Andrea Yates was born in 1964 and was the class valedictorian of the graduating class of 1982 from

Milby High School in Houston. She was captain of the swim team and an officer in the National Honor Society. She had completed a two year pre-nursing program at the University of Houston and graduated in 1986 from the University of Texas School of Nursing. She worked as a registered nurse at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for 8 years (about.com). She had 5 children; four boys and one girl (Montaldo 1). One morning, Andrea filled the bathtub with water and for no reason she started drowning her children, one by one. After drowning the youngest boys, she placed them on her bed and covered them. She left the girl, Mary, floating in the bathtub. Her oldest boy, 7 year old Noah, was still alive. Noah saw Mary floating in the tub and asked his mother what was wrong with her. Andrea grabbed her son and put him in the bathtub next to his floating sister and drowned him (Montaldo 1). During Andreas confession, she tried to explain her actions by saying that she wasnt a good mother and that her children were not developing correctly and needed to be punished. Her attorneys never disputed the fact that she drowned all five of her children, but they claimed that she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and was in a delusional state. She believed that Satan was inside her and she needed to save them from hell. The jury initially found Yates guilty

of capital murder with a life sentence in prison. A Houston jury overturned this verdict and Yates was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity (Montaldo 1). What does it mean for a defendant to be found criminally insane? One of the most controversial but least used criminal defense strategies is known as the insanity defense. The insanity defense claims that the criminal defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity. The defendant, who is claiming to be insane, does not have the intent that was required to perform a criminal act because they are not capable of deciphering right from wrong. Insanity is hard to define, making this defense difficult to prove (enotes 1). The insanity defense has existed since the twelfth century initially as a way for the defendant to receive a pardon or as a way to mitigate a sentence. In the nineteenth century, the insanity defense became known as the MNaghten Rule (enotes3). The MNaghten Rule states that Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, as not to know the nature and guilty of the act he was doing; or if he did not know he was doing what was wrong (enotes 5). Some have suggested that the definition of insanity should be expanded to include more than just the cognitive element, but it is very difficult to evaluate and determine if the defendants know that their acts are against the law and whether or not they are able to control their impulses. The first impulse test was adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court in the 1887 case of Parsons v State. The court found that even though the defendant could distinguish between right and wrong, he was under duress of such mental disease that he had lost the power to choose between right and wrong (Thomson Reuters 1). The court declared that the defendant had a mental illness even though he had the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Even though this judgment became

accepted, some felt that it still left the definition of insanity to broad. It was believed that this made it too easy to fake the insanity plea (enotes 6). In the 1954 case of Durham v. United States, the court ruled that the defendant was not criminally responsible if his unlawful act is the product of a mental disease or defect. This is called the Durham rules, sometimes referred to as the product test. Only the state of New Hampshire still uses this rule. (enotes 11). In 1962, the American Law Institute (ALI) institituted a new test. Under this test, a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. This test also requires that the mental disease or defect be a medical diagnosis (enotes 12). The ALI test incorporates the elements of the MNaghten test, the Irresistible Impulse test, and the Durham test. By 1982 all federal courts and a majority of the state courts have adopted the ALI test. In 1981, John W. Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, and in 1982 the District Columbia court acquitted him by reason of insanity. This caused an enormous outrage and led three states to drop the insanity defense in their courts. These states were Montana, Utah and Idaho. In 1995, Kansas also joined in. Many states now use the Guilty but Mentally Ill defense (enotes 16). Mental illnesses are disorders of the brain that disrupt a persons thinking, feeling, moods and the ability to relate to others. Mental illnesses are brain disorders resulting in a diminished capacity for coping with the demands of life. Mental illness and criminal insanity are different concepts. Many criminals can have major mental illnesses but are not considered criminally insane. A person accused of a crime may acknowledge they committed a crime, but are not

responsible because of their mental illness. This then is known as pleading not guilty by reason of insanity (Burns 1). Since the Hinckley verdict, a majority of the sates require the defense to prove insanity. The defense is required to show either clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is insane. In the states where the burden is still on prosecutors to prove sanity, they are required to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendants who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are not released from custody; they are generally committed to a mental hospital where they can be confined for twice as long as their prison term (Nolo 13). The defendants using the insanity plea are involved in bizarre crimes that get the publics attention (Martin 10). The publics perception is that the insanity defense is misused; faking insanity to win an acquittal or less severe convictions. Less than one percent of defendants plead insanity resulting in only a quarter of them receiving acquittals (Martin 9). An insanity defense requires the testimony of a psychiatrist, who has examined the defendant, their past history, and the facts of the case. The defendant must submit to psychological tests that are conducted at the request of the prosecution. The criminally insane are those who commit crimes but are judged not able to realize the criminal nature of their actions at the time of the offense due to their mental state. The insanity defense needs to be used with caution and with substantial evidence regarding the defendants mental state at the time of the offense. Convincing a judge and jury that the defendant is insane is a tough job and one must be crazy to plead insanity.

Works Cited Criminal Defenses, Nolo, May 11, 2011, <http://articles.directorym.com/Criminal_Defensesa935318.html>. Insanity Defense, Enotes Inc, May 9, 2011, < www.enotes.com/everyday-lawencyclopedia/insanity-defense>. The Insanity Defense, A Closer Look, John P Martin, May 18, 2011, <www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/aron/qa227.htm>. The Irresistible Impulse Test, Thomson Reuters, May 18, 2011,
<www.criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/more-criminal-topics/insanity-defense/irresistible-

impulse-test.html>. Mental Illness and Criminal Insanity, Kari Sable Burns, May 8, 2011, <http://www.karisable.com/crmh.htm>. Profile of Andrea Yates, Charles Montaldo, May 11, 2011, <www.crime.about.com/od/current/p/andreayates.htm>.