Murderous mothers: a challenge for the insanity defense: Andrea Yates' killing of her five children is the most-recent case triggering a clash between psychiatrists and prosecutors.

• Author: Vatz, Richard E.
• Position: Psychology

"FIVE DEAD CHILDREN." Texas' Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal repeated the phrase: "Five dead children." That was the major reason he gave for seeking the death penalty against Andrea Yates. Earlier, a Houston jury unanimously had decided that she was mentally competent to stand trial for the drowning of her five children. The finding reflected their belief that Yates understood the nature of the charges against her and was able to aid in her own defense.

Following three weeks of testimony, a jury composed of eight women and four men considered murder charges in the deaths of three of the children, with the possibility of further charges if the prosecution viewed the verdict or punishment to be inadequate. The jury deliberated four hours in finding Yates guilty of capital murder on all charges. She was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole by Judge Belinda Hill. The defendant remained almost motionless as the verdict was being read, and her attorney, George Parnham, hugged her. Russell Yates, Andrea's husband, emitted the words "Oh, my God" following the reading of the verdict and, perhaps to show his contempt, refused to stand pursuant to the judge's request as the jury left the courtroom.

The verdict was met with disappointment and anger by the defense's consultants, including, most notably, Cyndie Aquilina, a social worker who bitterly attacked the jury, calling the judgment a "ludicrous and ignorant decision." The verdict generated strong reaction within the mental health field, as well as in the press and among the general population.

There probably is no crime that creates more poignant incredulity than the killing of children by a parent. Richard Stengel wrote a piece for Time.com on why he just couldn't face doing a story about the killings. Part of it was that he is a father, and part was that he felt he could not add anything to the story, saying, "There's just no point trying to comprehend the incomprehensible."

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen argued that "It's hard to say who is crazier here--Yates or the system that is trying her." Cohen's certitude is particularly interesting. He finds the criterion of "understanding one's actions" hopelessly vague and ambiguous, stating that "The legal question in the Yates case is whether she understood her actions were wrong. She may well have ... but so what if in some dim way Yates perceived it was wrong to kill her own children?" He then quotes as reluctant testimony the allowance made by Assistant District Attorney Joseph Owmby: "There's no question Andrea Yates had some form of mental illness."...