Here We Go Again
Andrea Yates, the woman convicted of murdering her children in 2002 by drowning them will get a new trial. The decision reached by a jury of twelve of her peers was tossed because the forensic psychologist made an erroneous statement on the stand about the method with which she murdered her children. He stated that she got the idea from an episode of "Law & Order" in which a woman drowns her children, and is found not guilty by reason of insanity. For the record, the show's producer stated the such a show never aired. Here is where the false testimony comes in, and is still utterly irrelevant.
For the record, as a lawyer, I detest this defense.
I detest it because it is more than obvious that when someone commits a capital crime, they are clearly not in the right frame of mind. But does that excuse them from their actions? Not at all. This is also why I despise hate crime legislation. It doesn't matter what someone says during the commission of a capital crime, the crime is what matters. If a white man murders a balck man, and utters a racial epithet during the act, does it change the fact that one man murdered another. Again, not at all. The crime is what matters.
The method which she chose matters little. It doesn't matter if it popped into her mind that morning, or weeks prior from a TV show. The killers at Columbine, it was cited by many sources, that they initially got the ideas from the movie "The Matrix." So, are we going to indict the entertainment industry. Are we going to shift the blame of the crimes committed in this nation from the people who commit them to people they don't know from Adam out to make a buck? Please. If this were the case, an argument could be made (and I know plenty of bloody-sucking lawyers who would mount such a case) that a man didn't get an idea to cheat on his wife until he watched a movie portraying adultery. Insane idea, isn't it? Bet I've got philandering husbands around the world thinking about this one. "They can't blame me, I only did what I saw in a movie. Let my wife sue the producers." Pathetic, gentlemen.
Likewise, this also rings true for Andrea Yates. This overturned conviction is a farce, and is a weak, albeit successful, attempt to represent a client. This woman wasn't sentenced to death, but she was sentenced to life in prison, and is at a mental hospital in Texas. She still has her life ahead of her, but it shouldn't be on the outside of confining and controlling walls. This woman murdered her five children, and the lame attempt at psychiatric problems really doesn't factor in. The defense and women's rights movements can weigh in as much as they want, but it doesn't change the fact that what she did was wrong.
As I recall my own mother, there is an instinct women have to protect their children. Woe be unto anyone who threatens a mother's children with harm, and she's present. Your life won't be worth a plug-nickel. Is she legally insane? At her trial there was testimony pointing to that. There was also testimony from others that clearly stated she knew right from wrong, even in the frame of mind she was supposedly in at the time of the murders.
This woman has had her trial. She has her sentence. Let her serve it, and leave the people of Texas in peace.
Mistress Pundit
Andrea Yates, the woman convicted of murdering her children in 2002 by drowning them will get a new trial. The decision reached by a jury of twelve of her peers was tossed because the forensic psychologist made an erroneous statement on the stand about the method with which she murdered her children. He stated that she got the idea from an episode of "Law & Order" in which a woman drowns her children, and is found not guilty by reason of insanity. For the record, the show's producer stated the such a show never aired. Here is where the false testimony comes in, and is still utterly irrelevant.
For the record, as a lawyer, I detest this defense.
I detest it because it is more than obvious that when someone commits a capital crime, they are clearly not in the right frame of mind. But does that excuse them from their actions? Not at all. This is also why I despise hate crime legislation. It doesn't matter what someone says during the commission of a capital crime, the crime is what matters. If a white man murders a balck man, and utters a racial epithet during the act, does it change the fact that one man murdered another. Again, not at all. The crime is what matters.
The method which she chose matters little. It doesn't matter if it popped into her mind that morning, or weeks prior from a TV show. The killers at Columbine, it was cited by many sources, that they initially got the ideas from the movie "The Matrix." So, are we going to indict the entertainment industry. Are we going to shift the blame of the crimes committed in this nation from the people who commit them to people they don't know from Adam out to make a buck? Please. If this were the case, an argument could be made (and I know plenty of bloody-sucking lawyers who would mount such a case) that a man didn't get an idea to cheat on his wife until he watched a movie portraying adultery. Insane idea, isn't it? Bet I've got philandering husbands around the world thinking about this one. "They can't blame me, I only did what I saw in a movie. Let my wife sue the producers." Pathetic, gentlemen.
Likewise, this also rings true for Andrea Yates. This overturned conviction is a farce, and is a weak, albeit successful, attempt to represent a client. This woman wasn't sentenced to death, but she was sentenced to life in prison, and is at a mental hospital in Texas. She still has her life ahead of her, but it shouldn't be on the outside of confining and controlling walls. This woman murdered her five children, and the lame attempt at psychiatric problems really doesn't factor in. The defense and women's rights movements can weigh in as much as they want, but it doesn't change the fact that what she did was wrong.
As I recall my own mother, there is an instinct women have to protect their children. Woe be unto anyone who threatens a mother's children with harm, and she's present. Your life won't be worth a plug-nickel. Is she legally insane? At her trial there was testimony pointing to that. There was also testimony from others that clearly stated she knew right from wrong, even in the frame of mind she was supposedly in at the time of the murders.
This woman has had her trial. She has her sentence. Let her serve it, and leave the people of Texas in peace.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:33 PM
1 Comments:
Good blog. Insanity is a defense ever since the right or wrong McLaughlin test. Simply put did the defendant know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the act. Some disagrees with this standard but it's up to the jury. Did Gates know that drowning her five children was wrong? The "reason" is not material for that goes to motive. Motive or the lack thereof, should be reserved for sentencing. I don't see the alleged error, mistaken opinion motive, is grounds for a new trial. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home