Today we finished the case study of Andrea Yates. As has been said multiple times in class, this specific case boils down to one question: Was Andrea Yates legally insane when she committed this crime? The current law clearly states that in order to be considered not guilty by reason of insanity Yates would have to prove that at the time of the murders she did not know what she was doing was wrong. In my opinion, she did know what she was doing was wrong, and she should have been found guilty.
Let me first say that I don't agree with the current law completely. I feel that she shouldn't be convicted of murder put in jail for life. The law as it is today does not do nearly enough to help people who suffer from these debilitating mental illnesses. However, under the current law, she is guilty of murder.
The reasoning behind my opinion is simple: She knew what she was doing was against the law. While she believed that killing her children would be better for them, and that they would go to hell if she did not kill them, she was well aware that killing was against the law. This can be seen by her calling of the cops afterwards. And even though her own personal, while very deranged, morals told her that it was okay, the ethics of killing your kids is pretty clear cut in our society. I equate it to murder because of revenge. Lets say that a man kills your child. You may feel that this man deserves to die, and you may be right about that. But if you kill him, it is murder, it is against the law, and you will be put in jail. Even if you believe it's right, in the eyes of the law it is wrong, and the law will punish you as such.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen Andrea was on her meds she seemed fine and she didn't pise a threat. But when she willingly stopped taking them she became delusional and ill again. By doing so she becomes culpable for the murders and the insanity defense goes out the window because had she stayed medicated thus could have been prevented.
ReplyDelete