A Law & Order episode that never existed is the reason for the overturning
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It sounds trivial, but the episode was used (I believe) in an attempt to show she knew the nature of her act (because she had planned it).
In those circumstances, this probably warrants a new trial.
I'm suspicious of any lawyer who claims a piece of testimony was trivial when they mention it twice in closing arguments.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Is there actually any doubt in people's mind that she is guilty of the crime (not in a legal sense, but in the actual sense)?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Yes, there is doubt.
If she was insane while she did it, then she doesn't deserve the death penalty but instead deserves a hospital.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Says some.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think there is no doubt she committed the act of drowning her children, if that's what you mean.
*shudders at the thought of "not in a legal sense"*
I've been assimilated!
[ January 06, 2005, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Well, that's what in doubt and under question.
In that case, the show was used by the prosecution to prove that she knew what was going on and planned it. It turns out the show never existed. That's not a minor point.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: shudders at the thought of "not in a legal sense"
Why? Does that mean something I don't understand?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No. That was about law school's instilling in me the desire to answer that question with about a dozen qualifications and maybes.
[ January 06, 2005, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've been thinking about this on and off for a while now, but I don't see why you shouldn't be punished just because you are insane.
[ January 06, 2005, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hmm... She's in a mental institution. I suppose if they retry her she might end up with a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. In which case, she'll end up in a mental institution.
The only difference being that she could, potentially, be set free if enough of her doctors decide that she's no longer insane. Right? Whereas now, if she is no longer insane, she'd be transferred to the regular prison.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
For the same reason we don't execute four year olds. It isn't just to punish those who are not accountable.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You answered by saying they aren't accountable.
I'm asking why they aren't considered accountable.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: sentencing them to a mental institution will keep them off the streets as well as (and much more humanely than) jail would.
Aren't there situations where somebody gets to go free because they were insane, but if they were legally sane, they would be in prison?
If being insane meant that you served your sentence in a mental institution instead of in prison, I wouldn't have much problem with it.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
If you don't know what you're doing - do not have a comprehension of the right and wrong of it, or the consequences, or what reality is - then you're not accountable.
I understand the desire to have someone pay for what happened, but to punish someone who wasn't accountable doesn't even the scales of justice - it creates another injustice on top of the first one.
[ January 06, 2005, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Accountable is how somebody else treats you for what you've done - "Liable to being called to account; answerable."
Responsible speaks more toward whether it's your fault.
In general, we don't hold people accountable for things for which they are not responsible.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I don't think so. My understanding of things is that if you are found not guilty by reason of insanity, you are sentenced to a mental institution instead of prison.
My understanding is that you can be found insane, go to a hospital, be declared sane after a few years, and then be free.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think so. My understanding of things is that if you are found not guilty by reason of insanity, you are sentenced to a mental institution instead of prison. And that understanding is the source of my not having a problem with it.
But I'm sure others will be happy to clarify for us. *elbows Dagonee*
They are usually confined until they are sane. This can result in a longer period of confinement than a guilty verdict. It can also be MUCH shorter, depending on the nature of the patient's condition and the successfulness of treatment.
Edit: On the whole, it results in generally longer periods of confinement. I can't find a direct source for that, though, just several articles quoting it as accepted fact.
Dagonee
[ January 06, 2005, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
quote:Similarly, you can be found guilty, go to jail, and after a few years the parole board can decide you are capable of being an upstanding citizen and you go free.
There are set rules for that, though, restricting how early you could concievably be released.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
If someone was not responsible for themselves, and then became sane and responsible, then there is nothing injust about letting them go.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I guess the problem comes down with my disbelief that this is what actually happens.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Also, I dont like the idea that people could pretend to be ill and essentially get away with murder.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
People also fake alibis to get away with murder. That's no reason to do away with the "I can prove it wasn't physically possible for me to be there." reason for aquittal.
True justice is hard. Matters of great importance rest on our justice system.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: People also fake alibis to get away with murder
Excellent point.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Let's say you take an anti-malaria medication just prior to your dream vacation. The medication has a very rare incident side-effect of making a person violently insane. You're one of those rare individuals. Just before you're scheduled to leave for the airport, the next door neighbor irritates you, so you take the ax he borrowed from you and is returning now after 5 years all rusted, and chop him up into tiny pieces.
Should you go to jail for years?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm not convinced I shouldn't.
[ January 06, 2005, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I'd feel worse if they let me out and I did it again.
quote:Yates was thrilled by the news after learning of the ruling at the psychiatric prison where she is serving her sentence.
Well, I'm glad to hear she now knows good from bad and should be released. Shouldn't the fact that she killed all her children still be driving her insane? If someone had killed all my children I would want them locked up. Even if that person were me.
