what do you think about "insanity pleas"?

[cp[mike]]

very interesting ideas brought up, im looking forward to seeing some peoples responses. im sorry this isnt a contributory response.

[iamnemo]

You want it, you've got it.

If someone is diagnosed as mentally disturbed/clinically insane/whatever, then sometimes it isn't their fault if they murder. There are mental disorders where a person loses control over their basic ability to tell what's right and what's wrong. Should we punish them just like someone who knew it was wrong to kill? In my opinion, no.

I'm not saying that someone being insane makes it ok to murder. It's still wrong. But there are several disorders where people don't know that murdering is wrong or possibly are being told to by voices in their head. The list os possible scenarios could go on forever. For them it's not always a conscious decision though. They should be locked up in mental institutions for a DAMN long time and should get treatment for their disorders.

People who kill and are mentally stable should just be locked up forever in their own little cell with no human contact.

[mayberry]

fuck an insanity plea. if your insane, you deserve to be put away anyway. Your deemed a burden on society, and could be harmful at times. Fuck that.....i dont need my mom going to work one day and getting offed by some wack job at the the store while shes getting coffee.

[re0430]

Insanity pleas are actually rarely used because, taken as a whole, rarely ever work. There's so many different types of pleas when it comes to mental disorders, heat of passion, irresistable impulse, infancy, insanity, guilty but mentally ill, incapable to stand trial, etc. etc. I'm pretty sure to be found legally insane, all states now use the M'Naghten test, which basically says that a person is suffering from a mental defect that doesn't allow them to appreciate the nature of their act. I haven't been following the Yates case, but just by looking at your quote, she sounds like she has some sort of mental disease going on.

I really don't look at insanity pleas as getting away with anything. Take a look at Hinckley, if he would've been found legally sane, he would be walking around today a free man. But he was found insane, and is just now allowed to leave his mental institution to visit family members on weekends. The only real difference is the level of security and, of course, the death penalty.

With that aside, I actually don't like any sort of insanity plea. If a person has a mental disease and is obviously a danger to society, why does that save them from the same outcome of a sane person? I don't think it should.

[uncle_el]

generally, an insanity defense doesn't mean that the perpetrator goes free, rather the person is committed to a hospital, almost always a psychiatric hospital/ward. i'm not sure the length of current sentences, but it used to be a lifelong sentence, just not in jail/prison.

as far as this case goes, i believe it's hard to say that she was "insane" when committing the murder because she killed all 5 children individually. in other words, she called in one child, drowned him/her, dressed him/her, placed him/her in bed... repeated that 4 times, and then called her husband. there were also some things she had said prior to the murders that seemed to hint there was a bit of premeditation.
as far as the religious angle on her... her and her husband had some strange understanding of their relationship with God and with each other and with other people. but i digress.

having worked in a hospital for 2 years now on many different services (none psychiatric yet, that's a month away) i've seen people whom most would call crazy. whether they're septic (overwhelming infection), off their psychiatric medications, or something else, i've found that people's actions can be erratic, extreme, and volatile.
i had one woman, who was septic, a drug abuser (iv cocaine), who needed a lumbar puncture. the intern, myself, and a 4th year neurology resident tried to hold her down to get this done, and she yelled out "i'm going to bite you, aaaaaaahhh" and she tried to bite me in the groin! i still took care of her (of course making sure to keep my groin away from her, lol) every day. when she began to get better, i asked her about it and she had no recollection. she didn't remember being in the er (where the incident occurred), and really didn't remember much of anything.

whether this rises to the level of "insanity" or not, i'm unsure as this is an area of law that i'm definitely not well versed in. but i could see how someone can act "outside of themselves", but would tend to think it would be a fleeting moment in time (though i couldn't put a specified amount of time on that). that's not to say, however, that i think that people who are declared "insane" should be let off the hook. rather, i'm just saying that i understand.

but i do think the courts uphold mental competence as a standard, i.e. being mentally fit to stand trial. if one is not mentally competent to understand what they were doing, what the charges are... where do we go?
in the charge of murder, one has to prove intent. if the person did not intend to kill the person, then it would fall to the level of manslaughter.

i believe this is where the problems come in. the d.a. can only charge the person with one crime related to said dead victim... in other words, the d.a. must charge the perpetrator with murder or manslaughter. murder, depending on the degree (1st, 2nd, 3rd) tends to hold a longer sentence than manslaughter. perhaps if the d.a. weren't so zealous to pursure a murder charge (again, where intent must be proved) and would go with a manslaughter charge (don't have to prove intent, just that the crime was committed by the alleged perpetrator), they would have more convictions.

idk... sorry if i've added confusion to the discussion, as this feels like streaming consciousness, rather than a coherent essay/post of sorts. i feel like i'm playing both sides of the fence.

[ZigenBallZ]

insanity pleas are the best way to get out of traffic tickets...

[accordaffair]

I had a dual class in high school - pyschology/law studies, what a great pair and a great teacher I had. It tied right in with this, its both mental and tort reform . They is right, the insanity plea barely ever works, don't think you'll get away using it, you won't. If we turn to psychology 101, it would say...how do you determine what is right and wrong? Do we determine right and wrong based on what the majority decides? Is 'right' just what 99% seems to agree on? If that is so, than that 1% still feel wholeheartedly that they do what is right. If that is so, then the twist you get in your stomach over murder might be the twist they get over charity, or something we feel is right... Is morality just the majority? If so than is it just prejudice to enforce our morales on the 1%? If we force people to agree with us are we no more than fascists? Morales change with the times, this enforces the notion of morality being no more godly than the majority. Think of what was immorale just 50 years ago. Things like homosexuality, are still fringe and mostly considered immorale. But as the times change, one day homosexuality may not be considered immorale. Many religions set forth guidelines for morality. The majority may not know whats best for itself, and for that reason they turned to religion to decide for them. But even many christians today do not follow the ten commandments completely. Many feel its time to rethink them. Anyway, thats just some of my spatter on the matter of morality. I love psychology class!

