American Military University Week 3 Insanity Defenses Case Discussion
Answer initial question 250 words. Respond to 4 classmates 250 words each.InsanityPlease read this background information and answer the questions presented below. Andrea (Kennedy) Yates was born on July 2, 1964 in Houston, Tex. She graduated from Milby High School in Houston in 1982. She was the class valedictorian, captain of the swim team and an officer in the National Honor Society. She completed a two-year pre-nursing program at the University of Houston and then graduated in 1986 from the University of Texas School of Nursing in Houston. She worked as a registered nurse at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center from 1986 until 1994. Andrea Meets Rusty Yates: Andrea and Rusty Yates, both 25, met at their apartment complex in Houston. Andrea, who was usually reserved, initiated the conversation. Andrea had never dated anyone until she turned 23 and prior to meeting Rusty she was healing from a broken relationship. They eventually moved in together and spent much of their time involved in religious study and prayer. They were married on April 17, 1993. They shared with their guests that they planned on having as many children as nature provided. Andrea Called Herself "Fertile Myrtle": In their eight years of marriage, the Yates had five children; four boys and one girl. Andrea stopped jogging and swimming when she became pregnant with her second child. Friends say that she became reclusive. The decision to home-school the children seemed to feed her isolation. The Yates Children: Feb. 26, 1994 – Noah Yates, Dec. 12, 1995 - John Yates, Sept. 13, 1997 - Paul Yates, Feb. 15, 1999 - Luke Yates, and on Nov. 30, 2000 - Mary Yates was the last child to be born. Their Living Conditions: Rusty accepted work in Florida in 1996 and the family moved into a 38-foot travel trailer in Seminole, FL While in Florida, Andrea got pregnant, but miscarried. In 1997 they returned to Houston and lived in their trailer because Rusty wanted to "live light." The next year. Rusty decided to purchase a 350-square-foot, renovated bus which became their permanent home. Luke was born bringing the number of children to four. Living conditions were cramped and Andrea's insanity began to surface. Michael Woroniecki: Michael Woroniecki was a traveling minister from whom Rusty purchased their bus and whose religious views had influenced both Rusty and Andrea. Rusty only agreed with some of Woroniecki's ideas but Andrea embraced the extremist sermons. He preached, "the role of women is derived from the sin of Eve and that bad mothers who are going to hell create bad children who will go to hell." Andrea was so totally captivated by Woroniecki that Rusty and Andrea's family grew concerned. Andrea’s First Suicide Attempt : On June 16 1999, Andrea called Rusty and begged him to come home. He found her shaking involuntarily and chewing on her fingers. The next day, she was hospitalized after she tried to commit suicide by taking an overdose of pills. She was transferred to the Methodist Hospital psychiatric unit and diagnosed with a major depressive disorder. The medical staff described Andrea as evasive in discussing her problems. However, on June 24 she was prescribed an antidepressant and released. Spiraling Downward: Once home, Andrea did not take the medication and as a result she began to self mutilate and refused to feed her children because she felt they were eating too much. She thought there were video cameras in the ceilings and said that the characters on television were talking to her and the children. She told Rusty about the hallucinations, yet neither of them informed Andrea's psychiatrist, Dr. Starbranch. On July 20, Andrea put a knife to her neck and begged her husband to let her die. Warned About the Risks of Having More Babies : Andrea was again hospitalized and stayed in a catatonic state for 10 days. After being treated with an injection of different drugs that included Haldol, an anti-psychotic drug, her condition immediately improved. Rusty was optimistic about the drug therapy because Andrea appeared more like the person he first met. Dr. Starbranch warned the Yates that having another baby might bring on more episodes of psychotic behavior. Andrea was placed on out-patient care and prescribed Haldol. New Hopes for the Future : Andrea's family urged Rusty to buy a home instead of returning Andrea to the cramped space of the bus. He purchased a nice home in a peaceful neighborhood. Once in her new home, Andrea's condition improved to the point that she returned to past activities like swimming, cooking and some socializing. She was also interacting well with her children. She expressed to Rusty that she had strong hopes for the future but still viewed her life on the bus as her failure. The Tragic End: In March of 2000, Andrea, on Rusty's urging, became pregnant and stopped taking the Haldol. On November 30, 2000, Mary was born. Andrea was coping but on March 12, her father died and immediately her mental state digressed. She stopped talking, refused liquids, mutilated herself, and would not feed Mary. She also frantically read the Bible. By the end of March