![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 45. Go back in thread:
Posted by beardedlady on March 10, 2002, at 16:00:24
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing, posted by trouble on March 10, 2002, at 14:04:28
Well, she did call her husband immediately afterward and say, "I finally did it." At least, that's what I heard in the news. (You know, the good old reliable, honest news?)
I wonder if anyone who is killing someone thinks, "This is wrong," while doing the act. But before the act? After the act?
The problem with this case is that other people are responsible for this right along with her. She had already warned so many folks that this would happen, yet the kids still lived there.
Whoops. Now I'm two cents short.
: )>
Posted by trouble on March 10, 2002, at 18:09:18
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing, posted by beardedlady on March 10, 2002, at 16:00:24
>
> I wonder if anyone who is killing someone thinks, "This is wrong," while doing the act. But before the act? After the act?
>Wow, that's a good question Bearded Lady. I read crimonology and have never seen that question posed before, not even in fiction, for that matter, and now it's important to me.
I guess the law just looks at the moral mindset that precedes the crime, we can't even imagine what thoughts accompany the act itself, it must just be like a total regression to some pre-cognitive, reptilian or nightmarish state of being. Incomprehensible.I wish I believed that premeditation and deliberation could prove knowledge of wrongdoing, but can't find the logic in that. She could have planned it a year or 5 minutes in advance w/ the same moral mindset. But the longer the premeditation, the harder it is for reasonable people to believe there wasn't a single moment of lucidity in there to tell her how insane she'd got. It's hard to picture someone so crazy so long passing for sane amidst a normal, sane environment.
Based on the current data I agree w/ the majority opinion, her adult intimates have a lot to answer for. But I can just hear them "who would have thought she was capable of such a thing?" I don't know, why didn't they ask?trouble
Posted by Mitchell on March 11, 2002, at 21:28:42
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing, posted by trouble on March 10, 2002, at 18:09:18
If you are studying criminal law, maybe you can answer this, trouble, and if not, maybe it will provide material for study or contemplation, (and if not that, at least it is another interesting post to read)
The standard of insanity as a criminal defense was first defined in the McNaughton rule, but after the Supremes revisited the matter, there was the Durham rule and then the Brawner and Ali rules. Is Ali the standard Texas courts use? If not, what?
McNaughton was flawed, IMO, in that it presumes humans know right from wrong. My premise is that humans only relate righteousness and wrongfulness to a context. In the proper context, the most egregious acts can seem right. But the Ali rule tends to avoid that dilemma by saying that a defendant must appreciate the criminality of their acts. In cases where Ali is the precedent, are jurors instructed to equate criminality with wrongfulness? I think so. If it is so, a belief contrary to the prevailing belief of right and wrong would not qualify for the insanity defense. As long as the defendant knows that society, through the laws of the land, prohibited say, killing five of one's own children, then it would not matter what might be the defendant's cosmological idea of right and wrong.
Is this consistent with your knowledge of how Ali, or the insanity defense, is being applied, trouble? Anybody?
Posted by trouble on March 12, 2002, at 1:37:19
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing » trouble, posted by Mitchell on March 11, 2002, at 21:28:42
NO, I believe it's the M'Naughten Rule in Texas, which IMO means that we do not mandate that people behave in ways that are impossible for them, but it is not always interpreted that way by the judiciary. The general consensus seems to be that Hinkley spoiled the insanity defense for all comers thereafter, but in '79 my brother used the insanity defense in the ultra-liberal state of Minnesota, and his life history validated its use, but it was denied and that was befrore Hinkley so I think there's something else going on, competing psychiatric testimony, jury nullification, slippery interpretations of M'Naughton, which seems terribly outdated anyway and so on. There's alot of talk about a classification of "guilty but insane" and it sounds sensible to me, but where is it in practice? Is that what is meant by the Ali law? I'm not familiar w/that.
thanks for your response
trouble
Posted by Zo on March 12, 2002, at 1:38:12
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing » trouble, posted by Mitchell on March 11, 2002, at 21:28:42
Knows she/he is doing wrong in that moment?
As has been the case with other mothers who kill their chldren, this person believed she was saving them. Not only is this pyschotic. . but also, it seems to me, far different than the wrongdoing of murdering someone for the thrill of it, for money, for any of the other slimy motives. Does this seem to idealistic?
