Vatz: The system goes crazy again: Insanity pleas in court redux

[Guest guest]

I know how great this group is at writting letter,

so here is another reporter who needs help

understanding Effexor can cause psycosis. Vatz

is a professor at Towson University and Associate

Psychology Editor of USA Today Magazine.

http://www.examiner.com/a-210951~_Vatz__The_system_goes_crazy_again__Insa\

nity_pleas_in_court_redux.html

Vatz: The system goes crazy again: Insanity

pleas in court redux

Vatz, The Examiner

Aug 10, 2006 5:00 AM (12 hrs ago)

Current rank: # 147 of 6,619 articles

BALTIMORE - Two weeks ago in Houston, Yates was

found not guilty by reason of insanity for drowning

her young children. She will be remanded to a state

mental hospital where psychiatrists and judges will

periodically review her status to determine whether

she should be released.

Disappointed prosecutor Kaylynn Williford stated her

frustration forthrightly: “For five years, we’ve tried

to seek justice for these children.”

The tide may be turning back, after many years, in

favor of the insanity plea.

The almost universal revulsion at the not guilty by

reason of insanity verdict for Hinckley Jr.

almost 25 years ago when he tried to assassinate

President Reagan led to widespread judicial

reform and a general public skepticism regarding the

insanity plea in the United States. In fact, perhaps

as part of that change in the public assessment of the

insanity plea, a jury found Yates, who killed

her children months after her fifth child was born,

guilty of capital murder four years ago. She was

sentenced to life in prison, but an appeals court

overturned that verdict due to erroneous testimony

from a prosecution witness.

Several legal experts in Texas, including Dix,

a University of Texas law professor, opine that jurors

now seeing a defendant like themselves, are more prone

to reason that “if she did this, she must be crazy.”

In the last 50 years or so, a tremendous amount has

been written about the invalidity of psychiatric

inferences regarding why killers kill. The

anti-insanity plea forces have argued consistently

that people who kill others choose to do so and have

established mens rea, or criminal intent. The

psychiatric community finds the motivation of “insane”

killers — although “insanity” is not a psychiatric

term — to be mental defects or disorders, not personal

responsibility.

According to her attorneys and her psychiatric

“expert” testimony, Yates suffered from postpartum

psychosis and delusions that Satan inhabited her body.

Believing that killing her children would save them

from hell, she acted without criminal intent, almost

as an unwitting pawn of her “mental illness.”

The public may now see Yates as superficially

resembling themselves, but she had plenty of

non-mystifying, run-of-the-mill motivation to kill her

children.

The prosecution offered evidence that Mrs. Yates knew

killing her children was wrong. Evidence shows that

she murdered her children methodically, by timing the

killings after her husband left and before other

relatives would come to her home later. In addition,

she lined up four of the dead children in a bed

beneath a cover while leaving Noah, who fought her

attempts to kill him, floating in a bathtub.

Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Welner testified

that feelings of maternal inadequacy and of being

overwhelmed by responsibility motivated Yates.

The legal standard was whether Mrs. Yates knew her

actions were wrong.

Mrs. Yates called the police and later said she was “a

bad mother,” actions which indicate that she knew that

what she did was unethical. Chasing down and killing

her 7-year-old son Noah show pre-meditation and

criminal intent, additional evidence which should have

convinced a jury of her criminal guilt.

If there has been a more accepting change in public

opinion regarding the usually bogus insanity plea, it

will constitute an unfortunate “escape hatch” to

would-be killers who will learn that capital crime may

not be capital crime when it seems “insane” to a

perhaps newly gullible public.

Vatz is a professor at Towson University and

Associate Psychology Editor of USA Today Magazine.

Examiner

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

I know how great this group is at writting letter,

so here is another reporter who needs help

understanding Effexor can cause psycosis. Vatz

is a professor at Towson University and Associate

Psychology Editor of USA Today Magazine.

http://www.examiner.com/a-210951~_Vatz__The_system_goes_crazy_again__Insa\

nity_pleas_in_court_redux.html

Vatz: The system goes crazy again: Insanity

pleas in court redux

Vatz, The Examiner

Aug 10, 2006 5:00 AM (12 hrs ago)

Current rank: # 147 of 6,619 articles

BALTIMORE - Two weeks ago in Houston, Yates was

found not guilty by reason of insanity for drowning

her young children. She will be remanded to a state

mental hospital where psychiatrists and judges will

periodically review her status to determine whether

she should be released.

Disappointed prosecutor Kaylynn Williford stated her

frustration forthrightly: “For five years, we’ve tried

to seek justice for these children.”

The tide may be turning back, after many years, in

favor of the insanity plea.

