Showing posts with label Joshua Mauldin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joshua Mauldin. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Do You Believe in Evil?

by Lucy Puryear, M.D.

My last post referenced the case of
Joshua Mauldin, a 20-year-old man found guilty of putting his two-month-old daughter in a microwave for ten seconds. The defense was hoping he would be found not guilty by reason of insanity. That plea was rejected by the jury and he was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison.

In reality, less than 1% of defendants use
the insanity defense, and of those who do, less than 20% are successful. That is a good thing. We want people who do bad things to be punished. We most certainly want them put in an environment where the chance that they will re-offend is limited. We also don't want lawyers and their clients to abuse the insanity defense and make it less effective for those who are truly and severely mentally ill.

So if Mr. Mauldin wasn't insane, what was he? And was he fully responsible for the crime he committed? I know I have just raised the hackles of several of our contributors, but hear me out. How do we explain what causes people to commit heinous acts of violence against others? In Mr. Mauldin's case, the defense tried to claim that he had a long history of mental illness and at the time of the crime was unaware of what he was doing. The jury didn't buy that explanation.

But Joshua Mauldin did have some form of mental illness as testified to by both the defense and the prosecution experts. Was he adequately treated? Did he have appropriate follow-up to assure that he was on the proper medication and that he had been taking it as prescribed? Was he depressed? Psychotic? Not an excuse, but a factor? The legal system even allows for mitigating factors to be considered when deciding upon a sentence. Rage, passion, mental illness, poverty, and abuse are acknowledged as possibly contributing to the perpetration of a crime.

As I psychiatrist I often try to understand why people do the things they do . . . hopefully so they can stop making bad decisions that hurt themselves or others. When someone commits a violent crime it's often not that hard to understand why. A psychotic person hears Satan's voice telling him to kill. A pedophile was sexually abused as a young child by a close family member. A teenager panics when she delivers a baby she's told no one about. These explanations help us to make sense out of how someone can do some things so awful to others and give us some hope that we might be able to prevent future tragedies. We can make sure there is access to psychiatric care, we can work to identify children who are being abused and get them help, and we can set up laws that allow mothers to turn over infants to hospitals or fire stations (Baby Moses Law).

But I must admit, after I count up the mentally ill . . . and the abused . . . and the neglected . . . and the disenfranchised . . . how do I account for those who, despite fairly reasonable upbringings, inflict terrifying and horrific acts against innocent others? I want to find some brain disorder, some chemical imbalance that makes sense of this for me. I don't believe people are born to commit atrocities. And yet . . .

There are some whose eyes you look into and see darkness. Despite my best efforts I can't find a way to make human contact--find that piece of them that connects to others. Often these people are good at "pretending" to be human. They have studied others and can mimic appropriate reactions or responses. But inside there is no true capacity to know or care what another thinks or feels. In his novel No Country for Old Men, Cormac McCarthy depicts a character, played by Javier Bardem in the film adaptation (pictured above), who kills and makes sport of it. He enjoys the chase and the terror that his victims experience as he flips a coin to decide whether they live or die. It gives you chills as you watch this inhuman human, kill.

Medical science is trying to find the cause and hopefully the "cure" for people without a conscience. At the moment there is no medication nor therapy that has been very effective. It is hard for me not to want to find a reason for the horror: brain damage at birth, poor nutrition, maternal deprivation? It is hard for me as a healer not to want to heal. And yet I must acknowledge I am helpless. And maybe there is just such a thing as evil.


Monday, March 24, 2008

What Does it Mean to be Crazy?

by Lucy Puryear, M.D.

You may be surprised by my title and use of the work "crazy." That's not exactly a politically correct medical term, but when you listen to a psychiatrist's private conversations it's one that's used frequently. It's shorthand for, "Boy, did I just see someone who was really sick." What is meant by that is that the person in front of us is either acting bizarrely (standing in the middle of the street gesticulating wildly and talking to the sky) . . . listening to voices in his head or responding to visions you and I can't see (if you've ever had a really high fever you might have experienced this; it's called delirium) . . . believes something entirely off the wall (the CIA has planted a bug in my head--remember you have to be careful with delusions, one day the CIA may indeed be capable of that!) . . . or his speech is so unintelligible he doesn't make sense to anyone (the technical term is "word salad," a little of this, a little of that . . .) .

So when I'm speaking with a group of psychiatrists I'm pretty sure we all know the shorthand. But when you are trying to translate "crazy" to a courtroom it becomes much more complicated. The medical and legal definitions are entirely different.

In the Andrea Yates trial I was asked to determine if Yates (pictured above) was legally insane at the moment she drowned her children. So I had to put my medical definition through the lens of a legal one: Was Andrea Yates legally insane at the time she killed her children?

There is no standard psychiatric definition of the word insane and it's not one we use in regular conversation. In a courtroom in Texas insane means the following: does the person know at the time the crime was committed the difference between right and wrong? From a medical understanding of psychotic illness (crazy) that definition is hard to interpret. Obviously the jury found it difficult as well. In the first trial she was found guilty, in the second trial, not guilty by reason of insanity.

To make matters more confusing, the legal definition of insanity changes depending on which state you live in. You can commit the same heinous crime and be insane in Texas, but by definition not insane in Connecticut. Excuse me for saying so, but that's CRAZY. Whereas Texas uses a much older and more constricted definition of insanity (McNaughton Rule), Connecticut uses a more modern definition (American Law Institute). The advocates who worked so tirelessly for the defense in the Andrea Yates trial have been working to have the legal definition of insanity changed in Texas to a more modern standard. Good luck getting that passed in a state that still struggles over the execution of those with mental retardation.

There's a new case getting the attention of the media here in Houston that will test the stomachs of those chosen to sit on the jury. Joshua Royce Mauldin (pictured left) is currently on trial for putting his two-month-old baby daughter in a microwave for ten seconds. She suffered second- and third-degree burns over parts of her body and currently is living with relatives. Mr. Mauldin has pled not guilty by reason of insanity. According to the Houston Chronicle, he has a history of mental illness and claims to have heard voices. He felt a "weird sensation" come over him right before he put her in the oven.

I have not interviewed Mr. Mauldin or consulted with any of the psychiatrists who have. Is he legally insane? I don't know. That's going to be for the jury to decide. The jury will have to make sense of a complicated psychiatric history and conflicting testimony from mental health professionals. Is he crazy? No doubt. Is he sick? Absolutely. There's something seriously wrong with someone who can do that to another human being. But in the state of Texas the defense will have to prove that at the time of the crime he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. In this instance, I bet that will be a hard case to make.