Zo
Posted by IsoM on March 12, 2002, at 1:47:58
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing » Mitchell, posted by Zo on March 12, 2002, at 1:38:12
When you're in the States (as opposed to Canada like me), can you follow everything going on with this trial?
I'm not trying to be negative about posting opinions, but I simply don't have enough information to make a call on whether she knew what she did or not. There's too many conflicting bits of info I read about.
How does a person ever get inside the head of another, ezpecially if we don't know this individual except what we read third- & fourth-hand? I couldn't be a juror. I couldn never imagine what went on with her & trying to learn would push me too far, some of the details I've heard are already too awful to think of.
Posted by judy1 on March 12, 2002, at 1:51:52
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing » Mitchell, posted by Zo on March 12, 2002, at 1:38:12
has anyone on this thread experienced post partum psychosis? I have (second time- 2 suicide attempts) and I cry for Mrs. Yates and her dead children. i'm OK (not really)- won't be posting much on a lot of medication for same problem. I have drs. who will help me no matter what insurance i have- judy (i'm sad because i can't nurse but my baby is healthy and smiled for the first time)
Posted by Gracie2 on March 12, 2002, at 18:46:25
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing, posted by trouble on March 10, 2002, at 14:04:28
One of the reasons I believe Andrea Yates is not insane, not possessed by devils or what have you, is because her husband seems to be such a normal, stand-up guy. It's simply not possible to be a brownie-baking, den-mother, baseball-mom type until your husband walks out the door for work, then turn into a head-spinning monster on a child-killing mission.
If Andrea had truely deteriorated to the point where she was talking to devils, would her husband have really left her alone with their precious children? Would you?
Her defense counsel had no recourse except to claim insanity, which has a poor track record with juries (and didn't work for Andrea, either).
Sometimes it's hard to accept that a person who ISN'T insane could be capable of such an evil act.
I've got one word for you, there: Osama. That subhuman is crazy as a fox.
An interesting note: my father, who is an architectural engineer, helped to design and build the World Trade Towers. He told me that the towers were built to withstand the impact of an airplane. Somehow Bin Laden was aware of this, which is why the airplanes he targeted for hi-jack were fully loaded with fuel for a cross-country flight. As most of us are now aware, the towers did withstand the impact, as they were designed to do. They collapsed because they melted, as planned by Bin Laden.
It is a sad and terrifying fact that such an unspeakably cruel and vicious act can be planned and carried out by people who are, in fact, sane.
This is not to say that the US attack and the drowning - no, the MURDER - of the Yates children were comparable in any way except that the people responsible for both actions were legally sane.
-Gracie
Posted by beardedlady on March 12, 2002, at 18:59:22
In reply to Re: About Andrea......trouble, posted by Gracie2 on March 12, 2002, at 18:46:25
There's nothing upstanding about dear old dad. He knew she was going to do it because she told him and his mother that she'd do it one day. That's why she called him at work after the drownings and said, "I finally did it." Her husband thought having more babies would cure her. He was about to get her pregnant again.
She had been psychotic for a long time and was on and off a variety of meds, so I don't think we can deny her mental illness. What we're looking at, though, is whether that's a good excuse for her heinous crimes.
Look, I think you can be both insane and aware that you are doing something wrong. But the jury found her guilty, so I guess the argument is now moot.
beardy : )>
Posted by Mitchell on March 12, 2002, at 20:05:00
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing, posted by trouble on March 12, 2002, at 1:37:19
From what I know, a lot of how insanity defenses are applied has to do with jurors rather than with judges. Some jurors would hold a person with an IQ of 60 responsible for a crime, for perhaps cultural or racial reasons. It's hard to dictate what goes on in the mind of a juror. The judge instructs them then apparently hopes peer pressure will cause all 12 to follow the instruction.
My understanding is that Brawner and Ali were improvements of McNaughton because they replaced the idea of appreciating wrongfulness with the idea of appreciating criminality. If that is not the major difference, I am back at square one. If McNaughton is the precedent in Texas (apologies to all Texans) it figures. My impression of the states government is that policies are laced with religious belief. McNaughton relies on a fundamentaly religious assumption that all humans have a innate knowledge of right and wrong. My guess would be that, under that rule, Yates should be acquitted, but a typical Texas jury will convict. I would think Brawner or Ali would also tend to result in conviction, if the state can show any evidence that Yates tried to conceal her acts or otherwise behaved in such a way that reveals an appreciation for how her community would respond to her behavior.