[wed3k]

not sure if its worse to be put life in jail or life in a nut house.

[HenRoc]

Well me and my gf got into a discussion about it. Because the same day Andrea Yates was aquitted (correct me if I'm wrong) there was this special on Court TV that I was watching.

Supposedly long before the killings Andrea and her husband Russelll Yates had basically led a nomadic lifestyle living in trailerparks following the teachings of this couple and their kids. From what I could gather watching the special , Andrea really followed the guy who was sending her videos of his preachings about how the world was evil and whatnot and how Satan wanted mother to kill there kids..because he viewed them as evil.

She had pleaded for help and she was getting treatment for it. I can't remember how things really went downward once they moved into a house with their 5 kids.

But it is sad that a mother could do such a horrific act and then get their conviction overturned because of a technicality during her trial.

Its one of those things that you have to serious think about and its another one of those things that are seriously hard to go by or even argue.

[TnT_Mom]

Insane? Of course she is, I would classify anyone who murders their own child as insane! But was she really clinically insane? Hell no! In order to be smart enough to plea insanity she must have had some touch with reality and have known that she had a problem. Knowing she had a problem then why the hell didn't she get some help. Because she wasn't clinically insane So mental instability may not have been her fault but murder was. Haven't you ever heard of a shrink, psycologist, psychiatrist??? MEDICATION????? I work with several mental patients and let me be the first to tell you that without they're risperdal or several other meds I would probably be dead right now. Sure chemical inbalance of the brain can make a person do some crazy stuff but that is why there are specialist and medication out there. I think that if she honestly was insane then she wouldn't have been able to admit, without medication that is, that she indeed was insane. Insanity is denial at it's finest. What she is in fact is a cold-hearted murderer who deserves to spend the rest of her life alone or to experience exactly what her kids did. There are some people out there who can't have children or some who can like myself who go through some devastating things and could possible loose their child and then there are people like Andrea who just out right kill hers. SICK that is just plain SICK!!!

[uncle_el]

Well me and my gf got into a discussion about it. Because the same day Andrea Yates was aquitted (correct me if I'm wrong) there was this special on Court TV that I was watching.

Supposedly long before the killings Andrea and her husband Russelll Yates had basically led a nomadic lifestyle living in trailerparks following the teachings of this couple and their kids. From what I could gather watching the special , Andrea really followed the guy who was sending her videos of his preachings about how the world was evil and whatnot and how Satan wanted mother to kill there kids..because he viewed them as evil.

She had pleaded for help and she was getting treatment for it. I can't remember how things really went downward once they moved into a house with their 5 kids.

But it is sad that a mother could do such a horrific act and then get their conviction overturned because of a technicality during her trial.

Its one of those things that you have to serious think about and its another one of those things that are seriously hard to go by or even argue.

yates was not acquitted of the charges. the conviction was overturned, and there will be a new trial. the lawyers are not arguing that she go free, but rather that she be confined to a psychiatric institution (rather than prison).

Insane? Of course she is, I would classify anyone who murders their own child as insane! But was she really clinically insane? Hell no! In order to be smart enough to plea insanity she must have had some touch with reality and have known that she had a problem. Knowing she had a problem then why the hell didn't she get some help. Because she wasn't clinically insane So mental instability may not have been her fault but murder was. Haven't you ever heard of a shrink, psycologist, psychiatrist??? MEDICATION????? I work with several mental patients and let me be the first to tell you that without they're risperdal or several other meds I would probably be dead right now. Sure chemical inbalance of the brain can make a person do some crazy stuff but that is why there are specialist and medication out there. I think that if she honestly was insane then she wouldn't have been able to admit, without medication that is, that she indeed was insane. Insanity is denial at it's finest. What she is in fact is a cold-hearted murderer who deserves to spend the rest of her life alone or to experience exactly what her kids did. There are some people out there who can't have children or some who can like myself who go through some devastating things and could possible loose their child and then there are people like Andrea who just out right kill hers. SICK that is just plain SICK!!!

insanity is not a clincal/medical condition, but rather a legal term.

psychologists and psychiatrists are different, and not on the same level. psychologists are trained in theory, get ph.d.s and in most states cannot prescribe medicine alone. psychiatrists are m.d.s and can prescribe medicines. their aim is also different.

yates was on medication, apparently she had an episode of post-partum depression with the birth of an earlier child... she stopped taking the drugs at some point during the pregnancy of the 5th child (which i can't completely blame her for, since there are many medicines that we don't know the safety/efficacy of during pregnancy).

as far as what plea to make in court, it's the lawyer's job to inform the client of the best route to take... the client doesn't have to have the greatest grasp on all sides. add to that, she was likely undergoing medical treatment by the time lawyers became involved.

[TnT_Mom]

I never said that psychiatrist and psychologist are the same, i was simply stating that someone should have been able to help the psycho bitch. I thought this was supposed to be a post about our opinions and not something where everyone starts jumping all over others because of their opinions. GEEZ