Andrea returned to a different hospital. Her psychiatrist, Dr. Mohammed Saeed, treated her briefly with Haldol but discontinued it, saying that she did not did not seem psychotic. Andrea was released only to return again in May. She was released in 10 days and in her last follow-up visit with Saeed, she was told to think positive thoughts and to see a psychologist. Two days later, Rusty left for work and before his mother arrived to help, Andrea began to put into action the thoughts that had consumed her for two years. Andrea filled the tub with water and beginning with Paul, she systematically drowned the three youngest boys, then placed them on her bed and covered them. Mary was left floating in the tub. The last child alive was the first born, seven-year-old Noah. He asked his mother what was wrong with Mary, then turned and ran away. Andrea caught up with him and as he screamed, she dragged him and forced him into the tub next to Mary's floating body. He fought desperately, coming up for air twice, but Andrea held him down until he was dead. Leaving Noah in the tub, she brought Mary to the bed and laid her in the arms of her brothers. During Andrea's confession she explained her actions by saying that she wasn't a good mother and that the children were "not developing correctly" and she needed to be punished. Her controversial trial lasted three weeks. The jury found Andrea guilty of capital murder, but rather then recommending the death penalty, they voted for life in prison. At the age of 77, in the year 2041, Andrea will be eligible for parole. Source: Charles Montaldo, Profile of Andrea Yates, crime.about.com, https://www.thoughtco.com/profile-of-andrea-yates-971138 (last visited May 10, 2018). Initial QUESTION: Based on the information presented in Chapter 6 in the ebook, was Yates legally insane? If not, specifically discuss why none of the 3 insanity defenses apply. If so, which of the insanity defenses would apply and specifically why. Does her (ex) husband bear any responsibility in the crime? Why or why not? Who bears the burden of proof for the insanity defense? What is the burden for this defense? Classmate 1 Martiza: Criminal insanity varies depending on jurisdiction with different states having their own definitions of insanity. The insanity defense is based on the claim that the defendant ought to be excused from criminal responsibility for his or her actions (Legal Information Institute, 2020). Often, the insanity defense is controversial despite being accepted by federal and state governments. Criminal defendants with a psychological problem or mental illness can use the insanity defense to justify their conduct under the circumstances. In this case, Yates can be considered legally insane because she has a history of mental illness that led her to be suicidal. Also, Yates lacks the ability to form criminal intent and understand how her conduct is wrong by society’s standards, indicating that she is an insane defendant who is likely to commit the crimes again in the future. The insanity defense that would apply in Yates’ case is the M’Naghten insanity defense. This type of insanity defense is cognitive and is centered on the defendant’s awareness, instead of the capacity to control conduct. Mounting the M’Naghten insanity defense requires the defendant’s attorney to demonstrate that their client was suffering a mental defect when he or she committed the criminal act. Secondly, the defendant’s attorney should prove that the defendant had no knowledge that the quality or nature of their criminal act was wrong (Carlan, Nored, and Downey, 2011). In this case, Yates’ attorney could argue that she had a mental defect because she had a history of being hospitalized due to psychiatric problems. Also, she was suffering from a mental condition when she murdered her children since the doctor had discontinued her medication. However, Yates’ attorney cannot argue on the basis of the irresistible impulse insanity defense and substantial capacity test because she had some type of control over her conduct. Chasing down her eldest child after he escaped and laying the other children on the bed indicates that she had some level of control over her conduct. Yates’ ex-husband, Rusty, could bear some responsibility for her actions because he left the children under the care of a mentally ill person. Rusty was aware of Yates’ mental problems and was a risk to the children’s welfare. Although Rusty is unlikely to be charged for leaving for work before the mother arrived to help, his actions amount to negligence. According to the Legal Information Institute (n.d.), the defendant bears the burden of providing the insanity defense. The defendant, Yates, through her attorney should provide convincing and clear evidence that her conduct was beyond a reasonable doubt a mistake and uncontrollable due to their mental condition. In this case, the burden for the defense is to illustrate that the defendant lacked control over her conduct due to her prolonged mental defect. ReferencesCarlan, P., Nored, L. and Downey, R., 2011. An introduction to criminal law. 1st ed. