More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction to classroom management
Introduction to classroom management
Merits and demerits of classroom management approach
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Andrea Yates murder trial was one of the most highly publicized cases of 2001. Perplexing and complicated, it appealed to the public audience for various reasons. A mother methodically, drowns her five children in the family bathtub after her husband leaves for work. Was this an act of a cold calculating killer, or was this the act of a woman who lost touch with reality. Is this a case of medical neglect, and psychological dysfunctions, or is this a battle of ethics and deviant behavior exploiting medical and legal loop holes? When viewed from a strictly medical, psychological aspect, Andrea Yates medical history indicates that after the birth of her first child, she began to suffer from various forms of depression and suicide attempts. If one only examines the paper trail and doesn’t think beyond what the medical history does or does not indicate, then perhaps, Andrea would be innocent by reason of mental insanity as the 2006 acquittal suggest. However, when viewed form a legal aspect there are several inconstancies that challenge if this former nurse was insane or if she in fact premeditated the murder of her children as well as her acquittal. In determining which crime theory is most applicable to the Andrea Yates murder case, one must establish a position on her guilt or innocence. If one agrees that the original 2001 verdict of guilty is correct then the Classical theory would best apply. Beccaria’s Classical theory asserts that people think before they proceed with criminal acts. When one commits a crime, it is because the individual decided it would be advantageous to do so, when one acts without benefit of effective punishment (Pratt, 2008). However, if one agrees with the 2006 verdict of not guilty by reason o... ... middle of paper ... ...her children’s life. Andrea knew that her act was legally wrong but she claims she felt it was morally correct. While laws and morality are intertwined, the duty of our court system is to enforce laws not to legislate morality. Andrea Yates was aware that her premeditated act would be legally wrong, and did in fact think about the crime prior to coming it. These actions are distinct characteristics associated with the classical theory of crime. References References Ellwood, C. A. (1911-1912). Lombroso's Theory of Crime. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. fulero, s. m., & wrightsman, l. s. (2009). Forensic Psychology Third Edition. McLellan, F. (2006). Mental health and justice: the case of Andrea Yates. The Lancet, 1951-1954. Pratt, T. C. (2008). Rational Choice theory, criminal control policy, and criminology relevance. Policy essay, 43-52.
The wrongful conviction of Tammy Marquardt was also aided by the misconduct of the parties involved. Goudge (2008) claimed that Smith, other medical experts and prosecutors operated with a “think dirty” mindset, which presumes guilt first, rather than the ‘innocent until proven guilty‘ doctrine highly valued in the justice system. “The Goudge Commission found the actual words ‘think dirty’ in instructions from Ontario’s chief coroners, pathologists and police chiefs in 1995” (Shapiro, 2011). In Ms. Marquardt’s case, there is no way to conceal the fact that the professionals of the adversarial system did not satisfactorily perform their roles. It has already been demonstrated that Dr. Charles Smith “saw his role as supporting the prosecution,
Convicted for the murders of his wife and two kids, thirty-four years ago, Dr. MacDonald still endures the agony of being accused of killing his family. Even after twenty-four years of imprisonment and several unlawful court hearings, additional documentation continues to up hold Dr. MacDonald’s testimony.
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
In chapter 3 of the Crime and Justice in America textbook, Joycelyn Pollock provides information about the three theories of crime. These theories help us to explain the motivation behind different criminal acts. The reasons why one would commit a crime may be due to biological, psychological, or sociological influences. This paper will explore the high profile cases of The State vs. Casey Anthony and The United States vs. Enron, and link them to one the theories of crime causation detailed by Pollock in chapter 3. We will explore the evidence of what motivated these people to commit the crimes they were charged with.
... fair to say that Williamson’s conviction and death sentence resulted from a combination of mental illness, junk science, political pressure, unscrupulous police work, and incompetent counsel.” (Coyne)
Andrea Yates was smart, I know for a fact that she knew what she was doing… but maybe at this time she just did not have any control over the actions that she was performing. Before the murder, Yates waited for her husband Russel to leave for work “because she knew he would have prevented her from harming the killing” (Murderpedia). Before the murder, Yates also locked up the family dog whom usually romes free to prevent “interfering with her killing the children one by one” (Murderpedia). After the murder occurred, she called the police to turn herself in. When Officer David Knapp arrived, she stood at the door and repeated, “I killed my kids” twice. She then led Knapps to the master bedroom where “the bodies of Luke, 3, Paul, 2, John, 5, and Mary, 6 months, were laid out on the bed like lumps” (CNN). Insanely did not have an impact on her actions. Being insane is when a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality; uncontrollable behavior – and that was not the case with her (Psychology Today). Yates knew exactly what she was doing at the time of doing so. Yates was well developed and well aware of her actions, but she knew that if she gave her children the opportunity to survive, than it would be hurt fault if they “burned in hell”… so in order to end things quickly she had to end their current lives to protect them from their future
In 1969 the first crime scenario took place with the murder of a man called Gary Hinman. According to Wikipedia “Atkins claimed she didn’t know a crime was going to take place, although she wrote in her 1977 book that she went to Hinman's home to get money and knew that it was possible they were going to kill him”. This fact proves her dishonesty to accept that she was part of the crime, which she later contradicts by writing the fact a possible crime in her book. This declaration just reveals her full participation and agreement in the murder of this man in a search for money.
