Show simple item record

The Integrationist Alternative to the Insanity Defense: Reflections on the Exculpatory Scope of Mental Illness in the Wake of the Andrea Yates Trial

dc.contributor.authorSlobogin, Christopher, 1951-
dc.date.accessioned2014-06-12T12:13:54Z
dc.date.available2014-06-12T12:13:54Z
dc.date.issued2003
dc.identifier.citation30 Am. J. Crim. L. 315 (2003)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/6461
dc.description.abstractOn June 20, 2001, Andrea Yates took the lives of her five children by drowning them, one by one, in a bathtub. At her trial on capital murder charges nine months later, she pleaded insanity. Despite very credible evidence that she had long suffered from serious mental disorder, a Texas jury convicted Yates of murder and sentenced her to life in prison. Her tragic and controversial case led many to question whether the so-called "M'Naghten" test for insanity, which forms the basis for the insanity defense in Texas, adequately defines the exculpatory effect of mental disorder. This article is based on a talk given at a conference entitled "The Affirmative Defense of Insanity in Texas," which took place in the wake of the Yates trial.en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (29 pages)en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Journal of Criminal Lawen_US
dc.subject.lcshYates, Andrea -- Trials, litigation, etc.en_US
dc.subject.lcshInsanity defense -- Texasen_US
dc.subject.lcshMentally ill offenders -- Texasen_US
dc.titleThe Integrationist Alternative to the Insanity Defense: Reflections on the Exculpatory Scope of Mental Illness in the Wake of the Andrea Yates Trialen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record