The Andrea Yates case goes to trial again in a few weeks and her turning down a plea agreement puts into stark perspective just how terribly our laws are written in regards to the mentally ill.
If Andrea Yates hadn't been facing the death penalty she would either be in jail or in treatment and this case would be done by now.
Her case points out a perfect opportunity to reform our laws.
More on the flip.
When I was a kid I remember watching some crime show with my parents.
I don't remember the show. I could have been "Perry Mason" or "Hill Street Blue," one of those.
But the show centered on a person who obviously committed the crime, probably some heinous murder. He or she, I don't remember, attempted the "Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity" defense.
My dad, who is a psychiatric social worker (NASW union organiser, by the way) explained to me what that meant. He told me that the person was likely not capable of understanding what they were doing at the time. They didn't know the difference between right and wrong.
He said something to me, though, when explaining this to me which sticks with me. I have to say it influences me on an almost daily basis in my job, Exec. Director of Nebraskans Against the Death Penalty.
Go here if you'd like to help us out in getting rid of the death penalty here in Nebraska.
What my dad told me is this:
"It should be guilty by reason of insanity, not 'not-guilty by reason of insanity.'"
What he meant is that a person who commits a crime should be held accountable for that crime. They should be found guilty, certainly. But their mental illness should be considered in their sentencing.
In the case of Andrea Yates, the prosecuter originally pushed for the death sentence. This forces the defense attorney to attempt the not-guilty plea. He had no choice. If she had been facing life or some other avenue of sentencing that would include treatment, the whole dynamic of her defense changes. She likely would not still be on trial, she'd be in jail or in a mental institution.
Furthermore, the expert testimony offered for the state would have been less likely to have lied on the stand, as is what happened in her first trial, which is what got her a new trial.
If the defense had a different avenue the story of Andrea Yates would have been much different.
phat
UPDATE:
I missed this when I first read the latest news about his case.
"The only mitigating circumstance in this case is, we know she did suffer from a mental illness," Owmby said. "That did not necessarily excuse her conduct or criminal responsibility, but we did take that into account."
I find it interesting that the prosecutor would say this.
He certainly has the discretion to include the mitigating factors in the plea offer. He is not, however, impelled to consider these mitigating circumstances when deciding to ask for the death penalty.
This makes me very angry.
The prosecutor can claim to be sympathetic and claim to be "law and order" at the same time, without actually attempting to find some just outcome of the situation. He can continue to say, "well, we were being reasonable" while they are still screaming, "off with her head." This is unacceptible.
The horrible influence of politics in this case are so blatantly obvious it hurts.