We seem to be ignoring a significant facet of this case, which is that the Yateses seem to have a wrold-view completely consumed by their extreme religious beliefs. For starters, this would explain how Andea’s husband was able to control her and overrule her psychiatrist.
But I’ve really only heard a few sound bites and would like to hear more about what their beliefs were.
That “relatively narrow definition of the insanity plea” is identical to the rule on the insanity defense in the clear majority of American jurisdictions. My recollection is that approximately 3/4 of the states use the very same right-from-wrong M’Naughton test under which Andrea Yates was convicted yesterday. There is absolutely nothing special about Texas in this regard.
**
What “special” burden does Texas law stick on those who plea insanity?
Marc
I don’t know the “special” burden, but the actual burden is that the defense must prove that the defendant was more likely than not insane.
just thought I should add this to the mix:
her doctor at the time while he stated that he ‘didn’t see any signs of pyschosis (tho’ he couldn’t answer why he’d prescribe an anti psychotic to some one he didn’t think was pyschotic), he testified that he’d released Yates from an inpatient psychiatric program 6 days after he stopped her prescription for Haldol, and 10 days before she killed the kids, even tho’ she was on a suicide watch.
I would like an explanation from Russel’s defenders as to how reasonable it is to allow anyone who’d just been under a suicide watch in an inpatient hospital program to watch 5 small children. He may not have ‘known’ she’d harm the kids, but certainly, there was a definable, foreseeable risk of something bad (if she’d killed herself, then the kids would be alone).
IN patient treatment is not a routine for anyone. This was a seriously ill person. Had it been a serious medical disease, I somehow doubt that folks would be thinking that it was ok for Russ to leave her w/the kids.
I keep on thinking of the lawyers statement - if this woman isn’t guilty by reason of insanity, then no one could possibly be. She had a very, very long, documented history of serious mental illness, not just depression, not just suicide.
I, for one, have a more difficult time believing that some one can be ‘insane for a second’ (the snap and then back into reality). It took a very long time for her to get as ill as she was, why in the world would you believe she’d ‘snap out of it’.
I agree that the standards in TX are fairly routine. It seemed to me that while she seemed to know that society/the police etc. would consider her actions illegal, she believed it was the only way to save her children.
Insanity is always an affirmative defense, Robb. That means the defendant bears the burden of proving it to the jury. The preponderance of the evidence standard the defendant must meet is much less strict than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that the prosecution must meet to prove its own case (although there was no question here that Mrs. Yates had fulfilled all the elements of the murders with which she was charged).
Oh, and as long as people want to discuss the criminal liability of Mr. Yates, I might as well toss in the relevant statute:
§ 22.041. Abandoning or Endangering Child
(a) In this section, "abandon" means to leave a child in any place without providing reasonable and necessary care for the child, under circumstances under which no reasonable, similarly situated adult would leave a child of that age and ability.
(b) A person commits an offense if, having custody, care, or control of a child younger than 15 years, he intentionally abandons the child in any place under circumstances that expose the child to an unreasonable risk of harm.
(c) A person commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence, by act or omission, engages in conduct that places a child younger than 15 years in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment.
(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under Subsection (b) is:
(1) a state jail felony if the actor abandoned the child with intent to return for the child; or
(2) a felony of the third degree if the actor abandoned the child without intent to return for the child.
(e) An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the second degree if the actor abandons the child under circumstances that a reasonable person would believe would place the child in imminent danger of death, bodily injury, or physical or mental impairment.
(f) An offense under Subsection (c) is a state jail felony.
(g) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (c) that the act or omission enables the child to practice for or participate in an organized athletic event and that appropriate safety equipment and procedures are employed in the event.
(h) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (b) that the actor voluntarily delivered the child to an emergency medical services provider under Section 262.301, Family Code.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe/pe002200.html#pe007.22.041
Minty: “There is absolutely nothing special about Texas in [regard to the relative narrowness of the insanity plea]”
Well, Minty, I’m not a lawyer so I’m in no position to dispute your recollection, but the New York Times reported it in this way:
“Under Texas law, which has a strict standard for the insanity defense, Mrs. Yates could have been found not guilty only if jurors believed she suffered from a mental defect that prevented her from distinguishing right from wrong.”
That suggests to me that Texas places special limits on the insanity plea vis-a-vis some other states; as is borne out with respect to Illinois by Hamlet’s post. In any case, while it’s interesting to know, it’s not important to me whether the majority of states places the special burden on the defendant who seeks an insanity defense, or whether Texas is in the minority in so doing. My point is not to demonize or attack Texas, but to register an opinion on something I think is wrong.
