Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity - Page 4

I read a lot about this case, and watched a two-hour documentary on it, too. This woman cried out for help so many times, was told after her third child she should never have any more children, and they just kept getting pregnant because her husband had such intense religious beliefs that he could not conceive of using any form of contraception. This was not an isolated incidence of mental illness or one case of post-natal depression. This was years of depression following the birth of her first child, attempted suicides, hospitalisation, medication and a very simple, basic failure of the authorities, doctors, and this poor woman's family to look after her and those children properly before something like this inevitably happened.

Suffering from a mental illness myself, I know first-hand how crazy it can make you feel. I tried to kill myself twice when I was younger, both times knowing full well I didn't want to die, however I was unable to stop myself. THAT is the scary part of mental illness - the part of you that is rational and should be stopping your behaviour is totally overruled by the sick part of you, and you literally watch yourself undertaking harmful behaviours being unable to do anything about it. And also, you can be quite rational and ok, and the next second, literally, you have taken 250 tablets and have no idea why you did it, and having no way of stopping yourself, feel totally helpless.

To anyone who vilifies others who have suffered or are suffering from a long, protracted mental illness (especially those who have hurt themselves or others) who say, `its all very well to have a mental illness BUT', I invite you to spend just five minutes inside the mind of someone who is mentally ill, and that would be enough to scare you out of ever making that kind of comment again. Its crazy, its out of control, and its terrifying. That's the whole point of mental illness - you have no control over it, or your behaviour. If you did, it wouldn't be an illness, now, would it? Its as impossible to talk yourself out of a psychotic episode and the behaviour that results from it, as it is impossible to talk yourself out of an asthma attack, or an insulin spike, or any other illness. Its just that the symptoms of mental illness are behavioural, not just physical - but it doesn't make it any more controllable.

Incidentally, its not like she got off scott-free. She has been committed to an institution and has lost all of her children - and has to live the rest of her days, particularly once she gets better (if she ever does) and can recognise the enormity of what she's done, knowing it was her that killed them. That is the worst punishment I can think of, the worst of all.

But she doesn't have a brain tumor. And she already knows what she did because she called 911 when she finished killing them.

Another portion of this story is that she filled the tub two months before the actual murders because she wanted to do it on that particular day. But mother was home and so she changed her mind and waited for her opportunity. She knew she was going to do it and she didn't want to be stopped before she could finish. She knew someone would stop her if they were in the house. She discussed this with the police.

She had been planning on killing them before the last two had even been born... This woman was an RN for years and years at a cancer facility in Houston. I personally think her downside and her desire to kill her kids was because she quit working when she got married and was overwhelmed with children and homeschooling them. Didn't want to take birth control and child after child being born. A husband who never changed a diaper. And she planned the demise of her children as a possible relief effort because she would rather go to jail for murder than be in her current situation. She said she was a bad mother and you know what? She was right! She was very bad mother. This is just my opinion.. She told the police she wanted them to take her to jail..

I agree to disagree with this verdict and with this thread. But I feel confident that in the future, she will face trial again with the deaths of the two remaining children that she was not charged with YET and I can only pray the children find righteous justice in that.

She knows.... When someone pleads "not guilty by reason of insanity", they are actully saying "I did it and this is why"... It's a cop-out plea to try and avoid the death penalty in serious cases. Happens all the time. She wanted to kill her kids AND get off criminally. Otherwise she would have kept her mouth shut about "being insane".... The fact that she was medicated with a history of mental illness might possibly have been the "key" she needed to get off criminally. It is very possible she knew this too since she was an educated woman. The fact that she knew no one could be in the house so "she could complete her task" tells me she was not that delusional..

That's just not true. You asked before if people writing in this thread had children, and invited them to comment. Do you have a mental illness? If so, then I feel that you would have more credibility in your point of view. Not that I'm saying your opinion is not credible - I don't mean it to come across like that, but I think it is a little close-minded. I can see where you are coming from, absolutely - this was a horrific crime, no doubt about it.

