I like this idea.
A few important points noones mentioned:
Dr. Dietz’s testimony was mainly on Yates’ state of mind based on his interviews with her. He was a consultant to Law & Order and misremembered an episode (he didn’t claim to have written it as some here claimed), but that wasn’t a key part of his testimony. And he didn’t tie Yates’ actions to the show to demonstrate premeditation. He did give other examples in his testimony of her premeditation based on his interviews. These include her flat out saying that she knew she would do it the night before, and worked out the details so that she wouldn’t alarm her husband in the morning.
Dr. Dietz told the prosecuters about his mistake before the penalty phase of the trial, and the prosecution told the jury - also before the penalty phase of the trial. The jury was told to disregard this Law & Order issue before they sentenced Yates. (but not before they convicted her).
The prosecution provided many other psychiatric evaluations of Yates, all similar to Dietz’s.
In the end, Yates deserves a new trial because it is perjury, and it is a capital case. But it’s not exactly like Dietz intentionally made something up for his own vanity or because he had it out for Yates. And it’s not like the jury didn’t know about it before they sentenced her.
I had to watch extensive interviews of her and other mothers who killed their kids in my psychiatry class (U of I has some famous infanticide expert who was among the experts that interviewed her, have forgotten his name although his protege was my professor) and I will say that the fact that she came off as much, much crazier than all the rest of them put together says a lot about how far into her psychosis she really is. And that was after she was arrested for the murders and heavily medicated with anti-psychotics.
These interviews being real psychiatric assessment interviews, which we were shown for educational purposes, of course. They weren’t like a 20/20 special and we were admonished not to talk about them outside the classroom much.
Looks like Park Dietz has Law and Order on the brain.
Scroll down to the list of dvd features.
:dubious:
and :dubious:
and finally, :dubious:
And as I preview, I see that Bill H already linked Park Dietz to Law and Order (I started to write this over two hours ago, and was distracted by work). Darn. Anyway, shouldn’t this connection mean that Dr. Dietz should, you know, actually watch Law and Order? Be more familiar with the show than the average person?
Ooh, here’s an interview of Dr. Dietz talking about the Yates case, and other interesting cases.
She may well be fucking crazy, but as long as she knew that her actions were illegal and did them anyway, she belongs in a prison.
Course, if she gets the new trial, and is convicted, is it possible that she can get the death penalty?
There was no free will involved. Not guilty. Let’s grow out of this stupid lust for vengence.
I disagree: I think that she had free will, in that she could choose which actions she took, but that her perception of reality was so skewed it’s unreasonable to hold her to the same standards that we hold the non-psychotic to.
I think our criminal justice system needs an overhaul with regards to how it deals with mental illness, at every level (how police deal with the mentally ill, the defenses available at trial, the amount of treatment–real treatment, not just one-size-fits-all long-acting anti-psychotics–available for the mentall-ill-but-not-totally-insane in prison, etc)…
Frankly, I didn’t think she even met the Dusky standards for competency to stand trial at the point that she was interviewed. Based on all the (videotaped) psychiatric assessments I don’t think she understood the proceedings and there is no way in hell I would have wanted to be her lawyer because she didn’t seem terribly helpful-just twitchy. Maybe some other meds they put her on later made her competent, though.
This case shows the difference between legal insanity and mental illness.
IF she knew what she was doing was wrong she is LEGALLY SANE, even IF it is obvious to everyone that she deserves sympathy and treatment in a psychiatric facility.
Dietz lied, and should be punished, but he still believes that at the time she was legally sane, even if she was severely mentally ill. Medically, there is no sane/insane dichotomy, only degrees of mental wellness and illness.
It just shows that the law, based on looking back at old cases and precedents, needs to catch up with current medical thinking.
Cite? AFAIK, Dietz’s perjury was revealed by a screenwriter for L&O, who was covering the case as a reporter. And Dietz’s claim was that he had confused the case with others he was working on, not that he misremembered any episode(s).
Others’ points about insanity vs. mental illness are well-taken, but there other tests for legal insanity – I don’t know if Texas law permits it, but there is precedent for insanity based on delusions of compulsion. Unfortunately, I no longer remember the name of the test, nor the exact wording.
Is that the M’Naghten “irresistible impulse test” you’re referring to?? It was discarded if I remember correctly. I don’t know about Texas law either but I thought the current vogue for insanity tests is GBMI (“guilty but mentally ill”).
Nametag wrote
Hmmm, I swear I read it, and I even recall it was in the NY Times. But searching the site, I can’t find the article, and in fact I find this, that backs you up (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Yates-Psychiatrist.html)
Also, I can’t find anything else to back my statement here in other sources.
Nametag continued:
Not sure it’s a huge distinction. The LA times claims he confused it with another television series, not another case (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-yates7jan07,1,364865.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true)
Also for reference for all, the disputed testimony is pretty small; here’s the entirety (from http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/10582099.htm?1c)
Another important note that I should’ve made earlier: This testimony was offered during cross-examination. I.e. it wasn’t something Dietz said in his “prepared” testimony that he delivered for the prosecution, rather he said it when the subject was raised by the defense.
I think she had free will and enough touch with reality to know that drowning people is a crime at the time she chased down and killed those kids. She was quite obviously in touch enough with reality at the time to methodically drown them, chase down the oldest of them, and then call 911 after they were all dead.
Sure, she was mentally ill, but that does not equal insanity. Jeffrey Dahmer was mentally ill. David Berkowitz was mentally ill. They were both also legally sane, just like Andrea Yates. Seems the only reason she gets so much sympathy is the misguided belief that a mother would ‘have to be’ insane to drown her kids. That’s a supposition I refuse to make.
And just when, pray tell, did you become an expert in psychology and criminal law, catsix?
:rolleyes:
That’s really a total non sequitur. It is perfectly conceivable that someone be able to do this, yet not see what they are doing as wrong.
It’s also possible that in this case (and I don’t know if this is the case or not) that Ms. Yates knew that killing her children was wrong, yet sincerely believed it would be more wrong to let them live, and that in a bizarre sense her actions would not be criminal under a mistaken concept of justification.
Bottom line is an insanity defense works much more often on TV than it does in a court room. In California, for instance, only one out of every 27,000 arrests ends in a succesful insanity plea, and the best estimate I can find is that less than 0.25% of terminated felony prosecutions are the result of insanity defenses.
OK, I know there are times I will remember something I intended to do or say so vividly that I later remember actually having done or said it, only to find out I hadn’t. (thankfully, nothing important)
Thus, I do wonder if Dr. Dietz, in his LAW & ORDER consultations, may have discussed or thought of such a plot for a possible episode of L&O, then later misremembered it to the extent that he imagined the episode was made.
Thus, stupidity & incompetence, yeah; perjury, no.