Thu 27 Jul 2006
I’m not a lawyer. I am neither a psychologist, a psychiatrist, nor a mental health professional.
If I were one of these people with their training, then I’m sure I would understand why it doesn’t make sense to have a verdict of “Guilty, but Insane” or “Guilty, but Mentally Ill”… but “Innocent by Reason of Insanity” does make sense.
The Andra Yates verdict makes no sense to me. And by “sense”, I am referring to “common sense”. Maybe it’s fine in the legal sense… but doesn’t pass a sniff test.
I understand that the reasoning is that the accused is not guilty because they are unable to comprehend that the action they have taken is wrong. You are only guilty of a crime if you intended to commit the crime. Because you can not comprehend it… you couldn’t have intended it. Therefore, you are absolved. (I guess the “insanity” is guilty, but the person is not).
I’m sure that this makes perfect sense to a philosophy student.
In the Andrea Yates case, we are talking about five dead innocent children. They did not die because of a tragic accident. There was no mistake. It’s not my place to render an expert judgement about whether she met the criteria for insanity. (But I will add… if she did have the presence of mind to immediately call 911 after commiting the crimes, she knew at least on some level that what she had done was wrong. But I digress). Let’s just say for the sake of argument that she was not only mentally ill, but that her actions were also clouded by insanity, whatever the non common-sense definition.
The children had their lives, in fact, cut short. And there is someone who was responsible: their mother. One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Five children had to struggle against the cruelty of their mother, but eventually died that day.
Now, I have no problem if the good doctors and lawyers can determine that Andrea Yates was so delugional that she didn’t know what she was doing. If she needs to be placed in a high-security mental hospital rather than a prison, then that sounds fine to me. Who knows what she harm she might cause to herself or to others. But if the wise doctors were to ever pronounce her “sane” again, instead of releasing her back to the world… then send her to prison for the balance of her sentance. She still might spend all of the time in the hospital, but at least there would be some sense of punishment for the deaths. If she needs treatment, then by all means, provide the treatment. But don’t pretend that the actions didn’t take place.
That’s what I would mean by “guilty, but insane”. The children died. The insanity does not exist apart from the person. So don’t try to seperate it.
Those children never had a chance to make any such distinction.