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.Legal Information Institute, 2020. Criminal Insanity. [online] Legal Information Institute (LLI). Available at: [Accessed 6 January 2022].Legal Information Institute, n.d. 18 U.S. Code § 17 - Insanity defense. [online] Legal Information Institute (LLI). Available at: [Accessed 6 January 2022].Classmate 2 Andrew: Andrea Yates is legally insane and Chapter 6 of the textbook backs this up exceptionally well. The M’Naghten insanity defense is appropriate with this case. This specific insanity defense is known as the right-wrong test. This defense requires two elements. First, the defendant must be suffering from a mental defect at the time that they committed the criminal act. Second, the mental defect must have caused the actor to not know the nature and quality of the criminal act, or they did not know that it was wrong (Criminal Law, 2012). The textbook specifically lists the Yates case as an appropriate use of the M’Naghten insanity defense. For the first element, Andrea suffers from the mental defect of schizophrenia. For the second element, there is no evidence that she knew that killing her children was wrong. She never attempted to change her story like in the Casey Anthony case and immediately called law enforcement to admit to her crimes (Criminal Law, 2012). If she were sane, she would have panicked and would have produced an elaborate cover up story. In the emergency phone call for her confession, she is calm and very stoic in nature. I believe that Rusty Yates does bear some responsibility for this crime, but he did not actually commit any criminal acts himself. A Florida newspaper declared that Andrea was depressed, on medication, and always pregnant due to Rusty’s insistence (Husband at Fault, 2001). She attempted suicide multiple times, did not want another baby, and was warned by doctor’s against having a fifth child. Rusty had his family lived in less than desirable conditions over the course of the marriage and he was warned that he should not leave Andrea alone with the children. He left her alone with the children and the very worst happened. However, we cannot say that Rusty did not try at all to help Andrea. He asked Andrea’s psychiatrist about keeping her on an antipsychotic drug and mentioned electroconvulsive therapy (McLellan, 2006). The psychiatrist said that electroconvulsive therapy was reserved for those with “severe” mental illnesses and told Andrea to think positive thoughts (McLellan, 2006). This was two days before the horrific murders and that psychiatrist turned out to be very wrong. The defense has the burden of proving insanity to a preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing evidence (Criminal Law, 2012). The M’Naghten insanity defense required the defense team to prove that Andrea was suffering from a mental disease at the time of the crime and to prove that she did not know right from wrong because of a mental disease. Not all insanity cases are easy to prove, but this one seems like a textbook example. Andrea had multiple suicide attempts, diagnosed psychiatric disorders, and even visited a doctor days before the crimes. The medical records prove that she was suffering from a mental disease during the time of the crimes. The emotionless 911 call and Andrea not even attempting to make up a story about her potential innocence prove that she was not completely there mentally enough to know right from wrong. Therefore, the second element is also evident. ReferencesCriminal Law- Chapter 6, Criminal Defenses, Part 2. (2012). Retrieved from https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/introduction-to-criminal-law/s10-criminal-defenses-part-2.htmlHUSBAND AT FAULT: Broward Metro Edition. (2001). Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, Fla.).McLellan. (2006). Mental health and justice: the case of Andrea Yates. The Lancet (British Edition), 368(9551), 1951–1954. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69789-4Classmate 3 Joseph: InsanityBased on the information presented in Chapter 6 in the ebook, was Yates legally insane? If not, specifically discuss why none of the 3 insanity defenses apply. If so, which of the insanity defenses would apply and specifically why.Yates was legally insane. Yates had a mental illness, and she could not differentiate fantasy from reality. Her mental health issues began after she gave birth to her first three children. Literary, Yates suffered from postpartum depression, which is a mental health that arises after childbirth, where a woman develops a complex mix of emotional, behavioral, and even physical changes (Bruce, 2020). Some of the symptoms that Yates displayed, which indicate that she was suffering from the condition, include thoughts of committing acts of violence to the children, psychotic episodes, refusing to feed her children because she thought they ate too much, and self-mutilating herself. Being legally insane, the insanity defense that would have worked best in her case would be the M’Naghten Insanity Defense. The defense would have worked because of the psychotic and unstable mental condition that Yates was suffering from. One of the elements of M’Nagthen Insanity Defense that Yates displayed was one that describes that the defendant