Demise–I suggest you chill since you’ve got the wrong end of the stick entirely. On the matter of Mr. Yates’s complicity you write.
“One person, and one person alone, held those children under water until they died.”
Who disputes that? If you read my post again you’ll recognize that I didn’t say that two parents held “those children under the water till they died.” Not at all. Only one parent did that: the one on drugs for psychosis and the one who’d attempted to commit suicide twice. No, the other parent–the one who didn’t drown the children–was the one who left them alone with the suicidal, psychotic parent. Any complaint with that recital of the facts?
Personally, I think that under “(a)” as cited by Minty (in which “abandon” means "leaving a child in any place without providing reasonable and necessary care for the child, under circumstances under which no reasonable, similarly situated adult would leave a child of that age and ability), Mr. Yates might indeed be held legally accountable. That is, in my view, no reasonable and similarly situated spouse of a suicidal person ought to behave as Mr. Yates did.
But I do recognize that the courts are loath to pursue these kinds of questions without substantial public pressure, and I think the double standard applies.
Speaking of which, you wrote: “It’s remarkable how, when women commit filicide, they must be insane, but when men do it, they are obviously just murderers.”
Is it remarkable? Or does it suggest that double standards cut both ways depending on the circumstances.
Because I claim that a double standard impacted Yates adversely, while unfairly ignoring her husband’s complicity, you assume that under every circumstance I will understand the double standard as that which adversely impacts women and aids men. But I make no such assumption–not now or ever.
As to your cite, I’m with Ned. Few writers on the subject seem able to grasp precisely the point made above: i.e., double standards breed different circumstances so that their effects are complicated, not simple.
“Even when the husband didn’t commit any crime himself, people still point fingers and claim guilt.”
Actually, surprisingly few people are pointing the finger at the husband–that’s the point.
Consider this hypothetical example. Let’s say that a single father hired a nanny to look after five children over a period of several years. The nanny had suffered from repeated psychotic episodes and was not taking her medication; she attempted suicide. Yet, with no place else to go, she remained willing to do the job. One day she drowned the children.
Would you surprised, under these circumstances, to find that people, while recognizing that the nanny did the drowning, felt that the father’s conduct was irresponsible and complicit?
“With these numbers, it would be easy to see how, were the situation reversed, the wife would be considered a victim as well, instead of “complicit”.”
Actually I rather doubt it. Let’s say that in the example above the working parent is a successful professional woman who delegates child-rearing responsibilities entirely to her depressed, psychotic and suicidal husband. At various points he confesses to her and to friends that he’s ready to lose it and is hearing voices. She continues to have more children with him and to leave them entirely to his care. Then one day he kills them. Would she be considered his victim? I think not.
Under the two insanity defenses presented, Texas has a lower burden of proof for the defendant. Unless Illinois defines “clear and convincing” in a manner different from its general definition, such a burden is greater than proving something by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is just proving it was more likely than not that Yates met the definition of insane.
That doesn’t seem very special to me.
The New York Times is correct that the Texas standard is a strict one, Mandelstam. Nevertheless, this strict standard is the majority rule in American jurisdictions. You can find a good histroy of the insanity defense here. If you want to cut to the chase, here’s the pertinent part:
The M’Naghten test, of course, is, of course, identical to the Texas right/wrong test. And as Robb points out, the insanity defense in Texas is actually more lenient than the Illinois test, in that Texas permits the defendant to prevail on a significantly lower standard of proof.
Re Illinois: I was referring to Hamlet’s having mentioned the possible of a different legal recourse–guilt mitigated by mental illness. That struck me as a somewhat more humane response to insanity than appears to be available in Texas (so far as I know). I was not referring to the difference in wording which–for all I could tell–was to do with Hamlet’s paraphrase (the wording supplied is not in quotation marks) rather than any legal distinction.
That said, for the second time, I would disagree with any state’s position on this matter as, IMO, Yates’s psychosis was repeatedly established and her acts shouldn’t, therefore, be treated as would those of a sane person. But thanks for the source, Minty, which at some point I will read.
Ah, I see now. And you’re correct that Texas does not have a guilty-but-mentally-ill option. I’m not sure how many do (though I think it’s a good approach), though I believe it is only available in a handful of jurisdictions.