Based on the arrest report, I believe she was oriented and lucid when she killed her children. Last time we went through this, Mack said there are mood states severe enough to render someone insane with respect to accountability even if they seem lucid. I don't know. I guess anyone who kills themselves might be said to be in such a state. My church's reservation of condemnation against suicides certainly bears this out.
[ January 06, 2005, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
With something like that where as long as you don't do X, you know that it won't happen again, it makes sense.
It in cases where the insanity doesn't have such a specific and avoidable cause, that argument doesn't hold water with me.
[ January 06, 2005, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
In Yates case, it is more a case of 'if you don't do this, then..'
As long as she never, ever has any more children, I believe she'd probably be safe in society. I guess I'd request that she be permanently sterilized as a condition for release (if that were possible).
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
In my opinion, if a woman drowns her children, whether she knew what she was doing or not, she should be prevented from repeating the offence. This includes her children or children belonging to anyone else.
The TV show trick was dirty, and stupid. But she should still be housed where she can be monitored.
I am not convinced that there is much difference between a mental hospital and a prison anyway.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:As long as she never, ever has any more children, I believe she'd probably be safe in society.
As long as she doesn't feel like she has to kill anybody else, she never will.
What if she gets a job in a day care and feels overwhelmed? What if she ends up working with youth as a volunteer?
Would it be stupid of her to do this? Yes. How can we trust her to not do it?
I don't.
[ January 06, 2005, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I am not convinced that there is much difference between a mental hospital and a prison anyway.
You can convince a government employee that you are ready to get out of a mental hospital.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
quote: I guess I'd request that she be permanently sterilized as a condition for release (if that were possible).
I'm not sure if this is more or less cruel and unusual than the death penalty.
I'm repelled that Andrea Yates is the poster child for post partum depression/psychosis, as a survivor myself. There have been plenty of women who had it and harmed their children. But they had clearly psychotic ideations (I was baptising the kid, the kid was Jesus, the kid was satan etc.)
I don't see how the consultant got the episode information wrong. If he made it up he should lose his medical license. Falsifying testimony in a capital murder case is a form of aiding and abetting murder, if the state executes someone who doesn't deserve it.
But I'm a very judgemental person.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Dag, isn't the juror who consulted for the unfilmed Law and Order a little bit in the hot seat here, too? I am not saying she is less guilty because of it, but if I was in the jury pool, and had worked for a show that was so much like the case, I would have said so. Would he know the case he was being pooled for?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
While Faux News says that "no such episode existed," CNN says "No such episode ever aired."
I haven't seen a direct report as such, but given the way CNN stated it, it's possible that the episode was written or shot, but not aired, which could account for a simple mistake on the part of the witness.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I just don't think it would matter if it aired or not. The juror would have a prior opinion of a case(even though pretend) similar to this one.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
[ January 06, 2005, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Oh my.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, isn't the juror who consulted for the unfilmed Law and Order a little bit in the hot seat here, too? I am not saying she is less guilty because of it, but if I was in the jury pool, and had worked for a show that was so much like the case, I would have said so. Would he know the case he was being pooled for?
I didn't here about a juror - the expert who testified consulted on such an episode.
In the hypothetical where a juror had worked on such a show, he might not be under a duty to disclose it unless specifically asked if they have worked on insanity-defense related projects (in the course of a question about occupation, for example). But, a juror who wanted to be dismissed might bring it up him/herself.
Sometimes jurors don't know what the case is about during voire dire, although that would be unusual in a high-profile case like this. They are asked if they know anyone related to the case, usually by name.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The sudden passion laws are leftover from common law days. In more modern penal codes, they've been replaced by "extreme emotinal disturbance."
The "sudden" aspect makes the defense more typically available for men who commit crimes of immediate, great violence. Guns are often involved, because any indication the person had time to cool down gets rid of the defense. So the more deadly the weapon (and more immediate access to it was), the more likely the defense is to work.
Dagonee
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Thanks, Dag. I heard it wrong.
Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
I'm pretty sure the only episode of Law and Order I ever sat through was the one where the woman starved her baby rather than bottle feed it. Plus she despised the father.
I heard on NPR that one of the US supreme court justices served jury duty this week. What does it say about our legal system that he was culled from the pool?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I thought it was a justice from one of the state supreme courts, not SCOTUS.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
Yep, Trish, that was in the first season. It was CRAZY. I have it on DVD.
Is it sad that, as a Law and Order fan, I feel dirty for being connected to this person in that way?
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I don't know about a justice being called for jury duty but one of our state senators was called for duty and he showed up but didn't get picked for trial.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Shouldn't the fact that she killed all her children still be driving her insane? If someone had killed all my children I would want them locked up. Even if that person were me.