Digenis.org

It’s not often that I delve into issues of crime and punishment on my blog, but the recent not guilty verdict in the Andrea Yates retrial has got me thinking about the insanity defense. First of all, let me make it clear that this is not a post about capital punishment; this entry is solely to express my feelings that the insanity plea at the stage of conviction is morally suspect.

I realize that much of my readership is out of the United States, so let me give you a little background here. In 2001 Andrea Yates killed all five of her children by drowning them in the bathtub. She confessed to the crime and was found guilty in a 2002 trial. In 2005, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the convictions due to false testimony of a psychiatrist hired by the prosecution. So, the case headed back to the courts.

Now, I have no doubt that Yates’ mental condition was diminished. She attempted suicide twice and had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital four times. The diagnosis of schizophrenia was probably right on. Add to that postpartum depression and dealing with 5 very young children and I’m sure her condition was one far beyond what I can comprehend.

But at what point can we say that one’s mental condition changes the criminality of acts they commit? I would argue that it should never have that effect.

I’m certainly not arguing that we should completely disregard mental illness in such cases. All I’m saying is that it should not be part of the conviction stage, but rather only part of the sentencing stage. What does that mean? Well, one’s mental illness does not remove their culpability from a crime, but it may mean that they are in need of treatment rather than punishment. The point here is that we at no time declare these criminals ‘not guilty’ of their crimes.

I guess one of the biggest flaws with the insanity defense is this: Who defines insane? We could also argue that there are some crimes that could only be committed by an insane person.

Andrea Yates was declared not guilty of the crimes of which she confessed. Regardless of the verdict, she’ll be receiving court-supervised psychiatric care, which is exactly what she is in desperate need of; in that sense, justice was served and this sick person is getting help.

Still, it says a lot about the moral objectivity embraced by our justice system when moral judgments concerning things like murder can no longer be made, and that worries me.