The Law: It's Not Just Black And White

Lately, I've really had a huge case of writer's block as far as light, funny entries go. There's been so much going on that I want to write about that I can't even begin. One topic that's has really been on my mind recently is the Andrea Yates trial. I'm not sure why this has affected me the way it has; probably because I'm a mother and an ex-prosecutor. I have two very different, conflicting feelings about this trial. If you decide to read further, please read the whole article because I'm going to address one side and then the other.

A quick rundown of the case: Andrea Yates, mother of 4 boys and 1 girl, drowned her children in the bathtub in 2001 because she thought it would save their souls. She had a history of depression and suicide attempts. In 2002, she was tried and convicted of murder. She appealed due to a state's witness lying on the stand concerning expert testimony, so she was awarded a retrial. This week, the second jury found her not guilty by reason of insanity. She will go to a mental institution where she will receive care. She may or may not ever be released, it depends on her psychiatric status.

As far as legalities go, I think a quick look at the insanity defense is in order. Basically, it's been around for hundreds of years; people realized that one must have mental capacity and free will in order to follow the law. The insanity defense has evolved over many years and usually gets a thorough review and possible re-translation after high-profile cases, such as the Yates trial. (Another example is the Hinckley case. After he shot Reagan, and was acquitted by reason of insanity, Congress made the federal insanity defense tougher.) I imagine that over the next few years, there will be a nationwide examination of the insanity defense on many different levels.

So what is the insanity defense? Well, it depends on where you are. States have their own versions of the insanity defense, but it basically boils down to two major tests:

1. The M'Naghten Test: named after a British man, who, in 1843 shot the Prime Minister's secretary in an attempt to assassinate the British Prime Minister. M'Naghten believed that the Prime Minister and the Pope were conspiring against him. They weren't. M'Naghten was acquitted because of "defect of the mind" that had nullified a his moral understanding. This defense was adopted by the House of Lords. Over time, it developed into the total impairment of knowing that your actions were morally wrong at the time of the crime.
2. Model Penal Code (MPC) test: [FYI: the Model Penal Code is exactly what it says it is: a model written by a bunch of lawyers. States are free to adopt, change, add, subtract, ignore any part of it they want.] The MPC test is sometimes referred to as the modern test. It does not confine the defense to only knowing that your actions are wrong (a cognitive disability); it adds the impairment of one's ability to choose his or her actions(volitional disability) as well. It also does not require "total" impairment but requires "substantial" impairment. The MPC also allows mental health professionals to present more evidence concerning a defendant's mental status than the strict M'Naghten test.

So, in Texas (which follows the M'Naghten test), a defendant has to be cognitively impaired to the point of not understanding his or her actions were morally wrong. (By the way, impairment with drugs or alcohol does not qualify you for this defense.) It's a tough test. Most people know the basics of right and wrong, even those who are mentally ill in some fashion.

Under these tests, the insanity defense is rarely successful.

From a prosecutor's standpoint, Andrea Yates seemed guilty. Very guilty. The law assumes that you have mental capacity and free will over your actions. She had to prove that she did not realize killing her children at that time was morally wrong -- to the law of Texas. Even most psychotic people can understand the basic principles of right and wrong. If she knew it was morally wrong, but yet felt compelled to commit murder (due to psychosis), she would still be guilty. If the jury had followed the strict letter of the law in Texas, Andrea Yates would be guilty and sent to prison.

As a prosecutor, I could try a case like this because it was the LAW. We had to follow the law, even if we didn't agree with it totally, so I would be doing my job by applying this law and seeking this punishment. At least, this is what I told myself. However, I was having a difficult time with some of my cases because I started to feel that our legal remedies in criminal law were not appropriate for defendants that kept coming in the courtroom.

I believe the Andrea Yates case touched me so deeply because while I think legally the jury got it wrong, I believe that morally they got it right.

Prisons are full of people who would be better served with different resources. The problem is where do you put them and what do you do for them? Andrea Yates did not deserve prison; she needs psychiatric help. Prison would do nothing but punish an already tortured soul. Drug addicts are another problem. They need help and accountability to get clean. They don't get clean in prison, believe me. And once they're released, they often go back into the environment that fostered the drug addiction in the first place. Then you have people with borderline IQs or diminished mental capacity. How do you deal with a 30 year old with the mind of an 11 year old? Is it appropriate to put them in prison? I saw these people everyday and began asking myself what would be a better solution.

Unfortunately, I don't have a better solution. It was very difficult trying to get beds in a rehab facility on short notice. The funding for placement of my juvenile offenders was cut and I had very few places to put kids who needed help.

I kind of got off on a tangent there, but my larger point is: we need to take time and revisit the way we are thinking about crime and punishment. My job as a prosecutor affected me profoundly and really changed the way I viewed many issues. Some of us struggle more in this world because of our environment, choices we make or choices other people make that affect us. Life is not fair. In the end, we are all flawed. There are very few issues that are black and white. Most everything is some shade of gray.