When God Demands Blood: Unusual Minds and the Troubled Juridical Ties of Religion, Madness, and Culpability

The deific decree doctrine allows criminal defendants who believe that God commanded them to kill to plead not guilty by reason of insanity to murder. The insanity defense has remained moored to its Judeo-Christian roots, which has artificially limited its bounds. While civil law has focused on individualism within religion, criminal law has imposed state-defined limits on what religion (or socially acceptable religion) is. This article argues that the deific decree doctrine is too closely tied to artificial limits on insanity imposed by nineteenth-century developments in the mental health profession and criminal law. The doctrine unacceptably privileges certain mentally ill criminal defendants whose delusions fit within an outdated model that is not psychiatrically valid. Moreover, it has disparate gender consequences that harm women with postpartum psychosis who kill their children while supporting men who kill their female partners. The article concludes by calling for the end of the deific decree doctrine and expanding the insanity defense so it more accurately tracks psychiatric understanding of mental illness

“God Told Me to Kill”: Religion or Delusion?

This Article explores how, in assessing the motivation of those who kill because they believe they were directed by God to do so, society distinguishes religious-based decisions from delusional decisions that result from mental disorder. Part II discusses how religion is defined in our society, and Part III considers the extent to which religious conduct, as opposed to religious belief, is protected from governmental intrusion

Unreasonable Revelations: God Told Me to Kill

This Article focuses on one extreme example of the law’s response to unreasonable revelations that is starkly presented in a series of unsettling murders: those involving criminal defendants who claim they committed their crime because God told them to do it—known as “deific decree” cases. This example of the conflict between revelation and reason tests the limits of law’s ability to understand and countenance revelation when the stakes are highest. The deific decree cases also present the hardest epistemological problems, because the defendant claims that the experience of God’s command is self-authenticating—a position fundamentally at odds with both scientific and legal standards of proof

Faith, Harm, and Neutrality: Some Complexities of Free Exercise Law

This essay reviews Professor Marci Hamilton\u27s God vs. the Gavel (2005). The essay surveys several areas of recent free exercise controversy in light of Hamilton\u27s defense of a robust harm principle as the proper analytical framework for free exercise analysis. It then takes the example of religiously based insanity defenses as an illustration of the theoretical difficulties that arise at the intersection of religious belief and criminal law

Who is Andrea Yates? A Short Story About Insanity

On June 20, 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her four children in a bathtub. At Andrea’s trial, in Harris County, Texas, the prosecution’s star expert, Patrick Dietz, appeared particularly adept at persuading the jury to accept the prosecution’s assertion that Andrea was sane and acting intentionally when she killed her children. This Article analyzes the problematic aspects of Dietz\u27s testimony in an effort to contribute some balance to the Andrea Yates story. Despite the long history of expert witnesses in criminal trials, the justice system should question the fairness and efficacy of such an unregulated storytelling process. Part I of this Article briefly discusses Andrea\u27s life up to her marriage as well as the outcome of her trial. Part II provides an overview of the insanity defense and the strict Texas insanity standard. Part III examines Dietz\u27s background, his reputation, and his psychiatric philosophy, in addition to his proclivity to testify for the prosecution. Part IV describes Andrea\u27s history of mental illness, especially her postpartum psychosis that started with the birth of her first child and ended with a severe psychotic episode. Part V focuses on Dietz\u27s testimony in the Yates trial, beginning with his pre-trial interview with Andrea and ending with an analysis of his conclusions. The discussion emphasizes the speculative nature of many of Dietz\u27s statements and their lack of connection to Andrea\u27s history of mental illness. Part VI presents the other perspectives and experts in the Yates case, and considers how the case might have reached a different result with a more consistent defense strategy or a less rigid insanity standard