But I have to use an example again. The first time I overdosed I went and told my Dad straight away. Because I knew it was wrong and I didn't mean to do it. That has nothing to do with the lack of control I had in the first instance. If I could have I would never have done it in the first place - but that's what I was talking about in my first post. I had NO control - none. I would say it was very similar with Andrea Yates. She did it, she snapped out of whatever psychosis she was in, and she called the police. Anyone with insight and experience in the behaviour of the mentally ill knows this is completely normal psychotic behaviour and is not an admission of premeditated guilt, but post-act realisation.

How is being mentally ill different from having a brain tumour? The chemical makeup of the brain is adversely affected in both instances. What you are saying is that you would accept it if she had a physical manifestation of illness. Well, she did. So the `but she didn't have a brain tumour' argument doesn't hold water - she had another illness of the brain, its the same thing in essence.

Not much experience in mental illness but I have years behind me working with criminals who do anything necessary to get off. Pleding insanity in Texas to avoid the death penalty is common since they love that death penalty there. It is nearly a standard cop-out plea. AND IT IS VERY TRUE! It is to avoid death and to get off. Any one who is charged with a capital offense will have this plea. Anyone! It's their own chance to get off and not die if found guilty. Especially if they are caught red handed and proving guilt is not an option.... With capital cases, death is an option as punishment. But only on capital cases. Like Andrea's.

I remember one guy so intent on proving his "insanity" he twisted paperclips through his arm and sat like he was in some comatose state, until we caught him on camera. But like his cells mates said, he was gaming. And he had a history of mental illness too. That was his ace in the hole or so he thought.

If you think this is uncommon, you are niave. The criminal mind is different from the mentally ill. Especially when dealing with possibly losing your own life. People become desperate real fast. They have big time regrets..

Andrea told her psychiatrist in 1999 that she heard voices, but her current psychiatrist had no knowledge. If this was such a serious issue, why didn't he know?...

She is a cold blooded killer who used the system...

Well I can certainly understand your opinion a lot more in this case. I agree that many, many criminals would use this as a convenient excuse to get out of facing up to their responsibilities, and if you saw it all the time, it would get extremely frustrating.

But, isn't it the case that this defence originated because in some cases its actually true? The history behind Andrea Yates is a long and sad one, and whilst I agree it is a terrible crime, I think that it the result of a long line of failures, not just that she was a terrible woman who just wanted to kill her kids. If that was the case I don't think there would have been any calling 911 or calmly submitting to arrest. I think if cold-blooded pre-mediatated murder had been in it, then she would have planned how to get away with it, too.

This WAS her plan to get away with it.

In fact, the very best thing she did for herself was call 911 immediately after the kids were dead............it was the icing on the cake. She planned on using an insanity plea to get off. And it helped prove her case of insanity.

If she had not killed them all, I wonder what the oldest child would have said to the police when questioned. She chased him down when he caught her killing Mary. She had the bathroom door shut and she moved each body out of the restroom and covered them so he could not see what she was doing... She was careful in that because the oldest was her biggest challenge. If she had offed him first, it would have made the babies cry cause it would have scared them and the possiblity of getting caught before finishing was much greater with that. So the order she killed them in was important.

The oldest managed to get in the bathroom and saw his mother with Mary and ran. Andrea did not have time to cover Mary's body before she caught her oldest son. Since he fought, she dragged him to the restroom and drowned him with Mary in the tub along side him. Then she moved Mary...

Wonder what he would have said if he had managed to get out of the house and get help. Andrea's version is all we will ever know.

Yep, she had to call 911. To prove her insanity actually. If not for that, it would have been slam-dunk and shut.

Filling the water two months earlier was the beginning of her physical plan. She had to make sure people believed her when she did it. She was pretty smart..

Well, I guess there's convincing arguments on both sides. I always tend to be the one who takes the side of the person with the illness in these kinds of instances, because I know how it feels, I really do. However, there is also something to be said for the fact that a great many people in the world suffer from debilitating mental illness and never kill anybody.

I guess we'll never know for sure - only she will, and she is the one who will never be allowed to live a normal life again.

My eldest brother is a prosecutor for our Director of Public Prosecutions here in Perth. He is one of the most compassionate people I know, despite the dreadful things he has seen in his 20 or so years as a lawyer. He prosecutes paedophiles, mainly. Now THEY are people who are mentally ill - and I couldn't care less what kind of dreadful hells they rot in for the rest of their lives! I do think there are worse things out there than murder, although that may sound strange.

