Yates case raises difficult questions
The following is a Counterpoint:
By Hank McGovern
In Mona Charen's article (July 29) she actually is one who is guilty -- guilty of numerous fallacies in proclaiming there should be an option, "guilty but insane."
For one, she states experts disagree "all the time" and, therefore, juries "must use their common sense," as if common sense is the proper course to expert disagreement. It's more reasonable to have juries distinguish differences between the degree of credibility of experts. Charen's argument reminds one of Voltaire's statement, "The only problem with common sense is that it's not so common."
Charen makes the inference that Andrea Yates used "planning" because she committed the murders after her husband left the house. There are two problems with her inference.
For one, there is a 50-50 probability that Yates would've committed the murders with her husband at home or not at home. Just because one of those two occurrences happened doesn't come close to implying "planning" happened to exclude the other.
Another fact is that even if there was an element of planning, it is still a fact that Yates was extremely mentally ill, to the point of extremely diminished capacity. Someone who is mentally ill may still do or say things having some reason to them within episodes of psychotic experiences. I've seen many psychotic patients lie down on beds to rest, a reasonable behavior for self-care. But, in their best interest, I would not favor releasing them from a hospital.
Charen proclaims "guilty but insane" should be used for "moral clarity." How can someone be held accountable for their actions if they do not have the needed resources, i.e., sufficient rational thinking, for their behavior?
In addition to not having the needed resources, Yates did have psychotic symptoms causing her behavior. So she should not be held accountable for moral behavior if she did not have what was needed and did have something causing immorality. Yates actually believed she was being moral by releasing her children from this world.
As Nietzsche said, "Distrust anyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful." My verdict is that Charen is guilty of such impulses. Her sentence is to be distrusted.
The bigger question involves a question of our values as a country. We remain one of the most violent in the world in terms of our crime rates. When we have more compassion, understanding, sympathy and forgiveness, consistent with Christian teachings, for people like Yates, the more likely we are to create a peaceful society. These values and virtues would require the courage to love despite egregious, heinous behaviors. Are we up to it?
The writer is a licensed psychological associate living in Asheboro.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The subject matter gave this lte potential, but the writer too often treated her own opinion as fact without bothering to support it. It is reasonable to assume that she has never examined Yates, yet in her letter she has somehow reached a firm diagnosis on several points that were disputed under oath by persons who had made such examinations.
My favorite statement though was in regard to having juries "distinguish differences between the degrees of credibility" of experts.
Oh yeah, THAT'S an exact science alright, no need for "common sense" there.
Posted on August 3, 2006 4:37 AM
I heard (may or may not be true) that the UK allows one to plead "guilty but insane". The trial is automatically canceled, and the guilty-but-insane one is quickly wisked away for a livetime in an asylum. If it's the classic Lobotomy Asylum of olden days, that seems a pragmatic (if imperfect) solution.
Posted on August 3, 2006 4:59 AM
"For one, there is a 50-50 probability that Yates would've committed the murders with her husband at home or not at home. Just because one of those two occurrences happened doesn't come close to implying "planning" happened to exclude the other."
There is something about this statement that bothers me with the writer's logic. I suppose that 50-50 is logical, as it splits the time between the husband being there and not being there, but I think that it is misleading in that it implies an even chance and attempts to dispel the notion of "planning". This seems to be a very sly way of denigrating the planning argument. This logic is similar to saying that there is a 50-50 chance that tomorrow will be the end of the world (there are two possibiities, it will or it won't). Does anyone really feel that there are two equal possibilities there? If you do, are you living every day as though it is your last?
Posted on August 3, 2006 9:22 AM
I didn’t care for Charen’s article or her conclusions. Then again, I have never cared for anything she has to day. However, there is one and only one very good reason for allowing a “guilty but insane” verdict: criminals walk free out of hospitals for the mentally ill (asylums) every day because they are suddenly after a few short years declared “cured”. This is the reason criminals and their lawyers try so hand to enter an insanity plea. By offering a verdict of “guilty but insane” if they choose to become “cured” then they are still guilty and will have to serve their time in prison
Posted on August 3, 2006 11:48 AM
Anyone who kills their kids in the manner Yates did is clearly insane. Why they wasted time with examining her is beyond me.
I believe she should never be set free again. May God have mercy on her soul.
Posted on August 3, 2006 1:30 PM
ORR, the problem you have with the "logic" is that it isn't logical at all. If my wife tried to drown my kids while I was at home, wouldn't it be logical that I might wake up and intervene? To suggest that the husband's not being at home is a random variable is not only to ignore logic, but to oppose it actively.
Posted on August 3, 2006 2:31 PM
Having suffered a mild case of PPD, I know how crazy it can make you. If I had 5 kids that age to deal with on top of PPD, I don't know what I would have done. As was said, she was insane.
I blame her husband for his inability or unwillingness to see her problems or help with them. If she was temporarily insane and is now cured, living her life in prison is punishment enough. If she is now aware and remorseful, she will be in hell for the rest of her lifeno matter where she is.
Is it true that he has remarried and had another child?
Posted on August 3, 2006 5:13 PM