The Texas trial of
Andrea Yates stirs up all manner of questions about the legal
definitions of guilt and insanity. It's a high-profile case by
virtue of its sheer horror: the fact that a mother relentlessly
chased down and drowned all five of her children, one after another,
is so unimaginable that we can only shake our heads and proclaim
that she must have been insane.
The state of Texas,
however, has laws that say that if she was able to tell right
from wrong, she was sane. Her prosecutors based their case on
the fact that she knew the wrongness of her deeds because she
called the police when she was done, and when they arrived, asked
them when her trial would be held.
It might have been
pointed out that sometimes a person calls the police when he or
she is in trouble. And knowing that the law says that you are
wrong and that you will have to stand trial doesn't count for
much if you are operating under the influence of a reason that,
in your crazed mind, you perceive to be more binding than the
law. Yates has stated that she thought she was saving her children
from eternal damnation.
Testifying in a similar
case in which a mother drowned or strangled (it was never clear
which) her 22-month-old daughter, Dr. Scott Reichlin, a forensic
psychiatrist at Oregon State Hospital, asserted that even during
a psychotic episode, a person is aware of what he or she is doing
physically. In
other words, awareness does not lessen his or her insanity or
compulsion. You may know what you're doing physically and may,
I assume, even know that it is wrong, but still feel irresistibly
compelled to do it.
This is not a defense
of Yates's crime. There is no defense for someone who has committed
such a heinous act. Insanity is an explanation, not an excuse.
Our courts have a rather
strange label in their "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdicts.
It seems to imply that if a people's minds are sick, they are
not guilty of the crimes, even if their hands are still dripping
with the victim's blood.
Wouldn't it make better
sense to say "guilty by reason of insanity?" That phrase acknowledges
physical responsibility for acts committed under the influence
of a sick mind. This phrasing is under great discussion in Ireland
and England. In America, some states such as Alaska, Maryland
and Pennsylvania have approved a "guilty by reason of insanity"
verdict. According to the Forensic Psychiatry website, however,
that verdict essentially ensures a sentence of life in prison.
It seems to me that
given an understanding that a crime can be caused by insanity,
sentencing should not be restricted to the either/or of life in
prison versus the death penalty, but might also include life in
a mental institution.
There would, of course,
need to be some system of determining whether the sentence of
a person thus institutionalized should be irrevocable, or commutable
if the person regains mental health. One would hope that such
a possibility would be linked to the severity of the crime, but
then we have to consider also the reliability of the judgment
of those who would evaluate the defendant's progress.
There was a famous
case in England, where after poisoning several people, being found
guilty but insane, doing his time in the hospital and being declared
(by a psychiatrist) no longer a danger to society, the inmate
was released, whereat he killed two more people by poison and
severely injured two others.
Is anyone competent
to judge whether, after treatment, Yates would present a danger
to society? On the face of it, one might think that she would
not, as long as she never has more children and continues to take
drugs to control her schizophrenia. But who is to say that she
will stay on the medication? Who can be sure her voices will leave
her alone, now that she has completed what she perceived to be
their objective (i.e. killing her children)? And even if her mental
illness is under control, could remorse over the murder of her
children drive her toward destruction of herself or others?
A few years ago in
my city, a young man under the influence of drugs shot and killed
five innocent people. He later claimed that he thought he was
fighting with demons. The verdict in the case was: "not guilty
by reason of insanity," and the fact that the insanity had been
temporary and caused by drugs didn't seem to matter. He has been
in a state mental hospital ever since. Every few years there is
a parole hearing, and several times his psychiatrists have stated
that he is no longer a danger to society. The families of the
victims show up at the hearings religiously, and are given a chance
to have their say. So far, they have prevailed in their efforts
to keep him locked away. They are eloquent about their concerns.
They feel that if he is released, there's no way be sure that
he will not take drugs again, and they fear that his reaction
to those drugs might be every bit as lethal as it was the first
time. I like to think of myself as a humane person, but I am very
glad that his freedom remains curtailed.
In Yates's case, however,
I feel deep pity. Anyone who has lived with young children knows
the stresses and strains for parents, especially for fulltime
mothers. Even the most stable among us have had moments of feeling
desperately inadequate. It is mind-boggling to think that a mentally
ill young woman was expected to cope with five little children,
and not just to cope but to home-school them as well. It seems
to me that at the very least her husband and family were sadly
lacking in empathy or understanding of what was asked of her.
It is also inconceivable
to me that once she had experienced postpartum depression, she
and her husband made the decision to continue having children.
My only experience with the problem comes through a dear friend's
daughter-in-law who suffered from PPD, but even such secondhand
knowledge was sufficient to instruct me that it is real and devastating,
extremely dangerous to both mother and child. Fortunately, my
friend was available to move into the household and care for the
baby while the daughter-in-law received good treatment, and the
whole affair had a happy outcome. Thereafter, however, the young
couple decided not to take chances, and chose not to have more
children.
There is no possible
resolution to Andrea Yates's situation. In theory, during the
rest of her life in prison, she will receive the drugs and treatment
she needs. In that case, she will be sane enough to recognize
the horror of her crime. There could be no more severe punishment.
Compared to it, the death sentence would have been merciful. And
if she does not receive treatment, the living hell of her own
sick mind coupled with being locked up with sociopaths is unimaginable.
Either way, she will pay for her crime forever.