I’m curious. Why is there an assumption that Rusty Yates is mentally competent? Here’s a guy who took his family and retreated from society - living in a bus, I think someone said - and sought to exert total control over his family in ways that were not in their best interest. He sound like a loon to me.
A recurring theme in this thread is that the poor woman’s judgement was clouded by her malfunctioning noggin, and on some level that makes her less responsible for her actions. I’ll go along with that.
Yet her husband has been presumed by all to be capable of fully reasoned judgement, even to the point of assigning the guilt for HER actions to HIM. Has it occurred to no one else that the reason this guy hooked up with the lady in the first place is that they had something in common - an inability to deal effectively with reality?
The husband hasn’t been diagnosed with mental illness as far as I know, but that could very well just mean he hasn’t submitted to an exam; since he hasn’t been charged, the state has no compelling reason to insist on it. His actions certainly suggest the man’s keyboard is missing a few letters. If his illness is less than his wife’s, well so are his actions: failing to see her breakdown coming, and generally being a bastard. It seems to me that if a degraded mental function excuses his wife, even a little bit, it can similarly be argued to excuse her husband. Yet we assume his neuroses still leave him a villain. They led him to be controlling and irresponsible; while his wife’s illness makes her a victim despite the fact that it led her to exhibit downright criminal behavior.
The degree of illness in these two people looks to my - admittedly distant - eyes to be about proportional to the degree of wrongful behavior. Where’s the sense in apportioning culpability for the greater crime onto both parties?
One last note. Whom, in this situation, is the closest person to the case that we CAN presume to be fully mentally attired? The neighbors? Some arm of the state? (i.e. cops, social workers, etc.). How about the psychiatrists who examined the woman, did they not sense trouble when discussing her case with her husband? The whole concept of transferring blame is a peculiar one to me. Let’s be clear about what criteria we’re using.
I’m looking at this as if Mr. Yates were a victim. Seeing him as a victim, I tend to pity him for the fact that he has five children, and they have now been murdered. From this viewpoint, it’s reasonable to say that compassion for Mr. Yates overshadows finding fault with his decisions. Granted, not everyone is looking at things from this viewpoint.
Whether they think that Mr. Yates should be held legally accountable or not, it’s likely that few people believe that his decisions should be replicated in a similar situation.
APB: *"I’m curious. Why is there an assumption that Rusty Yates is mentally competent?..
Yet her husband has been presumed by all to be capable of fully reasoned judgement, even to the point of assigning the guilt for HER actions to HIM. Has it occurred to no one else that the reason this guy hooked up with the lady in the first place is that they had something in common - an inability to deal effectively with reality?"*
APB, what makes you think that anyone does assume that he’s necessarily sane. My point has been that he has some share of culpability–morally if not (in a technical sense) legally. If he were tried then perhaps it would emerge that he’s mentally ill. But, as you seem to realize, there’s nothing but the most speculative evidence to suggest that is so. Being weird and/or being married to someone who’s mentally ill is not very reliable evidence of mental illness.
In any case, assuming for the moment that there are grounds for legal action–are you suggesting that these should not be pursued simply because he might be as insane as his wife clearly is?
“It seems to me that if a degraded mental function excuses his wife, even a little bit, it can similarly be argued to excuse her husband. Yet we assume his neuroses still leave him a villain. They led him to be controlling and irresponsible; while his wife’s illness makes her a victim despite the fact that it led her to exhibit downright criminal behavior.”
I guess that depends who you’re responding too. For myself, I haven’t said he’s “a villain.” By all accounts he was controlling; and, to my mind at any rate, irresponsible and complicit. If there are mitigating factors to account for that–i.e., mental illness–there’s only on way to find out. You’ve created a kind of catch-22 here.
"The degree of illness in these two people looks to my - admittedly distant - eyes to be about proportional to the degree of wrongful behavior. "
How can you say that when we know almost nothing about Mr. Yates’s degree of illness.
“One last note. Whom, in this situation, is the closest person to the case that we CAN presume to be fully mentally attired? The neighbors? Some arm of the state? (i.e. cops, social workers, etc.). How about the psychiatrists who examined the woman, did they not sense trouble when discussing her case with her husband? The whole concept of transferring blame is a peculiar one to me. Let’s be clear about what criteria we’re using.”
The criterion at play is parenthood. When there are two parents, each is equally responsible for the wellbeing of the children. If the Yates children had been wards of the state, and the state placed them under the care of a known psychotic, then the state would be culpable too.
