co-operate with courts. But speaking for myself, the situation would have to be very specific and dramatic to go that way versus other strategies.

Most of these professionals work a decade to acquire the education, skills, and training and then spend however many following years or decades continually refining them, wwith the goal of trying to be of positive benefit to as many people as possible. And for many, also doing something positive for your society and country is part of the deal. To work into that position only to throw it all down the tubes over a single issue that probably isn't the end-all or be-all among all the social issues you have to address is highly questionable, IMO. There are issues I will go all the way for, including going extra-legal if necessary. It’s still on my personal options and capabilities list, but you and I will differ on what issues dictate such activity being an appropriate response.

Per your anecdote; if that gentlemen were to suffer a bad case of food-poisoning, I would suffer no angst.

[DCRunner]

I'm not sure what "changes to the system" MassSkins believes should be effected but the reality is that it is almost impossible to get an acquittal based on an NGI (not guilty by reason of insanity) defense. Those acquittals are very rare animals. The standards are almost impossible to meet because they are not rooted in the reality of mental illness. They are usually just the product of some uninformed politician's knee- jerk response to the latest headline.

What needs to be done is that the legal system needs to catch up with the current state and understanding of mental health issues. For the most part, the legal system just ignores them. For instance, in the District of Columbia, we don't have a diminished capacity defense for persons with mental retardation when they may simply not be able to form the necessary intent required to prove a crime. Now, maybe they are capable of a lower level of responsibility than they are charged with for certain actions, but the law doesn't allow that type of defense. There are many other mental health issues that need to be updated and brought in line with our current ability to diagnose and treat mental illness as well as actual organic brain disorders. Most criminal defendants who should be are never properly tested to diagnose even organic brain disorders which can result in increased violent behavior or lack of impulse control. This costs money and the system usually doesn't want to spend it. But it's desperately needed and if used properly and at the right time, can serve to prevent violence as well as salvage lives that seem out of control and just headed for prison.

There's something about our national psyche that makes us unwilling or afraid to face and deal with mental disorders. Maybe it's not just the U.S. but a universal aversion to facing reality. Maybe that, in and of itself, is some kind of mental "disorder."

[Larry]

In the town I grew up in there's a POS named David Peterson who is still living as a "guest" of Connecticut Valley Hospital, the state's only "maximum security" mental institute. He's there for life because he walked away from the institution (max. security used to mean the doors were locked from 8pm to 8am) in the late 1980's and stabbed a young girl named Jessica Short 38 times in broad daylight on Main Street. He'd already been declared mentally unfit for trial once regarding an assault. They sent him back to CVH and maginally improved the security. The town nearly revolted over the miscarriage of Justice. Even the employees of CVH that I've met over the years believe Mr. Peterson deserves the eternal dirt-nap. Yet none of them who have some contact with him have "accidentally" slipped him the wrong meds or improperly "flavored" his dinner.

Yep, you're right.

The biggest problem with our justice system is that there aren't enough self-appointed killers.

[Larry]

Shoulda said kills innocent people. Im thinking you were making a reference to the military? If not, let me know

I think what he was saying was that if everybody agreed with your claim that "everybody who kills is insane" then society could save a bunch of money they're now spending prosecuting murderers.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Yep, you're right.

The biggest problem with our justice system is that there aren't enough self-appointed killers.

YES.

There are certain things that do not deserve to continue living. Certain animals that have no place in society and whose permanent removal from the gene pool is the only intelligent option. Unfortunately in our "civilized" society we have forgotten these things. We believe we're better than whatever force created humanity and can fix the things that are broken in a system we only use a small amount of to begin with (the human brain). To that end we have somehow given worth and value to these sacks of putrid flesh and in many cases forced the rest of society to pay for their incarceration when a bullet would be the most cost-effective option.

Thankfully there are still some of us who understand the total lack of value these animals have. Hopefully one of these days more people will start taking action based on that knowledge. When society has devolved so far that a think like David Peterson is kept alive on the public dole, individuals need to start remedying the errors of the system.

[MaddogCT]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/qa227.htm

Link to a good Q & A on insanity defense. It's 8 years old, but still valuable.

A few snippets:

...Maryland's statute...defines the plea as "guilty but not criminally responsible by reason of insanity."

Gchwood, did you know MD had that law or what?

Are insanity defenses often successful?