On August 20th, 1989 Lyle and Erik Menendez killed their parents inside their Beverly Hills home with fifteen shot gun blasts after years of alleged “sexual, psychological, and corporal abuse” (Berns 25). According to the author of “Murder as Therapy”, “The defense has done a marvelous job of assisting the brothers in playing up their victim roles” (Goldman 1). Because there was so much evidence piled up against the brothers, the defense team was forced to play to the jurors’ emotions if they wanted a chance at an acquittal. Prosecutor Pamela Bozanich was forced to concede that “Jose and Kitty obviously had terrific flaws-most people do in the course of reminding jurors that the case was about murder, not child abuse” (Adler 103). Bozanich “cast the details of abuse as cool, calculated lies” (Smolowe 48)...
The eighth law that can cause a crime to be viewed as a capital crime is “the person murders an individual under six years of age.” (Pilgrim 06) Prolonged media attention reflecting cases on capital crimes committed by women, causes cases to have extreme bias, and causes the judge or jury to neglect the actual case. This is mirrored by the circumstances of the case involving the 2008 disappearance and murder of Caylee Anthony the suspected killer which was the child’s own mother, Casey Marie Anthony. Casey Anthony, the mother of then three-year old daughter Caylee Anthony, was believed to have murdered her daughter in order to avoid parental responsibilities. Although an overwhelming amount of evidence backing up claims and beliefs that Casey Anthony was in fact the perpetrator of the murder, including forensic data connecting decomposition remains of the child to Anthony’s car during the time of the child’s disappearance, and FBI attained data comprising of Google search terms including methods involved in the murder of Caylee from a comp...
One flaw of the insanity plea is how the victims and their families are affected. For example on March 21, 2010, Kathy Powell, the mother of 21 year old Taylor Powell, who was brutally murdered by Jarrod Wyatt outside Klamath, Oregon, said the suspect's recent insanity plea was a complete lie. Mrs. Powell said she knows little about what happened that night, but voiced frustration about the defense's efforts to suggest her son somehow instigated the fight that led to his death. Wyatt, age 26, was being charged with murder, aggravated mayhem, and torture. He pleaded a dual plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
...t I do not think that the evidence presented is enough for a conviction to sentence any man or woman to death.
...omeone do this to their child?”. There have been many similar cases where the mother was found not guilty, so why was Yates found guilty? The answer may come from the website Andrea Yates: Ill or Evil? “In America, there are no clear standards in court for dealing with mentally ill mothers—not even in the same city.” This is a sad, but true statement. People tend to use their own morals and experiences as how they perceive things. Of course what Andrea Yates did was wrong, but she was also seriously ill.
In an article titled, What is Forensic Psychology, Anyway?, John Brigham attempts to explain the beginnings of psychology and law; Forensics Psychology. Brigham explains that, “forensic psychology involves the interaction of psychology and the legal process” (Brigham 274). Brigham further highlights a historical case and the precedent established by the House of Lords through the induction of the McNaughten Rule, which translates, “To establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know nature and quality of the act he was doing, or he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong” (Finkel, 1988, p21; Brigham p275). Brigham explains that the concept of introducing psychology into the field of law ...
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.
Yates mental issues seen from the light of the theories describe how she was dealing with severe mental issues. She had symptoms before she committed her heinous crime and had problems that could be seen beforehand. It really paints a dark issue on how she was considered normal from the beginning and only after her first kid was she treated for her actions. The book also states,” Both a hospitalization at the end of March and her medication, however, were terminated by her psychiatrist, Dr. Mohammed Saeed, because, he claimed, she did not seem psychotic” (93). In hindsight, it does appear as a mistake for the doctor, but she acted in what she believed was right. Psychopathy is a complicated issue that can affect more people than we know.