The almost universal revulsion at the not guilty by

reason of insanity verdict for Hinckley Jr.

almost 25 years ago when he tried to assassinate

President Reagan led to widespread judicial

reform and a general public skepticism regarding the

insanity plea in the United States. In fact, perhaps

as part of that change in the public assessment of the

insanity plea, a jury found Yates, who killed

her children months after her fifth child was born,

guilty of capital murder four years ago. She was

sentenced to life in prison, but an appeals court

overturned that verdict due to erroneous testimony

from a prosecution witness.

Several legal experts in Texas, including Dix,

a University of Texas law professor, opine that jurors

now seeing a defendant like themselves, are more prone

to reason that “if she did this, she must be crazy.”

In the last 50 years or so, a tremendous amount has

been written about the invalidity of psychiatric

inferences regarding why killers kill. The

anti-insanity plea forces have argued consistently

that people who kill others choose to do so and have

established mens rea, or criminal intent. The

psychiatric community finds the motivation of “insane”

killers — although “insanity” is not a psychiatric

term — to be mental defects or disorders, not personal

responsibility.

According to her attorneys and her psychiatric

“expert” testimony, Yates suffered from postpartum

psychosis and delusions that Satan inhabited her body.

Believing that killing her children would save them

from hell, she acted without criminal intent, almost

as an unwitting pawn of her “mental illness.”

The public may now see Yates as superficially

resembling themselves, but she had plenty of

non-mystifying, run-of-the-mill motivation to kill her

children.

The prosecution offered evidence that Mrs. Yates knew

killing her children was wrong. Evidence shows that

she murdered her children methodically, by timing the

killings after her husband left and before other

relatives would come to her home later. In addition,

she lined up four of the dead children in a bed

beneath a cover while leaving Noah, who fought her

attempts to kill him, floating in a bathtub.

Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Welner testified

that feelings of maternal inadequacy and of being

overwhelmed by responsibility motivated Yates.

The legal standard was whether Mrs. Yates knew her

actions were wrong.

Mrs. Yates called the police and later said she was “a

bad mother,” actions which indicate that she knew that

what she did was unethical. Chasing down and killing

her 7-year-old son Noah show pre-meditation and

criminal intent, additional evidence which should have

convinced a jury of her criminal guilt.

If there has been a more accepting change in public

opinion regarding the usually bogus insanity plea, it

will constitute an unfortunate “escape hatch” to

would-be killers who will learn that capital crime may

not be capital crime when it seems “insane” to a

perhaps newly gullible public.

Vatz is a professor at Towson University and

Associate Psychology Editor of USA Today Magazine.

Examiner

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

I know how great this group is at writting letter,

so here is another reporter who needs help

understanding Effexor can cause psycosis. Vatz

is a professor at Towson University and Associate

Psychology Editor of USA Today Magazine.

http://www.examiner.com/a-210951~_Vatz__The_system_goes_crazy_again__Insa\

nity_pleas_in_court_redux.html

Vatz: The system goes crazy again: Insanity

pleas in court redux

Vatz, The Examiner

Aug 10, 2006 5:00 AM (12 hrs ago)

Current rank: # 147 of 6,619 articles

BALTIMORE - Two weeks ago in Houston, Yates was

found not guilty by reason of insanity for drowning

her young children. She will be remanded to a state

mental hospital where psychiatrists and judges will

periodically review her status to determine whether

she should be released.

Disappointed prosecutor Kaylynn Williford stated her

frustration forthrightly: “For five years, we’ve tried

to seek justice for these children.”

The tide may be turning back, after many years, in

favor of the insanity plea.

The almost universal revulsion at the not guilty by

reason of insanity verdict for Hinckley Jr.

almost 25 years ago when he tried to assassinate

President Reagan led to widespread judicial

reform and a general public skepticism regarding the

insanity plea in the United States. In fact, perhaps

as part of that change in the public assessment of the

insanity plea, a jury found Yates, who killed

her children months after her fifth child was born,

guilty of capital murder four years ago. She was

sentenced to life in prison, but an appeals court

overturned that verdict due to erroneous testimony

from a prosecution witness.

Several legal experts in Texas, including Dix,

a University of Texas law professor, opine that jurors

now seeing a defendant like themselves, are more prone

to reason that “if she did this, she must be crazy.”

In the last 50 years or so, a tremendous amount has

been written about the invalidity of psychiatric

inferences regarding why killers kill. The

anti-insanity plea forces have argued consistently

that people who kill others choose to do so and have

established mens rea, or criminal intent. The

psychiatric community finds the motivation of “insane”

killers — although “insanity” is not a psychiatric

term — to be mental defects or disorders, not personal

responsibility.

According to her attorneys and her psychiatric

“expert” testimony, Yates suffered from postpartum

psychosis and delusions that Satan inhabited her body.

Believing that killing her children would save them

from hell, she acted without criminal intent, almost

as an unwitting pawn of her “mental illness.”

