In this continuing exploration of the construct of mental defect, we will compare and contrast the case studies of Andrea Yates and Susan Smith. Read the weblinks and readings in the case studies content folder.

Two women commit similar acts of filicide (the Actus Reus are similar; drowning their own children to death). However, for our purposes, we are concerned not with the guilty actions (the Actus Reus), but rather with the guilty mind, or lack thereof (Mens Rea). Consider, as you read the case studies, whether or not the mental state at the time of the offense (MSO) was equivalent for Yates as it was for Smith. Ask yourself whether or not their level of criminal responsibility is the same.

Be certain to cite from the readings and weblinks.

3. Briefly explain the facts of the Andrea Yates case (the Who, What, When, Where, How and Why of the case). Explain the Actus Reus (the guilty actions). Explain the Mens Rea (her mental state at the time of the offense). Why did she murder her children? Was there an incentive? Ask yourself "cui bono?": what did she have to gain by murdering her children?

4. Briefly explain the facts of the Susan Smith case (the Who, What, When, Where, How and Why of the case). Explain the Actus Reus (the guilty actions). Explain the Mens Rea (her mental state at the time of the offense). Why did she murder her children? Was there an incentive? What did she have to gain by murdering her children? Ask yourself "cui bono?": what did she have to gain by murdering her children?

5. For each case, explain any psychiatric history.

6. How are the cases similar? How do the cases differ?

7. If criminal insanity is defined as being excused from criminal responsibility due to the presence of a mental disorder that impaired the ability to know right from wrong, or to know the wrongfulness of one's actions - take a stance on whether or not either Yates and Smith were criminally insane (not responsible for their actions). Explain.