Does that help?
lel, FTR, I also pity Mr. Yates. I pity them both–and the dead children. This is a pitiable situation.
This makes me wonder why more people aren’t blaming the doctor. Clearly, he screwed up. While his actions do not absolve Yates of responsibility, they would seem to make him liable for her actions.
On a side note-Anti-psychotics are routinely prescribed for non-psychotic patients. Many of these drugs are also useful in the treatment of depression and other illnesses. The fact that the doctor did not use this to explain his actions, reinforxes my feeling that he is not fit to practice.Mrs. Yates should be executed. I see no reason why this cow should be afforded even one more day of life.
F*** this i am insane defense. she brutally murdered 5 humans. the sooner she is put down the better.
And as far as her trailer-trash husband is concerned, he should be euthanized as well. his baby-vessel was obviously not equipped to handle all the progeny he desired, yet he kept her knocked up and pounding out babies for the entire length of their marriage. even after 3 or 4 babies he made sure she was knockd up and ready to pound out his latest. these two make me ill.
As I understand it, Ms. Yates thought Satan was telling her to kill her children. She also thought that by killing them she was saving them from going to Hell. I.e., she thought it was morally right to kill her children.
I cannot imagine a case to which the insanity defense would be better suited. The woman belongs in an institution, not in an electric chair.
I do not agree that Mr. Yates bears responsibility for the actions of his psychotic spouse. Who can possibly imagine that their wife would do something like this?
Besides which, the man had to earn a living. What was he supposed to do? Quit his job and stay at home? And then how would the family eat?
Mr. Yates did not “cause” his wife’s mental illness. He did not “drive” her crazy. Mental illness is a chemical and/or physical defect of the brain.
(Anyone here seen A Beautiful Mind?)
Zuma, reading your post, it’s refreshing to see how far civilization has come. Why it’s as though Thomas Jefferson–no, Socrates–were posting on the SDMB 
[b[spoke- **, Of course, I agree with you entirely on the insanity defense. But lemme try just one more time on the rest.
“I do not agree that Mr. Yates bears responsibility for the actions of his psychotic spouse.”
No one is suggesting that Mr. Y. bears responsibility for his wife’s actions; what we’re suggesting is that Mr. Y. bears responsibility for his children’s death because he left them in the care of psychotic (his wife).
Try on this hypothesis. Let’s say that instead of a psychotic, Mrs. Y. had been the victim of a serious accident that left her blind and paralyzed from the waist down. Let’s say, then, that Mr. Y. left his five children in her care. While she was watching them–unable to see or move–several of them accidentally drowned to death in the family swimming pool.
Do you see why the father of the children would be culpable there? Leaving his children in the hands of a woman incapable of preventing them from drowning, or burning themselves, etc.?
“Who can possibly imagine that their wife would do something like this?”
Well, you could, for one, since you’ve eloquently insisted that you could not “imagine a case to which the insanity defense would be better suited.” How can it be that you can so heartily recognize how thoroughly insane Yates was, while shielding her husband from reasonable foresight? Do you know something that a husband wouldn’t know about mental illness?
“Besides which, the man had to earn a living. What was he supposed to do? Quit his job and stay at home? And then how would the family eat?”
Well, for one thing, he could have stopped having additional children–a simple enough move. He could have made sure that Mrs. Y. got consistent medical attendant (rather than discouraging it). He could have enrolled the children in public school, and the younger ones in daycare. I’m sure, under the circumstances, there might be public assistance available for subsidizing this if he couldn’t afford it.
Believe me, had Yates drowned the children during the 1 hour a day she was alone with them after Mr. Y. had struggled to put together a daycare arrangement, I’d be far less likely to say he’d been irresponsible.
"Mr. Yates did not “cause” his wife’s mental illness. He did not “drive” her crazy. "
Who are you quoting here since no one thus far has made this argument?
“Mental illness is a chemical and/or physical defect of the brain.”
Sometimes: but it’s entirely possible to help “drive” someone crazy. In fact, being at home alone with five children when you’re really depressed can “drive” you crazy.
However, whether Russell Yates contributed to his wife’s insanity or not–through controlling behavior, insensitivity, or what have you–isn’t my concern. My concern, as I hope you now understand, is his irresponsible conduct towards his children.
(Anyone here seen A Beautiful Mind?) **
[/QUOTE]
Ooops. That last line ought to have been deleted, deriving from spoke-'s earlier post. Apologies.