No, despite public perceptions to the contrary. One eight-state study of criminal cases in the early 1990s concluded that less than one percent of defendants pleaded insanity and, of them, only a quarter won acquittals.

...studies by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law have concluded that "the overwhelming majority" of defendants acquitted by reason of insanity suffer from schizophrenia or some other mental illness...,

Has the standard changed?

It gets periodic review, especially after a verdict the public finds shocking. After the Hinckley ruling, Congress and some states, including Maryland, passed laws designed to toughen standards in insanity defenses. Instead of requiring prosecutors to prove a defendant's sanity, defense attorneys now carry the burden of persuading a judge or jury their clients are insane.

Some also adopted a tougher release system. Such changes in Connecticut doubled the average term acquitted defendants spend committed in institutions and apparently caused the number of insanity pleas to drop, said Zonana, the Yale psychiatrist.

"So you really got to be crazy to take an insanity defense," he said.

As for Peterson, anger should be directed at the hospital which let him escape. When the hospital says things like:

''security at the sprawling 1,000-acre hospital grounds might not prevent a patient from walking off.'' you have got to wonder how many more people have "walked off". If the security at the hospital was better that girl would be alive today.

I would comment on those who advocate killing this guy, but stating aversion to murder redundant.

:logo:

[Larry]

YES.

There are certain things that do not deserve to continue living. Certain animals that have no place in society and whose permanent removal from the gene pool is the only intelligent option. Unfortunately in our "civilized" society we have forgotten these things. We believe we're better than whatever force created humanity and can fix the things that are broken in a system we only use a small amount of to begin with (the human brain). To that end we have somehow given worth and value to these sacks of putrid flesh and in many cases forced the rest of society to pay for their incarceration when a bullet would be the most cost-effective option.

Thankfully there are still some of us who understand the total lack of value these animals have. Hopefully one of these days more people will start taking action based on that knowledge. When society has devolved so far that a think like David Peterson is kept alive on the public dole, individuals need to start remedying the errors of the system.

Oh, I support the death penalty. My reason is slightly different from yours. (I don't advocate killing people because of some gut feeling of what a person's future actions, or his 'worth to society'. But I wholeheartedly believe that there are crimes for which death is justice.) (I'd even say this sounds like one of them.)

I also, (to introduce something I'm going to use in an analogy later) believe in the "he needed killing" murder defense.

However, I also believe that we need a system that will make certain that these extraordinary measures remain very rare. I'm in favor of just about anything that makes it difficult for society, or individuals, to justify killing. Even if this means that situations in which these measures should have been applied, but weren't, become common.

Show me a system where "people who should've been killed, but weren't", averages one per county per month, but "people who shouldn't have been killed, but were" is one, nationwide, per year, and I'll take that system in a heartbeat.

And one of those "filters" that makes it "tough to kill, easy to aquit" is the requirement that the jury's ruling must be unanimous. To use the analogy introduced previously, if you want to claim "he needed killing", then you'd better have a case that's good enough to convince 12 out of 12 people to agree with you.

If it's not unanimous, then it's not a justified killing. And even if I personally disagree, that's a price I'm willing to pay to avoid making killing too easy.

I think we've got too many "false positives" in our system right now. Don't want to be changing things to increase them.

[BlueTalon]

It's not just the execution process; death row inmates cost more money, death row cells cost more money, any murder trial has a another trial after conviction for the death penalty, and in pretty much every state anyone sentenced to death is guarenteed at least 1 appeal. (There's usually multiple appeals)

That's alotta bread...

I see your legal system and I raise you one medical system. If you can kill off a prisoner reasonably quickly, say within 3-5 years, then you save the system a lifetime of medical care, especially someone in Yates' situation. I'd be more inclined to agree with the thesis that keeping someone in prison for life is less expensive that putting someone to death, if it were stipulated that life prisoners could get nothing more than basic health care. Antibiotics, ibuprofin, things like that. Nothing more extensive than getting a cast on a broken bone or having an appendix removed. (Cancer? Too bad. Ibuprofin. AIDS? Too bad. Ibuprofin.) (Actually, now that I type that out, that sounds a lot like military front-line medicine!) However, as it stands now, prisoners can get on lists for organ transplants. So I still believe that putting a prisoner to death is far more economical that keeping them locked up for life.