FPSY 8910 wk3Assgn_Hemphill
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Walden University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
8910
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by ProfessorValorKouprey37
Identify the case and the legal criteria for criminal responsibility used during the case you selected.
The case I choose is Andrea Yates'. Andrea Yates was accused of drowning her kids in this instance. Her defense team claimed throughout the trial that she had a serious mental disorder, namely postpartum psychosis, which made it difficult for her to recognize the wrongness of what she had done at the time of the offense. Yates was originally found guilty of the deaths of her five children. But after an appeal, the jury ultimately overturned her conviction due to fabricated testimony, finding her not guilty due to insanity. The insanity defense served as the foundation for the legal standards utilized to determine who was criminally responsible for her five children's drowning. The legal standards applied in the Yates case were a) her mental condition at the time of her five children's murders; b) her ability to comprehend the nature and ramifications of her acts; and c) her inability to change her behavior to comply with the law.
Summarize the court’s outcome for the defendant, by explaining whether the defendant’s intent and actions met the legal criteria for
criminal responsibility.
Andrea Yates's court case resulted in her being convicted guilty at first of killing her five children. On appeal, though, her conviction was finally reversed because of false testimony. Yate's state of mind at the time of the offense was key to the debate over whether her intent and conduct satisfied the requirements for criminal culpability under the law. According to the defense, Yates experienced acute postpartum psychosis, which hampered her capacity to comprehend the nature and ramifications of her acts and to behave in a way that complied with the law. The prosecution countered that Yates was conscious of her acts and their wrongness and did not fit the requirements for the
insanity defense. She was first found guilty by the jury, indicating that they thought she satisfied the requirements to be considered criminally responsible. Nevertheless, it was discovered upon appeal that the prosecution's expert witness had given false testimony, which affected the jury's verdict. Consequently, a new trial was mandated, and the conviction was reversed. Yates was ruled not guilty by reason of insanity in the next trials, proving that her
intentions and deeds fell short of the requirements for criminal culpability.
Present your own state’s statute for criminal responsibility.
The criminal liability statute in Illinois is found in Chapter 720, Section 5/4-3 of the IL Compiled Statutes. The standards for establishing whether an individual is legally accountable for a criminal crime are outlined in the legislation. A person is legally liable for an offense, according to the legislation, whether they commit the offense or if they assist, abet, or take part in its commission. The statute also says that someone is held legally accountable for the actions of another if, prior to, during, or after an offense, they seek out, assist, encourage, concur, or try to help the other person in planning or carrying out the offense with the intention of promoting or facilitating the offense's commission. If an individual in Illinois possesses the mental state necessary for the offenses, they can also be charged with a crime even
if they are unaware of the details or conditions of the infraction. This implies that if an individual possesses the required mental state, motive or awareness of the violation may not necessarily be required.
Explain whether the defendant’s intent and actions would meet your state statute’s legal criteria for criminal responsibility.
Based on the legal standards for criminal liability set forth in Illinois legislation Andrea Yates's purpose and deeds would not be deemed criminally responsible in Illinois owing
to her mental condition, postpartum psychosis, which hindered her capacity to comprehend the wrongness of her conduct at the time of the crimes. Consequently, Yates was declared not guilty by reason of insanity, shielding her from being prosecuted for her deeds.
Resources
Ewing, C. P., & McCann, J. T. (2006).
Minds on trial: Great cases in law and psychology
Links to an external site.
.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Chapter 12, “Jeffrey Dahmer: Serial Murder, Necrophilia, and Cannibalism” (pp. 141–152)
o
Chapter 19, “Andrea Yates: An American Tragedy” (pp. 229–240)
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help