must have a mental illness when they commit the criminal offense (Moriarty, 2014). Based on the M’Naghten Insanity Defense, due to the mental illness, the defendant may not be aware of the nature and quality of the criminal act or aware that the act was wrong.Does her (ex) husband bear any responsibility in the crime? Why or why not?Yates’s husband bears a small share of the responsibility because, as much as he did not participate in committing the tragic crime, he played a significant role in the events that resulted in the crime. In my opinion, I believe that Russel failed in his responsibility as a husband to Yates. He did not seem to take Yates’s mental illness seriously; for instance, when Yates stopped taking her prescribed medicine, he did not inform her psychiatrist about the matter, particularly the hallucinations that Yates was experiencing. Moreover, even after Dr. Starbranch warned them about having another child, he insisted on having another child, hence putting his wife at risk of more mental complications.Who bears the burden of proof for the insanity defense? What is the burden for this defense?The defense team is the one that bears the burden of proof. Considering that they were in a state with tighter rules regarding the laws of insanity, the defense must show that Yates was legally insane. The prescribed psychiatric medication and hospitalization records for several suicide attempts would not be enough evidence to prove that she was legally insane. Instead, the defense would need more strong and convincing evidence, which proves that Yates was not in the right state of mind and did not know right from wrong during the time of the crime (Moriarty, 2014). ReferencesBruce, D. (2020, August 04). Postpartum Depression. Retrieved from www.webmd.com: https://www.webmd.com/depression/guide/postpartum-...Moriarty, J. (2014). The Insanity Defense: American Developments: The Role of Mental Illness in Criminal Trials. Routledge.Classmate 4 Michael: 1. Although Andrea Yates was initially found guilty of murdering her children in Texas, she was given a retrial after a finding that a prosecution witness on psychological issues had lied in his testimony, albeit a lie that was possibly inconsequential to the guilty verdict. Nonetheless, she received a new trial and that jury found her guilty by reason of insanity (CNN, 2007).Texas uses the M’Naghten insanity defense, also called the right-wrong test (text) . When using the defense, the defendant need only show unawareness of that conduct is criminal. This defense has no need to prove the defendant could not control his/her behavior. The defendant must show that, when they committed the criminal act, “…as a result of severe mental disease or defect,” was not able to recognize his/her conduct was illegal (Wavrusa, 2021). In order to prove mental disease, the defense will try to show the defendant had some issue at the time of the crime, like psychosis, schizophrenia, or paranoia (Storm, n.d.). The insanity defense under M’Naghten is generally not valid if there is evidence the subject tried to hide the crime or tried to escape (Storm, n.d.). In the Yates case, she did neither. In fact, she called the police to report something was wrong with the children (CNN, 2002). She also called her husband to report something was wrong and that all the kids were hurt (O’Malley, 2006). A psychiatrist who evaluated her opined Yates truly thought she was battling Satan (CNN, 2007). The prosecution argued that even if she was mentally ill (so I believe they were conceding she was), she knew right from wrong. It seemed clear from the psychiatrist testimony she did not know that differentiation in this situation and was correctly found not guilty by reason of insanity.CNN. (2002, January 6). 911 tape reveals unemotional Andrea Yates. CNN. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/10/yates.911/CNN. (2007, December 11). Andrea Yates Case: Expert: Mom believed she was battling satan. CNN. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.yates7/index.html?_s=PM%3AUSCNN. (2007, December 11). Andrea Yates Case: Yates found not guilty by reason of insanity. CNN. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.yates8/index.htmlO'Malley, S. (2006). The Prophecy. In "Are you there alone?": The unspeakable crime of Andrea Yates. Chapter 1, CNIB. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/are-you-there-alone-the-unspeakable-crime-of-andrea-yates/excerptStorm, L. (n.d.). Criminal defenses, part 2. 2012books.lardbucket.org/books/introduction-to-criminal-law/. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/introduction-to-criminal-law/s10-criminal-defenses-part-2.htmlWavrusa, Z. (2021, March). Understanding the insanity defense. Texas District & County Attorneys Association. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/understanding-the-insanity-defense/2. Russell Yates, the husband of Andrea at the time of the murders of their children, bears significant responsibility for the murders. His statement after the initial conviction of Andrea that he might have to sue the people who cared for her medically is very revealing. Here is a man who lived with Andrea. He observed her and listen to her daily. But he wanted to deflect responsibility for Andrea’s behavior onto the medical folks who treated her (CNN, 2002). He wanted to blame the medical folks for removing her from medication when it was he who had pressured her not to take it so she could get pregnant. At one point, it appears prosecutors were actually contemplating charging him in connection with the murders (ABC News, 2006). Russell Yates knew Andrea had suffered from postpartum psychosis, not postpartum depression, but psychosis after the birth of the fourth child. Her doctor, Eileen Starbranch, had warned the couple not to have any more children after she attempted suicide twice in the one month after the birth of her fourth child. But Russell did not heed the warning. The doctor described her psychosis as causing delusions and breaking touch with reality (Associated Press, 2006). Another doctor who treated Andrea had warned Russell not to leave her alone with the children (Lezon, 2011). But he did. Yes, I believe Russell Yates bears some responsibility for the murders of his children. ABC News. (2006, January 7). Prosecutors mull case against Russell Yates. ABC News. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91810&page=1Associated Press. (2006, July 8). Doctor testifies she warned Yates. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-jul-08-na-yates8-story.htmlCNN. (2002, March 18). Yates sentenced to life in prison. CNN. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/18/yates.sentencin... Lezon, D. (2011, August 11). Yates not 'grossly psychotic' before drownings, Dietz testifies. Chron. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Yates-not-grossly-psychotic-before-drownings-1875541.php3. The burden of proof for an insanity defense has changed over the years and varies by jurisdiction (FindLaw, 2019). At one time, most jurisdictions put the burden on the prosecution to show the defendant was NOT insane. That has changed in the past 40 years and now most place the burden on the defense to show the defendant was insane at the time of the offense.The Federal laws address the insanity defense and place the burden on the defense to show insanity. The defendant must prove insanity with “ clear and convincing evidence” (LII, n.d.). Texas uses a standard called “preponderance of the evidence” (Texas CCP, 2005).The different levels of proof in the legal system rank proof beyond a reasonable doubt at a high level, clear and convincing at a medium level, and a preponderance of the evidence at a lower level (LIL, n.d.). Since the Yates case happened in Texas, I will address the preponderance of evidence standard.Preponderance of the evidence means there is greater than a 50% chance that something is so (LII, n.d.).This standard is normally used in civil cases. This standard can help a jury which is struggling with making a decision. They may believe something has been proven partially but not totally. If they believe it is more than half-proven then the preponderance of evidence standard says it has been proven (Orloff and Stedinger, 1983). If 51% of the evidence supports the insanity defense, then the insanity defense prevails (Justia, 2021) . This is the normal standard in civil cases and explains why situations like the OJ Simpson debacle occur. In a criminal case, a jury was not convinced of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson killed his ex-wife and a friend but in a civil case it was shown to be more likely than not that he had so he was found liable. Preponderance of evidence simply means someone who is unbiased could lean one way or the other based on what they were presented (HG.org, n.d.)FindLaw. (2019, February 25). Current application of the insanity defense. Findlaw. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/current-application-of-the-insanity-defense.html#:~:text=Burden%20of%20Proof%20for%20the%20Insanity%20Defense&text=In%20states%20where%20the%20burden,that%20the%20defendant%20is%20insaneHG.org. (n.d.). Different Standards of Proof. Hg.org. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/different-standards-of-proof-6363Justia. (2021, October 18). Evidentiary standards and burdens of proof in legal proceedings. Justia. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/lawsuits-and-the-court-process/evidentiary-standards-and-burdens-of-proofLegal Information Institute. (n.d.). 18 U.S. Code § 17 - Insanity Defense. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/17 Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Clear and convincing evidence. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/clear_and_convincing_evidenceLegal Information Institute. (n.d.). Preponderance of the evidence. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preponderance_of_the_evidenceOrloff, N., & Stedinger, J. (1983). A Framework for Evaluating the Preponderance-of-the-Evidence Standard. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 131(5), 1159–1174. https://doi.org/10.2307/3311937Texas CCP, Title 1, Chapter 46C-A, Art 46C.153, (2005) retrieved January 17, 2022, from https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/CR/htm/CR.46C.htm
Europe(Continental)