New York Times

By BOB HERBERT
Op-ed

What if a mad­man had invad­ed Andrea Yates’s home in sub­ur­ban Houston and drowned her 5 children?

It would have been the biggest sto­ry in America, with the cov­er­age rang­ing from the sen­sa­tion­al to the hys­ter­i­cal. Every angle would be pur­sued. Except one. There would be no seri­ous attempt to under­stand the men­tal state of the killer — to deter­mine, for exam­ple, if there were mit­i­gat­ing fac­tors at work. Few would care if he suf­fered from depres­sion or some oth­er men­tal ill­ness, or if he’d been hor­ri­bly abused as a child.

And there would have been no hem­ming and haw­ing about whether pros­e­cu­tors in Harris County, Tex., which is fanat­i­cal about cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, would seek the death penal­ty. No ques­tion at all. Not in a mul­ti­ple mur­der case in which all of the vic­tims were children.

But this case is dif­fer­ent. The moth­er her­self has con­fessed to the killings. And she is not some unkempt, crack-smok­ing, dark-skinned, ghet­to-dwelling stereo­type who can eas­i­ly be bad-mouthed for dar­ing to have babies in the first place. She’s a soc­cer mom. Or at least she might have been if her kids had lived long enough to play soccer.

Suddenly the nation has a mass killer it can empathize with, iden­ti­fy with, care for, even love. So here’s Newsweek, in its cov­er sto­ry: Most mass killers are sociopaths, utter­ly alien­at­ed from oth­er human beings. They are cal­lous or sadis­tic. Andrea was the oppo­site: if any­thing, she appar­ent­ly cared too much.”

More Newsweek: Between car­ing for her father and her chil­dren, it is hard to think that Andrea ever had time for herself.”

The tone and the approach of Newsweek’s cov­er­age was typ­i­cal. How could Andrea have done it? What could pos­si­bly have dri­ven a nice mid­dle-class sub­ur­ban moth­er to drown her 5 children?

This is the case in which root caus­es, out of favor for so long, made a come­back. Story after sto­ry detailed the strug­gles Ms. Yates had with emo­tion­al ill­ness, a demand­ing hus­band, an ail­ing father, the 5 chil­dren. Suddenly it was not only O.K., but impor­tant, to try to under­stand what drove the killer to kill.

What’s wrong with all of this? Nothing. Ms. Yates is a human being and deserves to be seen as such, even as the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem moves ahead with the pro­ce­dures designed to hold her account­able for her acts.

The prob­lem is that in most seri­ous crim­i­nal cas­es cap­i­tal cas­es, espe­cial­ly we sel­dom treat the accused as human, pre­fer­ring instead to char­ac­ter­ize them as mon­sters to be dis­patched as quick­ly as pos­si­ble, regard­less of mit­i­gat­ing cir­cum­stances. They become the oth­er,” so alien and evil that no one can relate. And that makes them eas­i­er to kill.

Craig Haney, a psy­chol­o­gy pro­fes­sor and expert on cap­i­tal lit­i­ga­tion at the University of California at Santa Cruz, said of the Yates case, This is a white, mid­dle-class fam­i­ly. And it’s a moth­er. So all of the sen­ti­ment and I think quite appro­pri­ate­ly is run­ning in the direc­tion of try­ing to under­stand why she would do this.

That kind of empa­thy, unfor­tu­nate­ly, does not often extend to the typ­i­cal cap­i­tal defen­dant who may come from a dif­fer­ent racial back­ground, and almost always comes from a dif­fer­ent class back­ground than the jury.”

One of the many Texas cas­es in which the back­ground and men­tal state of the defen­dant was not suf­fi­cient­ly con­sid­ered was that of Mario Marquez, who was sen­tenced to death for the rape and mur­der of a teenag­er. Mr. Marquez had an I.Q. of about 65. He was sav­age­ly abused through­out his child­hood. At times his father would tie him to a tree and beat him with a horse­whip until he passed out. His par­ents aban­doned him to the streets when he was 12.

Mr. Marquez was too lim­it­ed men­tal­ly to talk with his lawyer about the specifics of his case. They talked about ani­mals and the things Mr. Marquez liked to draw.

Mr. Marquez was exe­cut­ed in 1995.

The clos­er you look at indi­vid­ual cas­es, the clear­er it is that the gov­ern­ment-sanc­tioned exe­cu­tion of human beings is an inap­pro­pri­ate, inequitable, intolerable penalty.

It was wrong to exe­cute Mario Marquez. It would be wrong to exe­cute Andrea Yates. And it will always be wrong to have one stan­dard of jus­tice for peo­ple like Mr. Marquez, and anoth­er for peo­ple like Ms. Yates.