Criminal Justice
1- Chapters 5-8 of our Mallicoat text cover an array of issues surrounding women and girls offending. For the purpose of this assignment, I want you to put on your forensic psychologist hat and critique the filicide crimes. Filicide is the deliberate act of a parent killing their own child. The word filicide is derived from the Latin words filius and filia (son and daughter) and the suffix -side, meaning to kill, murder, or cause death. The word can refer both to the crime and to the perpetrator of the crime. On average, according to FBI statistics, 450 children are murdered by their parents each year in the United States.
For this assignment, we will take a closer look at filicide and what some of the contributing factors might be. I would like you to choose a case where a parent was accused and found guilty of filicide but pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
2- After selecting your case, conduct your own research and then answer the following questions:
1- Explain the general facts of the case and the holding while defining not guilty by reason of insanity, and comparing and contrasting the M’Naghten Rule and the Irresistible Impulse Test.
2- Critique mental illness as a mitigating factor in determining punishment.
3- Justify whether mental illness is or is not a valid defense and why?
4- Discuss your thoughts on the outcome of the case?
5- Rely on valid research, incorporating as much material as applicable from class and other outside sources.
Here are some examples:
1- https://youtu.be/tGDiJvfU6TA
( Timeline of the murders of three children allegedly killed by their mother)
2- https://youtu.be/FjJuN9Qfr0I
( Andrea Yates )
ANSWER
Critique of the Filicide Crimes
Perpetuated crimes in the United States have always been a grave concern for authorities and the community at large. Quite specifically, filicide crimes have and still remain a problem in the United States, with over 450 children being killed annually by their parents. It might sound like a nuance that a mother who gave birth to an actual baby may one day consider putting an end to their lives. Still, what filicide crimes have taught many psychologists is that not many crimes are done voluntarily regarding the victims. The issue of filicide crimes stems centuries back within the United States, and quite popular are the recent cases starting from early 2000 (Resnick, 2016). For instance, on June 20, 2001, five children, aged six months to 7 years, drowned by their mother, Andrea Yates, and none survived. Andrea was a vital reference point, who, at the time of her marriage and four children later, did not show any initial symptoms of a serial killer when she got married to her husband. She had graduated a valedictorian of her high school class of 608 students. However, after having four children, she became gradually overwhelmed with the exhaustion that the children brought (Parnham, 2016). She was determined to be a supermom in her earlier years, but unfortunately, things did not go as planned.
After various consultations with her psychiatrist, Mrs Yates was advised not to have any additional children within her marriage, especially with her already four children extremely overwhelming her. However, she went ahead and had another child in their marriage, totalling the number of children to five. This took a toll on Mrs Yates’ life, as she stated demonstrating homicide intentions regarding ending either her children’s lives or her own. Interestingly, she confessed to having a sense of persuasion from various commercials that made her feel that Satan was communicating to her and instructing her to kill her children (Parnham, 2016). What drove more attention was that she had conducted a session with her psychiatrist five weeks prior to her killing all of her five children. She confessed that she felt like television cameras were installed all over her house and questioned her level of mothering. In the end, she felt overwhelmed and ultimately killed her children, stating that the “one and only Satan; was literally within her. While in court, she pleaded not guilty as her lawyer contested her insanity as the cause for her actions.
This case initiated the conversation about the difference between the M’Naghten Rule and the Irresistible Impulse Test. The M’Naghten rule entails a defendant unable to distinguish between right and wrong or otherwise didn’t understand what they did because of what psychiatrists term as the disease of the mind (Denno, 2017). On the other hand, the irresistible pulse test is when a defendant cannot control their impulses due to a mental disorder, leading to the commission of a criminal act.
Mental illness is indeed a mitigating factor in determining punishment for the alleged victims. Mentally ill and mentally disturbed offenders comprise a significant component of those whose criminal conduct has swept them into the criminal justice system, including a subset who are tried and convicted of capital murder (Millie et al., 2020). However, in the United States, there are more incarcerated mentally ill persons compared to the housed mainly admitted in health wards or hospitals. According to statistics, mentally ill people incarcerated in the United States are over 350,000. In contrast, fewer people accused of homicide due to mental illness are admitted to rehabilitation facilities. In addition, according to the US Department of Justice, one in every ten inmates in state prisons has a severe mental illness. It thus goes without saying that several federal and state laws need to be adjusted, as mental illness continues to be a mitigating factor in rendering judgment to mentally ill persons (Millie et al., 2020).
Consequently, mental illness is a valid defence in a court of law. Mental illness, by definition, is an insanity defence derived from the idea that certain mental complications or diseases can interfere with a person’s ability to make a proper judgment. In the US legal system, two general requirements illustrate the issue of mental illness, including ‘mens rea’ and ‘actus reus’ (Bowins, 2016). ‘Mens rea’ is the intent of committing an act and having the desired consequence. On the other hand, ‘actus reus’ refers to the act of fitting within the criminal statute. For instance, this is supported by the idea that someone needs to be dead for there to have been a murder. Therefore, a mentally challenged person should not be liable to the required legal prosecution process. As per the definition of filicide, mentally challenged people who kill other people do not do these actions as per their own accord (Bowins, 2016). There are typically influenced by the chemical imbalance in their brains, prompting them to act against their own will.
After appearing before a judge, Andreas Yates was sentenced to 40 years in prison without the possibility of parole. However, citing various false testimonies by some of the witnesses, especially her psychiatric doctor, she had a retrial in 2006. On July 26, a jury found her not guilty on the grounds of insanity (Parnham, 2016). This was a relief as the court would have convicted a mentally challenged person and acted subconsciously, without her body, regarding her own will and command. Thus, the judgment rendered was fair and complied with various state and federal laws regarding the persecution of mentally challenged people.
References
Bowins, B. (2016). Mental Illness Defined: Continuums, Regulation, and Defense. Routledge.
Denno, D. W. (2017). Andrea Yates: A continuing story about insanity. The insanity defense: Multidisciplinary views on its history, trends, and controversies, 367-416.
Miley, L. N., Heiss‐Moses, E., Cochran, J. K., Heide, K. M., Fogel, S. J., Smith, M. D., & Bejerregaard, B. J. (2020). An examination of the effects of mental disorders as mitigating factors on capital sentencing outcomes. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38(4), 381-405.
Parnham, G. (2016). Beyond the Andrea Yates Verdict: Mental Health and the Law. Tex. Tech L. Rev., 49, 847.
Resnick, P. J. (2016). Filicide in the United States. Indian journal of psychiatry, 58(Suppl 2), S203.