"If you think this is uncommon, you are niave. The criminal mind is different from the mentally ill"

No. Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity pleas are attempted in less than 1% of criminal cases. Only a quarter of those are successful.

Meaning an NGRI is rare. Very very rare.

"Anyone who is charged with a capital offense will have this plea"

I suppose anyone who is charged with a crime could consider it, but again, less than 1% of criminal cases try it. You make it sound like everyone tries this. That is the opposite of the truth.

I have to disagree with that - as a surviving member of a stranger-murdered nephew and a killed-by-drunk-driver brother. The state where my nephew was murdered does not have the death penalty for any but the slayers of law enforcement or during the commission of a robbery or rape; it made me and almost all of my family realize that if the murderer was killed, it would not bring us any closure nor any sense of justice. Until these things happened, I was pro- death penalty. But now I realize that my Lord is a loving God and has taken my loved ones close to Him, and they do already have their righteous justice, same as Andrea Yates' children.

But at least she has life. She robbed that of 5 innocent children who will never have any more life at all.

If she planned all of this so that she could be rid of her children, why didn't she just leave instead? If she thought it out as you believe, she would know that she would be locked up afterward, whether it was prison or not.

My best friend has psychosis/schizophrenia and i have been present for many of her breaks.

But i still feel this verdict is a miscarriage of justice.

So does the afformentioned friend.

Just a couple of points -- factual points, not argumentative points. This thread has gone way beyond meaningful commentary and crossed into subjective and emotional "I know more about this than the whole world." There is no common ground when ears stay closed and mouths stay open.

Perhaps we might all take a look at the relevant rules and the burdens upon the parties here in Texas, if only to put the comments here into a realistic context.

First, we must not forget that this case was tried in Texas, the leading executor of convicted criminals in the USofA, and it was tried in Harris County, Texas, the leader of the leader. It is extremely rare for there to be a successful plea of not guilty by reason of insanity in Harris County, Texas. There is no hesitation on the part of Harris County, Texas, juries about sending defendants to death row -- quite the contrary. Neither prosecuting attorneys nor judges in Harris County, Texas, have a record of being lenient on defendants. I see nothing to be gained by comparing resumes, but I know whereof I speak.

Next, this lady was found not guilty by a unanimous verdict of 12 men and women who came from all walks of life; men and women who heard the evidence, both factual and expert, looked the defendant in the eye, and applied the law as given to them by the judge, something not shared by some commentators here who feel they know more about the case than did the jury.

What does the action taken by the jury mean, in legal terms and consequences?

In Texas, as a matter of statutory (not judge-made) law, "it is an affirmative defense if, at the time of the conduct charged, the defendant, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that [her] conduct was wrong. The term 'mental disease or defect' does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct."

When a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity has been entered, "the defense has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was insane at the time of the alleged conduct." That is, the prosecution need not prove that the defendant was not insane -- the defense must prove that the defendant was insane. This is a heavy burden -- if the jury decides that neither side got an edge, then the verdict must be guilty as charged.

And lastly, the Texas law, as passed by its legislature, the representatives of the people in both the House and the Senate, says, "A defendant who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity shall stand acquitted of the offense charged and may not be considered a person charged with a criminal offense." "Acquitted." There is nothing ambiguous about that word.

So that there be no misunderstanding among our gentle Catsite readers about what the jury's finding means, Texas statutory law further provides that "The court, the attorney for the state, or the attorney for the defendant may not inform a juror or a prospective juror of the consequences to the defendant if a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is returned."

That is, the jury may not be made aware of the fact that the defendant will most likely be committed to a mental health institution until such time as she is released by a judge. This jury accepted a heavy burden in this case.

This, then, was the context within which the judge, the jury, the prosecuting attorneys, the defense attorneys and the defendant herself were operating during this trial.

Now I must step out of the factual context into making a subjective observation. How can one honestly make the argument that this defendant, facing the burdens laid on her shoulders by the State of Texas, took advantage of, and deceived, the judge and all 12 members of the jury -- a unanimous jury? This jury had an awesome task, and I would submit that there is no reason to believe that the jury did anything other than its duty after assessing the evidence. To go further and say that this deception happens all the time is the utmost height of irresponsibility.

