Andrea Yates and the insanity defense trial

Andrea Yates Insanity Defense

Insanity Defense: The Andrea Yates Case

Case Summary

Born on July 2, 1964, she had a normal childhood and was the picture of success. Andrea Yates (Kennedy) launched successful career as a registered nurse at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center from 1986 until 1994 (Montaldo, 2007). On April 17, 1993, she married Rusty Yates. In eight years of marriage, she produced five children; four boys and one girl (Montaldo, 2007). It was after the birth of her second child that friends say the changes began to occur. She stopped jogging and became isolated. They decided to home school the children, compounding the isolation (Montaldo, 2007).

In 1996, Rusty accepted work in Florida and the family moved into a 38-foot travel trailer. In 1997, Rusty purchased a 350-square foot renovated bus to house the growing family (Montaldo, 2007). Conditions were cramped and this was when Andrea's insanity began to surface. On June 16, 1999, her husband was called home from work to find her shaking involuntarily and chewing on her fingers. The next day she attempted to commit suicide by taking an overdose of sleeping pills (Montaldo, 2007).

She was transferred to Methodist Hospital Psychiatric Unit and diagnosed with major depressive disorder. She was prescribed antidepressants, but refused to take them. Soon after, she began mutilating herself and refusing to feed her children, claiming that they were too fat (Montaldo, 2007). She thought that there were video cameras on the ceilings and said that the characters on TV were talking to her children (Montaldo, 2007). On July 20, 1999, she put a knife to her own neck and begged her husband to let her die. She was once again hospitalized and was catatonic for 10 days. After receiving the anti-psychotic drug Haldol, she immediately improved. Rusty bought a nice house in a nice neighborhood. Andrea began to return to her own self, swimming, socializing, and interacting with her children (Montaldo, 2007). Things looked good.

In March of 2000, Andrea became pregnant and stopped taking Haldol. On November 30, 2000, daughter Mary was born (Montaldo, 2007). Andrea was coping, but on March 12, 2001, her father died, sending her into a digression. She stopped taking liquids and mutilated herself. She would not feed Mary and began frantically Bible (Montaldo, 2007). She went to a different hospital where she was briefly put on Haldol. It was discontinued, because her psychiatrist did not feel that she seemed psychotic (Montaldo, 2007).

Andrea was released, but returned in May. She was released in 10 days and told to "think positive thoughts" and to see a psychologist. Two days after the follow up visit from her latest psychiatric stay, Andrea waited for her husband to leave for work and systematically drowned her five children (Montaldo, 2007). She then took them to her bed and covered them up (Montaldo, 2007). She then called 911 and requested that a police officer come to her house. She did not ask for an ambulance, but for a police officer (Montaldo, 2007). After the police were on the way, she called her husband and told him, "You need to come home... it's time. I did it." When he asked what she meant, she replied "It's the children... all of them" (Ramsland, 2007).

Analysis and Conclusion

This case brings into light the importance of making certain that juries understand the definitions of the terms used in the case. In this case, it appears that in Texas insanity has two different definitions. One of these definitions stems from a clinical state of mind. Insanity also has a legal connotation, which sometimes conflicts with the clinical use of the term. It is easy to call a person insane when they have a history of hallucinations, psychosis and other critical factors that would lead a clinician to determine that the person is "outside" of normal parameters and in need of intervention. However, when this person commits a criminal act, the legal definitions become involved and the issue becomes clouded.

Due to Texas policy on providing juries with the necessary definitions, it is clear that the jury members used two different standards to decide the outcome of this case. In the first case, the legal definition of insanity weighed more heavily. In the second case, the clinical definition of insanity took precedence. This is clearly an area of the law that needs to be clarified. When insanity involves such heinous acts, as performed by Andrea Yates, and it becomes apparent, that criminal law has become involved. There needs to be a standard that invokes the legal definition of insanity over the criminal one. This clarification would help juries to decide insanity cases on a more consistent basis, as definitions would be clarified.

There is a thin line between and "illness" and a "crime." The case of Andrea Yates brought the complexities of this line into focus. No one will argue the Andrea Yates was at least delusional when she committed the acts. No one will deny her history of mental illness and psychosis, but does that make it an excuse? After examining the facts of the case and delving into the definitions pertinent to the case, one has to conclude that although mental illness clouds one's perceptions, it does not give one the right to take another's life.

Had Andrea Yates not demonstrated a presence of mind, at least twice as she committed the acts, my opinion might be different. For instance, if she had provable amnesia or at least a history of amnesia in the past and did not remember committing the acts then one might give her some credit in the insanity defense. However, both her history and the presence of mind that she demonstrated as she committed the acts shows no loss of consciousness. She knew what she was doing, and she knew that it had legal and moral implications.