Not Guilty By Insanity Defense - Essay Sample

Introduction

The state is burdened in incidences of criminal prosecution to prove a convict guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Under the common law or the statutes, defendant's can raise certain defenses against the prosecution. One of these defenses is the insanity defense, which greatly varies from state to state. A defendant admits to the prosecution's allegations when he/she raises an insanity defense, though arguing that they are not criminally responsible for the crime. Under the Texas law, it is required that the defendant provide evidence of medical report on a mental defect that inhibits the convict's ability to know the offense as a wrong. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals clarifies the rule by requiring that the defendant must beyond any reasonable doubt provide evidence of the convict's extreme delusional state that resulted to misperception by the defendant on their offense nature, or believed that the offense was an obedience of the society's law rather than a violation. Many cases have been heard and addressed under this legal provision. An example of such a case is the case of the Andrea Yates case in Texas. In the first trial, Andrea Yates was not found "not guilty under insanity defense" as the jurors determined that she understood that her actions were illegal.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Andrea Pia Yates was a capital murder convict in Texas after the court found her guilty after she intentionally drowned her five children in a bathtub. She resided in Houston, Texas, and suffered from postpartum psychosis, postpartum depression, and schizophrenia (Roche, 2002). The defense attorney, George Parnham, applied the insanity defense through the process of the trial but the court later determined that the defense could not apply in the case. The court used evidence from expert psychiatric witnesses brought forth by the prosecution, legal tests for sanity, and previous medical reports (McLellan, 2006). The Texas jury ruled on July 2, 2006, that Andrea was not guilty by reason of insanity, and sentenced her for life imprisonment. Notably, the offense was intentional, as she admitted that she waited for the ideal time to commit the crime under the impulse of satanic voices, in order to receive a death penalty. However on July 26, 2006, after the psychiatrist expert who testified against Andrea admitted to having given wrong testimony, there was a retrial, and the earlier ruling of life imprisonment was overturned (Moran, 2006). However on July 26, 2006, after the psychiatrist expert who testified against Andrea admitted to having given wrong testimony, there was a retrial, and the earlier ruling of life imprisonment was overturned (McLellan, 2006). In the new jury verdict, she was sentenced in a maximum-security criminal ward where she would receive treatment, and if periodical tests indicated her recovery and proofed that she could cause no harm to herself and others, she would then be released.

In the new jury verdict, she was sentenced in a maximum-security criminal ward where she would receive treatment, and if periodical tests indicated her recovery and proofed that she could cause no harm to herself and others, she would then be released.

It was difficult for Andrea to be found not guilty by insanity by the court of law as she fully understood that her actions were both illegal and immoral. The Texas law requires that the defendant must prove the inability to discern the act as wrong at the time of the crime (Moran, 2006). In her confessions, Andrea confessed drowning her five children in full realization of the legal and moral implication of the act. She confessed to having strategically prepared for the act when her husband, Rusty, had left for work before she proceeded with the murder as she knew that Rusty would have prevented her from doing so (McLellan, 2006. Notably, she had also locked up their family dog, which was normally left to run free as a way of preventing its interference with the murder. Chiefly, though the defense attorney was able to prove that indeed Andrea was a psychotic through the previous medical report and her husband's testimony, it did not legally translate to not guilty by insanity (McLellan, 2006). Consequently, the court found her guilty, refused the prosecution plea for a death penalty, and gave Andrea a life sentence with a possibility of parole after 40 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

During the trial, ethical gaps have been noted by many experts and legal professionals in regard to expert witness testimony. According to World Psychiatry argues that two values; respect for the person and objectivity, should guide forensic psychiatry in their practice (CALCEDO-BARBA, 2006). These values were highly disregarded in the first trial of Andrea Yates, as the expert psychiatrist, Park Dietz, later in the retrial admitted having given wrong testimony concerning Andrea's case. Evidently, it was clear that he was not an expert nor experienced in postnatal disorders despite his earlier testimonies in earlier similar legal proceedings. He had not treated any psychotic patient from the early 1980s, and the last time he had seen a patient was back in 1977. Chiefly, the expert was unsure if any time in his career he had had contact with a patient of postnatal depression with psychotic features (Roche, 2002). Notably, he had testified before the jury on the side of the prosecution that Andrea was indeed not insane and that what she had before the thought was mere "obsession intrusive thoughts" as opposed to hallucinations (Moran, 2006). He believed that this was a result of her believes in Satan, as the voice behind her killing, and thus was fully aware of the offense she committed. This testimony by Dietz was highly criticized by the public, such as media groups like CNN, and many experts, including mental health advocates like APA leaders (Cassel, 2016). The APA Vice President Nada Stotland, M.D. noted after the retrial that finally justice prevailed in the case of Andrea. Therefore, the expert testimony was thus highly unethical.

In conclusion, criminal prosecution has the mandate to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that indeed a convict is guilty. In criminal defense, the defendant may either use the statutes or the common law, which varies from state to state for some legal provisions. One such defendant legal provision is the insanity defense, which applies when there is proof that the convict committed a crime without the knowledge whether the offense was wrong. In the case of Andrea Yates, the not guilty by insanity defense did not apply in the first trial as the jury gave a verdict based on the argument that Andrea knew and understood her offense prior to committing it. The decision was overturned later after a retrial. The retrial opened up debates on the ethical concerns pertaining to forensic psychiatrists in criminal cases. Notably, they ought to be objective and consider the person's interests, whether on the defendant or on the prosecution side.

References

CALCEDO-BARBA, A. (2006). The ethical implications of forensic psychiatry practice. World Psychiatry, 5(2), 93-94. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525124/

Cassel, E. (2016, January 24). The Second Andrea Yates Verdict. Retrieved from https://www.counterpunch.org/2006/07/28/the-second-andrea-yates-verdict/

McLellan, F. (2006). Mental health and justice: the case of Andrea Yates. The Lancet, 368(9551), 1951-1954. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69789-4

Moran, M. (2006). Insanity Plea Successful In Andrea Yates Retrial. Psychiatric News, 41(16), 2-38. doi:10.1176/pn.41.16.0002

Roche, T. (2002, March 18). Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,218445,00.html