 How Can You Laugh at a Time Like This? is a Dream Machine SiteThe Dream Machine --- The Imagination of the World Wide Web |
| How Can You Laugh at a Time Like This? is a Dream Machine Site The Dream Machine --- The Imagination of the World Wide Web |
| Home | Current Column | Previous Columns | Other Sites | Libertarian | Feedback |
The Andrea Yates trial...just completed in the State of Texas...illustrated these difficulties for the entire world. Having already confessed to the crime, there should have been absolutely no doubt of her guilt, yet she...or her lawyers on her behalf...pled not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury...showing simple common sense...ruled this defense inappropriate in this case, as it clearly was, by Texas law. In that state, the only reason for accepting the insanity defense is that the defendant did not "know the difference between right and wrong" at the time the crime was committed.
One would think...and the jury DID think...that this made the case open-and-shut, guilty-as-charged. Period. If, however, you listened only to the incredible arguments put forward by various members of the chattering class, you would have thought that there were endless complications beyond those imposed by the legal system itself.
For example, many "experts" maintained that Mrs. Yates obviously did NOT know the difference between right and wrong when she brutally and systematically drowned her five children, one after another. Why? Well, some simply maintained that no mother in her right mind could do something like that. Others, focussing on her stated "motive"...that she feared her children would end up in Hell if she did not kill them...said that THIS proved she was insane. She thought it was RIGHT to kill them! Correct us if we are wrong, but do not people who believe in Heaven and Hell think that eternal damnation is the very worst thing that can happen to someone...far worse than death itself? If so...and you also believe that you can save someone by killing him or her NOW...is this not a "logical" determination of right and wrong, a "reasonable" motive for homicide? Which part of it shows that she is legally insane? That she believes in Hell? That she thought her children were destined to go there if she did not do something about it? That she killed them?
Don't get us wrong, we think Andrea Yates is nuttier than a fruitcake. But, if this "defense" were routinely allowed in criminal matters, which criminal would NOT be "insane?" Illegal drug users, for example, usually know that it is against the law. However, they also believe that there is nothing "really" wrong with using those drugs to make themselves feel better. Most people know it's against the law to steal, but who among you feels that it is "wrong" to steal food to feed your starving children? It was against British law for the American colonies to rebel. A quick vote: who wants to give up your freedom and become once again a subject of the Crown, meanwhile confessing to treason on behalf of your "insane" ancestors as well?
Now, the Texas law is really simple. Suppose, however, that the legal definition of insanity were stretched to include "delusional states," "altered perceptions" and even a notion of "temporary" insanity...as it has been in a number of venues. It seems to us that clever attorneys and "right thinking" witch doctors could excuse almost anyone's criminal behavior at ANY TIME! Oh, wait. This is already happening! This is not a slippery slope, it is a greased chute to social madness!
Forgotten in all this is the notion of objectivity. Is there any OBJECTIVE way, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone was or wasn't insane at the time of commission of a crime? How do we know...not believe, but KNOW...that Yates has not been pretending to be depressed and "psychotic" all these years? Maybe she just did not really like bearing children like puppies...one after another...and then being stuck with caring for them until they became adults. She would surely not be alone. Several doctors did not think she actually needed her anti-psychotic medication, for example. Were they criminally negligent...as maintained by Mr. Yates...as nutty a codependent scumbag as we have ever seen...or merely exercising their professional judgement?
The point is that we...society...have no real way to determine these things. Our son asked us recently if we thought that Charles Manson is insane. Besides being a ringleader in a sequence of psychopathic killings, he also has carved a swastika in his own forehead while in prison. Willy had to answer honestly that he did not know. At the time Manson committed his crimes...he did not, by the way, actually kill anybody himself...he was already well "adjusted" to a life of incarceration. Maximum security prison is not exactly a garden club environment, after all. For all Willy knows, Charlie is just trying to boost his reputation on the cell block as the Baddest Mofo.
The bottom line is this. There is no way that "mental condition" should be considered...EVER...in determining the guilt or innocence of a person. The only relevant matter is whether the defendant committed the crime or not. That is not say that "mental condition" should not be taken into account in determining the requisite penalty for the crime, just that it should not matter one iota in determining whether or not that person "did it."
So, we agreed both with the verdict and the disposition...life imprisonment...of the Texas jury. We also believe that most other non-expert, unmuddled people did as well. For the record, we oppose the death penalty, on grounds that it makes involuntary murderers of us all. However, as parents of fifteen children we would not have shed a single tear if they had instead, placed Andrea Yates neck on a block and chopped her head off!
So. End the social madness. Stop allowing the criminal insanity defense for ANY reason.
Talk to you later...
Visit Write your Congressperson or Senator and DO IT!
Visit Write your Congressperson or Senator and DO IT!
...the best independent ISP in the Twin Cities
The Dream Machine --- Network Services
A newspaper near you.