I think "guilty but insane" is used in some states, but not all. It is more a product of legislative initiative than of judicial interpretation,whereas standards for insanity defense rely on judicial interpretations of insantity, i.e. McNaughton. I'll have to check sometime why, if it is true, Brawner or Ali are not recognized in Texas. Mabye they were appelate decisions in a different district.
Posted by Mitchell on March 12, 2002, at 20:16:06
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing » Mitchell, posted by Zo on March 12, 2002, at 1:38:12
> Knows she/he is doing wrong in that moment?
Yes, Brawner and Ali, as I appreciate them, stipulate an appreciation of the "criminality" of the act *at the time it was committed*. This time thing is a tricky concept though. It does not imply that one is conciously thinking all the while, "this is wrong, this is wrong." Most of our appreciation of the world at any given moment is subconscious. Consider a trip from New York to California. All along the way, each moment, one does not think "I am going to California". One subsumes that thought in the subconcious while concsciously thinking about everything else under the sun. But the direction of the effort is determined by deeply held ideas.
> As has been the case with other mothers who kill their chldren, this person believed she was saving them. Not only is this pyschotic. . but also, it seems to me, far different than the wrongdoing of murdering someone for the thrill of it, for money, for any of the other slimy motives. Does this seem to idealistic?The Durham case established a standard by which psychosis alone was sufficient to net a not-guilty verdict. It said if the acts resulted from insanity, the defendant was not criminally liable. I don't think it lasted long in appeals courts. Some of the mitigating factors, such as psychosis or thrill killing, can influence sentencing decisions in some states. She could be assigned to a mental hospital instead of a prison, even if she is found guilty but is obviously insane. If she knew it was a criminal act, but thought the law was less important than her own understanding of right nad wrong, she should be found guilty, under Brawner or Ali standards, IMO. But it is not about what I think should happen, it is about what is the law in Texas, and how jurors will understand the law as it relates to criminal culpability of mentally impaired defendants.
Posted by bonnie_ann on March 12, 2002, at 20:55:42
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing, posted by Mitchell on March 12, 2002, at 20:16:06
What do you think?
If I (god forbid) ever were in her shoes, I would be hoping I was going to be executed ASAP.
Posted by bonnie_ann on March 12, 2002, at 21:05:45
In reply to just a question.., posted by judy1 on March 12, 2002, at 1:51:52
Judy,
I personally don't have experience with post partum psychosis.
I was sad also because my son couldn't nurse. He is tounge tied- but I didn't know that at the time.
I'm sorry that you are going through this.
Please be strong and keep in touch with your Dr's.
Bonnie
Posted by Willow on March 12, 2002, at 21:52:14
In reply to Death Penalty?, posted by bonnie_ann on March 12, 2002, at 20:55:42
Posted by Cecilia on March 12, 2002, at 23:05:11
In reply to Death Penalty?, posted by bonnie_ann on March 12, 2002, at 20:55:42
Bonnie Ann, I don`t know what is going on with Willow to make her write such a post, but I agree with you 100% that I would not want to live if I had committed such a crime, and I appreciate your thoughtful posts. Cecilia
Posted by Cecilia on March 12, 2002, at 23:31:23
In reply to just a question.., posted by judy1 on March 12, 2002, at 1:51:52
Judy, I hope you`re feeling better soon. I have no children, never felt grown-up enough or undepressed enough to be a parent, but have a lot of respect for those who do. Cecilia
Posted by Mair on March 13, 2002, at 5:56:48
In reply to To Judy 1, posted by Cecilia on March 12, 2002, at 23:31:23
Posted by ST on March 13, 2002, at 6:09:46
In reply to Re: Andrea knew what she was doing » Mitchell, posted by Zo on March 12, 2002, at 1:38:12
Personally I don't believe in black and white forms of good and evil. If you murder, aren't you sick? What killer wouldn't be insane on some level? I've never understood the insanity plea because I've always assumed people who create heinous acts of crime are mentally ill.
Thoughts?
Sarah
Posted by beardedlady on March 13, 2002, at 7:11:12
In reply to Insanity, posted by ST on March 13, 2002, at 6:09:46
Posted by Gracie2 on March 13, 2002, at 8:35:40
In reply to Insanity, posted by ST on March 13, 2002, at 6:09:46
Since what you and I think have no bearing on the case, we can agree to disagree without getting ugly.