If one has heartburn about what the law is then one can take steps to get the law changed, perhaps by electing a different legislative representative. If one feels that there should be no defense of not guilty by reason of insanity, or that there is no such thing as insanity, as at least one of our commentators appears to argue, then get the law changed. But to argue this takes on not only history but also the general view of mankind and its experience.

With respect,

Jim

Good post Jim, but on the flip side of the coin.she was convicted in a trial before this. by 12 jurors. I dont know all the details so i wont attempt to offer anything more than that. And while it is correct we were not there. and not the jury, jurys are also not always 100% correct either.

Jcat, okay, I only got through the first page of that because I think I'm gonna barf. But, one very similar detail that struck me was that his mother failed to do anything about it over and over. She took him off his meds (clearly a bad idea) and when he showed up with a cat he had killed and smeared its blood all over hismelf right in front of her, she still didn't do a thing.

It is soooooo sad and scary that someone could watch someone with that obvious of a mental illness and not do anything.

Strangely enough, if I am Andrea Yates I would actually prefer prison than hospital. I would be terrified of the prospect of not only losing my freedom, but to be poked by a needle several times a day for the rest of my life.

Wow. That must be sad to watch someone close deteriorate like that.

I sometimes have a hard time believing that anybody could do anything as wrong as these serial/spree killers and not be insane. I know that people are mentally okay and do them... it's just hard to believe. I know that firsthand, really.

Sometimes, we could know more than the jury. Not all of the facts always get into the trial. That's why some juries are sequestered.

I will just say this, first I agree with ShengMei, an open heart leaves open opporutunities for the devil! 2.) Sometimes when you are hoping for the best, hoping for that person to get better you are blindsided with that. That husband could have very well been seeing progress in his wife, or thought he was, and believing the best for her. If he wasn't there and he wasn't part of the plan then he isn't guilty. Point blank, I know some people are all "let the Dad go down with the mom" But there have been times when between full time school and work I don't know whats going on in my house until the weekend!

I agree. Even the physician decided to cut off Andrea Yate's medication two weeks before the murders, so there must be some kind of marked improvement right before the murders otherwise that would have not happened.

I kept wondering if the physician would be charged with malpractice since it is a known fact that sudden changes of medication can cause psychosis.

It doesn't come and go that quickly.

If you've ever done something that was totally "unlike yourself" think about what you were thinking at the time, at some level. There is just no way a person can kill five little living breathing children--each one of them struggling to live and while she held them under while their hearts stopped beating--and then know who to call and what to say afterwards.

She was deluded into thinking that she needed to kill these bad children before "the age of accountability," at which point they might lose their souls. Plus, she was depressed but that, I'm sorry, is no excuse. She doesn't deserve to live in the world with the rest of us.

So, her three excuses were that she was suffering from postpartum depression, a severe form of it--but she had a helper who was even to arrive that day in an hour to help her through it. Many women don't have that much help.

She had too many children back to back. This is also her own fault and the fault of her husband. Women are not baby making machines, for one thing.

And, she had religious beliefs that threatened a perfect outcome for each of her children, and not enough faith that they would turn out okay.

Bad combinations. But no excuses for killing such beautiful life.

Well that was well spoken and hard to argue with. However I think juries have been known to get it wrong many times.

I also think the argument that gets involved in a person's religious beliefs is tricky, at best. Now, not knowing what she was doing was right or wrong takes on more meaning. It's a subjective call at best, and humans cannot possibly discern the truth. Perhaps the truth by law, but again, they could easily get this wrong. It's a crap shoot when you get into determining the motives of people and what's going on inside their heads.

Certainly not excuses, no. But valid reasons nonetheless. And I don't say that to justify or excuse - it is a terrible, sad tragedy.

And, she won't be living in the world with the rest of us. Isn't she going to be institutionalised? Just not in a prison...

Shell be in a mental hospital but unlike a mental ward of a prison she is eligble to get out( not that they will let her)

Sane people do it everyday through neglect and abuse.

Also people with mental illness do have rational, logical thinking. The problem what they use a delusional basis for that thinking. Andrea Yates was basing her thinking on a flawed view of the world.