The public may now see Yates as superficially

resembling themselves, but she had plenty of

non-mystifying, run-of-the-mill motivation to kill her

children.

The prosecution offered evidence that Mrs. Yates knew

killing her children was wrong. Evidence shows that

she murdered her children methodically, by timing the

killings after her husband left and before other

relatives would come to her home later. In addition,

she lined up four of the dead children in a bed

beneath a cover while leaving Noah, who fought her

attempts to kill him, floating in a bathtub.

Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Welner testified

that feelings of maternal inadequacy and of being

overwhelmed by responsibility motivated Yates.

The legal standard was whether Mrs. Yates knew her

actions were wrong.

Mrs. Yates called the police and later said she was “a

bad mother,” actions which indicate that she knew that

what she did was unethical. Chasing down and killing

her 7-year-old son Noah show pre-meditation and

criminal intent, additional evidence which should have

convinced a jury of her criminal guilt.

If there has been a more accepting change in public

opinion regarding the usually bogus insanity plea, it

will constitute an unfortunate “escape hatch” to

would-be killers who will learn that capital crime may

not be capital crime when it seems “insane” to a

perhaps newly gullible public.

Vatz is a professor at Towson University and

Associate Psychology Editor of USA Today Magazine.

Examiner

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

I know how great this group is at writting letter,

so here is another reporter who needs help

understanding Effexor can cause psycosis. Vatz

is a professor at Towson University and Associate

Psychology Editor of USA Today Magazine.

http://www.examiner.com/a-210951~_Vatz__The_system_goes_crazy_again__Insa\

nity_pleas_in_court_redux.html

Vatz: The system goes crazy again: Insanity

pleas in court redux

Vatz, The Examiner

Aug 10, 2006 5:00 AM (12 hrs ago)

Current rank: # 147 of 6,619 articles

BALTIMORE - Two weeks ago in Houston, Yates was

found not guilty by reason of insanity for drowning

her young children. She will be remanded to a state

mental hospital where psychiatrists and judges will

periodically review her status to determine whether

she should be released.

Disappointed prosecutor Kaylynn Williford stated her

frustration forthrightly: “For five years, we’ve tried

to seek justice for these children.”

The tide may be turning back, after many years, in

favor of the insanity plea.

The almost universal revulsion at the not guilty by

reason of insanity verdict for Hinckley Jr.

almost 25 years ago when he tried to assassinate

President Reagan led to widespread judicial

reform and a general public skepticism regarding the

insanity plea in the United States. In fact, perhaps

as part of that change in the public assessment of the

insanity plea, a jury found Yates, who killed

her children months after her fifth child was born,

guilty of capital murder four years ago. She was

sentenced to life in prison, but an appeals court

overturned that verdict due to erroneous testimony

from a prosecution witness.

Several legal experts in Texas, including Dix,

a University of Texas law professor, opine that jurors

now seeing a defendant like themselves, are more prone

to reason that “if she did this, she must be crazy.”

In the last 50 years or so, a tremendous amount has

been written about the invalidity of psychiatric

inferences regarding why killers kill. The

anti-insanity plea forces have argued consistently

that people who kill others choose to do so and have

established mens rea, or criminal intent. The

psychiatric community finds the motivation of “insane”

killers — although “insanity” is not a psychiatric

term — to be mental defects or disorders, not personal

responsibility.

According to her attorneys and her psychiatric

“expert” testimony, Yates suffered from postpartum

psychosis and delusions that Satan inhabited her body.

Believing that killing her children would save them

from hell, she acted without criminal intent, almost

as an unwitting pawn of her “mental illness.”

The public may now see Yates as superficially

resembling themselves, but she had plenty of

non-mystifying, run-of-the-mill motivation to kill her

children.

The prosecution offered evidence that Mrs. Yates knew

killing her children was wrong. Evidence shows that

she murdered her children methodically, by timing the

killings after her husband left and before other

relatives would come to her home later. In addition,

she lined up four of the dead children in a bed

beneath a cover while leaving Noah, who fought her

attempts to kill him, floating in a bathtub.

Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Welner testified

that feelings of maternal inadequacy and of being

overwhelmed by responsibility motivated Yates.

The legal standard was whether Mrs. Yates knew her

actions were wrong.

Mrs. Yates called the police and later said she was “a

bad mother,” actions which indicate that she knew that

what she did was unethical. Chasing down and killing

her 7-year-old son Noah show pre-meditation and

criminal intent, additional evidence which should have

convinced a jury of her criminal guilt.

If there has been a more accepting change in public

opinion regarding the usually bogus insanity plea, it

will constitute an unfortunate “escape hatch” to

would-be killers who will learn that capital crime may

not be capital crime when it seems “insane” to a

perhaps newly gullible public.

Vatz is a professor at Towson University and

Associate Psychology Editor of USA Today Magazine.

Examiner

__________________________________________________