-Gracie
Posted by mair on March 13, 2002, at 13:12:10
In reply to Fuck you (nm) » bonnie_ann, posted by Willow on March 12, 2002, at 21:52:14
Willow
At least take solace in the fact that this didn't happen in your country. If I recall correctly, you're Canadian right? Maybe there being truly insane is grounds for an acknowledgment that your mental capacity is limited.
Mair
Posted by mair on March 13, 2002, at 17:15:20
In reply to Insanity, posted by ST on March 13, 2002, at 6:09:46
Sarah
The insanity defense is predicated on the notion that most crimes require a certain measure of intent, and that some people, for different reasons, may lack the capacity to have that intent. The definition of insanity is not uniform from state to state but the definition usually involves some variation of the elements of whether the person suffers from a mental disease or defect, and whether because of that disease or defect he was unable to either appreciate the criminality of his actions or conform his conduct to the law.
All crimes involve different elements - it's not just a matter of whether someone has discharged the firearm, for instance. Supposedly when someone is found guilty, a jury has made a determination that the prosecutor has proved each element of the crime. The insanity defense, says in essence, that the prosecution can't prove an essential element of the crime - intent, for instance because the defendant didn't have the mental capacity to form the requisite intent.
There's a huge misconception about the insanity defense in this country - that it's overused and that it gets a person "off." To the contrary, insanity defenses, even very good ones, rarely are successful. I think this has something to do with a jury's reaction to the crime, and with a need to find someone responsible. I actually think, although I have nothing to back this up, that insanity defenses were probably more accepted 100 years ago than they are now. I think people used to be much more comfortable with the notion that sometimes really awful things happen and there doesn't have to be a responsible party. I don't think people then felt the need to be in so much control of events and surroundings. Maybe it also has to do with the fact that people had more confidence that someone truly insane would be locked away. I also think that sometimes defendants are prejudiced by the fact that the person who committed the crime is not necessarily the same person jpresented at trial. Andrea Yates may have been hurt by the fact that she got alot of treatment between the murders and the trial. This is all speculation on my part.
It's obviously difficult to second guess the decision of a jury that actually heard the evidence, but from what I read anyway, Andrea Yates sounded to me like a pretty good case for the insanity defense, regardless of how monstrous her acts were. It rankled me that they charged her with capital murder to begin with - it's the popular tact for a prosecutor in a conservative state to take, but not, in my mind, the honorable one. And from my vantage anyway, it seems preposterous that the jury dismissed her defense quite as quickly and easily as they apparently did.
Sorry to sound so pedantic - this is just my very basic and over-simplistic understanding of the insanity defense and my uninformed opinions about why it so rarely works.
Mair
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 13, 2002, at 17:40:08
In reply to Fuck you (nm) » bonnie_ann, posted by Willow on March 12, 2002, at 21:52:14
Willow,
This is an emotional issue for a lot of people, so it's especially important on this thread to be careful to respect the views of others and to be sensitive to their feelings. Even if it's an emotional issue for you, too. Thanks.
Bob
PS: Follow-ups regarding posting should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.
Posted by sar on March 13, 2002, at 21:30:40
In reply to Insanity, posted by ST on March 13, 2002, at 6:09:46
i believe andrea yates was psychotic.
i believe the pdoc on the defense team who said that andrea was one of the sickest patients she'd worked with among 6000+.
i do believe in the mothering instinct. the religious instict.
oh andrea, andrea!
she thought she was being persecuted!
i have been psychotic, or close to it!--though not to this level! but there are all sorts of intricacies!
ANDREA YATES--LOOK AT HER PICTURE IN THE PAPAER, THE VARIOUS PICTURES! Mother Andrea, Psychotic Stoic Andrea, Crying Andrea.
you think she is evil? take a course in what you cannot study in school. take a course in Insanity.
i do not fault the jurors for anything--afterall, how could they know??? wouldn't any possible jurors be eliminated if they had any documented mental problems?
arrrrgggh!
i wanna cry cry cry
Andrea Yates is not evil. She was, i believe, overtaken by post-partum depression topped upon regular depression, and psychotic.
why not rehabilitation?
Oh, Andrea!
Posted by sar on March 13, 2002, at 21:35:03
In reply to crying texan, posted by sar on March 13, 2002, at 21:30:40
i'll be your spine, your heels, your stem, if you ever find that you cannot swim in this thread...
love,
sar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.