Jeffrey Dahmer/Andrea Yates
Question 1
Schizophrenia is a psychological disorder, which affects an individual’s personality. It because almost impossible to determine what is real and unreal. One can not think rationally and emotions also fluctuate. This shows that a person ceases to function normally and cannot think, judge or reason like a normal person. The two infamous cases of Yates and Dahmer were decided that the defendants were guilty. It is possible for a schizophrenic culprit to be guilty, despite his or her condition. There are several reasons that support this (Comer,12).
The first is determined by the legal definition of insanity. According to the constitution, for one to be considered insane he ought not to understand what is wrong, and does not understand when he or she does wrong. When the jury analyzed the two cases, they concluded that the culprits knew they were doing wrong and they understood what was wrong (Comer, 35). In Yates case, after she drowned her children, she dialed emergency help. This clearly shows that she knew something wrong had happened. Assuming she did not know, she could have just being calm and act like nothing happened. In addition, they said that she waited until her husband was off and then did this heinous act. In some states like Idaho, the law does not define insanity hence; no defendant can claim insanity because it is assumed it does not exist.
Question 2
Not all crimes from schizophrenic people should be granted NGRI. Before granting this verdict, a culprit should prove that during crime scene, he or she was what the law considers as insanity. Some schizophrenic people may take wrong advantage of NGRI and commit crime. According to Dahmer’s case, as he went to kill one of his victims, he had been approached by a police. He made up a story to mislead the police and he got his way. This shows that he knew he was going to do something wrong, that is why he lied. It would be true to say that if he was not conscious of wrong doing he would have said the truth. After all, he is expected to think everything is right (Comer, 50). Yates also called emergency help line when she drowned her children. It is thought that even when she chased Noah, one of her sons, she could tell she is doing wrong. This is also evident that she was aware she had done something wrong. This is a clear indication that some schizophrenic patients are aware of doing wrong. If this is so then they cannot automatically be granted NGRI verdict. They will have not met the conditions of being called insane (Comer, 100).
Question 3
I think that both cases were despicable, despite the condition of the culprits. I would not expect Yates to kill her children even though she claims to be insane. It was reported that she had stopped taking her medication meant for prevented her from being delusional. This act could suggest many things like she could have planned this act. I would argue that when she stopped taking her medication, it was a way of creating a reason that she was unwell at the time of crime. Since she suffered from depression, she may have felt she cannot handle children hence, look for riddance. I agree with Comer (100) when he says that the judicial system should not, at anyone time consider granting such cases NGRI verdict without examining them. Apart from being sentenced, mental patients should be confined in mental clinics and treated until they are safe to interact with the community. If this would happen, cases like that of Yates avoiding medication will not happen.
Works cited
Comer, J. Ronald. Abnormal Psychology. Washington, D.C: Worth publishers. 2009. Print.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]