Murder and Mental Illness: Yates' Conviction Overturned

A Texas appellate court overturned the conviction of Andrea Yates, who stood trial in 2002 for the murder of her five children. The conviction of Yates brought into the public spotlight the inadequacy of the law, particularly criminal law, in the way that it treats mentally ill individuals. The law doesn’t address the issue of whether an individual is “in control.” The question of innocence or guilt is phrased in such a way that defendants are “not guilty by reason of insanity” if at the time of the conduct they lacked the ability to know the wrongfulness of their action. Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children, was found guilty under this rule because even though the defense and prosecution agreed Yates was mentally ill, the court instructed the jurors that if they found that she knew right from wrong and knew that her conduct was wrong, she was guilty. Yet, most bystanders could clearly see that this was someone in emotional chaos and out of control. This case has been of particular interest in the field of neuroethics because the hope is that new techniques in brain imaging and other technologies might soon give us better diagnostic evaluation or therapeutic effectiveness, so that we can successfully treat individuals like Yates. It is important to note that better assessment is not about freeing individuals from responsibility for their actions, but it can, perhaps, help us determine whether an individual is capable of controlling his or her conduct and therefore help us achieve a more appropriate, humane, and fair outcome. The appellate overturned the conviction on the grounds that the false testimony an expert prosecution witness, Dr. Park Dietz, provided could have unfairly affected the judgment of the jury. The prosecution plans to appeal the decision to Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and have not ruled out a retrial if they lose the appeal. The appellate court's decision can be read at FindLaw. -- Linda Glenn