Jury finds Yates not guilty in drownings

[Johnd]

The unfortunate realities are:

Many people in the US are mentally unstable or dysfunctional. When we "outlawed" hospitalizing people simply because they suffered from some sort of depression, syndrome, psychosis, etc. (back in the 70's), we agreed that it was unjust to lock someone up simply because they were different. We did away with many of the mental health facilities and asylums. We now detain "them" only if they present a threat to themselves or others, and in prison rather than wards. Unfortunately, this generally means they do not receive proper care while detained, and no care after release (so it becomes a vicious cycle).

It is true that our justice system (both criminal and civil law) is predicated on a good defense. And sadly, that comes with a price: the quality of the defense is generally proportional to the amount one pays: the more money one pays, the better defense/representation one receives. That's not too egalitarian, nor is it very just. But it is the best system we have at the moment.

During the decade of 1994-2004, Wisconsin population grew by 6.5%, whereas the attorney population grew by 20%, a growth difference of more than 3.5. Hmmmmm. I was always taught reasonable people ought to resolve their differences. Deer season is quickly approaching, I wonder if it's too late to expand the game parameters. There is no doubt that we need attorneys, but do we need this many with this much litigation?

 

[gmichael]

Everyone involved in the case agreed that Yates was seriously mentally ill when she killed her children. But that is not the same thing as being "insane." Most mentally ill people are not dangerous. And let's leave the term "crazy" out of the discussion, since it's not clear whether it's being used to mean "mentally ill," "legally insane," or "bizarre and outrageous."

"Insanity" is a legal term, with a definition that varies from state to state. The definition in Texas is that insanity = being so severely mentally ill that you don't know that the actions are wrong, which is not an easy legal standard to meet. In this case, the evidence was clear enough that the jury was persuaded that she did not know at the time she killed the children that her actions were wrong. She believed that killing them was necessary to save their souls from Satan.

The analogy with terrorists is a false one. Terrorists engage in criminal behavior, but are not necessarily mentally ill. That is, they don't hallucinate, and they don't have delusional thinking even though their beliefs may be extreme. These people are dangerous, and they are criminal, but they are not necessarily mentally ill in spite of their bizarre actions.

The idea that Yates somehow "got off" is also not correct. She isn't going to take a pill and walk out of jail tomorrow. She will be confined to a locked ward in a mental hospital, and will be required to take medication and participate in whatever treatment her doctors recommend. Essentially she will have no civil rights. It will be up to the judge who tried her case to decide when she may be released. This may not happen for years, and it may not happen at all. If anyone thinks that the "treatment" available to the criminal mentally ill is some kind of picnic, read Pete Earley's recent book "Crazy," in which he describes his journey through the forensic mental health system in Florida as a result of his son's mental illness.

And all this makes her safe to be around? Forget the medical, technical or any other types of definitions. Is she safe? Are others in danger around her?

 

[gmichael]

You really need to get a grip.

Try not to take personal stabs like this. Doesn't do anyone any good.

You do know she's not getting out? She's going to a mental hospital, where she will probably stay for several years at least, if not forever, and the place she should have been since day one. Annually, they will report on her status and decide what to do with her. Odds are, she will always be in some sort of hospital or group home.

I've known several women with MILD post partum depression, and I can't imagine being able to live with someone who had a severe case of it.

All I'm saying is that anyone who did what she did is not all there. But does that mean she's not guilty?

 

[pbarach1]

what "not guilty" means in this case

Try not to take personal stabs like this. Doesn't do anyone any good.




All I'm saying is that anyone who did what she did is not all there. But does that mean she's not guilty?

"Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity," which was the plea (and the verdict) in this case, means "I did it but I had a severe mental illness at the time I did this, and at that time did not know that my actions were wrong." As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is a longstanding feature of our legal system that individuals with severe mental illness are not held responsible for their actions under certain conditions which vary according to the individual State's definition of "insanity." IMO this is a basic kind of fairness.

 

[gmichael]

"Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity," which was the plea (and the verdict) in this case, means "I did it but I had a severe mental illness at the time I did this, and at that time did not know that my actions were wrong." As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is a longstanding feature of our legal system that individuals with severe mental illness are not held responsible for their actions under certain conditions which vary according to the individual State's definition of "insanity." IMO this is a basic kind of fairness.

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.

 

[pbarach1]

NGRI -- myth versus reality

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.