NGRI -- myth versus reality
gmichael said:
I know that it's a shallow view of mine, but hearing "not guilty......" of any kind just hits the wrong cord deep inside. Wouldn't it be better to say guilty as a verdict and then have the sentence in line with the mental illness? Too many people who know what they did was wrong use this loophole to work the system. Then keep working the system by acting normal and get an early release. Not saying that's what she's doing.
Right, I can't be rewriting the laws as I go. But that's just how I feel. How could anyone do what she did and not be mentally ill? Seems like a no brainer.
Let me address your comments point by point. Some states have adopted a "guilty but mentally ill" plea, instead of allowing "not guilty by reason of insanity" (NGRI), but not Texas. Concerning the idea that NGRI is a "loophole," I consulted the major text in the field, "Psychological Evaluations for the Courts (2nd ed.), by Melton et al., (1997). The authors report that a Wyoming study done in 1970-72 indicated that the average community resident thought that the insanity defense was raised in 43% of all criminal cases during those years. Actually, it was raised by only 0.47% of all criminal defendant arrested in WY during those years. Other states show similar percentages to the 0.47%. When the defense
is raised, it's only successful about 25% of the time. More recent studies, probably reflecting the tightening of laws since Hinckley, show the average number of NGRI verdicts, not pleas, is typically below 1% of felony arrests.
Concerning the "early release," judges are historically not likely to grant early release in these situations. In fact, some studies show that NGRI felons are incacerated as long or longer than non-NGRI felons who have been convicted of the same offenses, especially when the offense is NOT murder.
Whether Yates was mentally ill was not the only deciding factor in this case. In Yates' second trial, all of the psychiatric expert witnesses on both sides agreed she was mentally ill, but disagreed on her mental state at the time of the offense.
Finally, some have raised the idea that Yates somehow got off because her experts and attorneys were highly paid. However, Yates' attorney said that her experts in the second trial were paid $25K, while the prosecutor said that his own experts were paid $200K.