Carefully read Chapter 5 of the Schmalleger text. Subsequently, watch the videos on the Andrea Yates case (links above). Then, re-read “The Case: Andrea Yates” case scenario on page 96 of your text (if you are using a digital version of the textbook, the page number may differ). Then, in the discussion forum I have created, answer all of the questions below:
Identify the characteristics associated with psychopathy. Do you believe Andrea Yates could be considered a psychopath? Provide scholarly evidence and logical reasoning to support your answer.
Discuss how Andrea Yates’ mental issues could be informed by the theories presented in Chapter 5 of your textbook as well as by the explanations provided in the videos posted by your instructor (links above)? Make sure to explain how your chosen theories/explanations logically connect to the Andrea Yates case.
What was the outcome of Andrea Yates’ first trial? Upon appeal, what happened to the original verdict? What was the outcome of Andrea Yates’ second trial?
Had you been a juror, do you think Andrea yates met the legal requirements of having committed a crime (homicide) or do you believe she should have been found “not guilty, by reason of insanity?” Explain your position.
Prior to Andrea killing her children, do you believe there were visible signs that Andrea might be capable of killing her children? In your view, could Andrea Yates’ actions and deaths of her children have been prevented? If so, who was in the best position to help Andrea Yates and prevent the deaths of her children? What could have been done to prevent this tragic incident?
elites”. This is because the revenue streams in these countries are so concentrated to the elites and ruling classes, providing only menial low-paid labour to politically-insignificant lower classes. Moreover, since they are primary-product-export dependent, manufacturing industries develop overseas where economies of scales are subsequently built; diminishing the ability of local entrepreneurs to set up competing businesses and increase their wealth. The likelihood of a democratic transition is therefore low, since “democracy is expected to increase redistribution and reduce inequality”; something which is not in the interest of the elite ruling classes. Moreover, economic crises can have a large role to play in mobilising a population against the elites and causing the fall of a non-democratic government. Although the elites do have “the monopoly over large scale violence, […] states in crisis can […] slide […] into even more instability”, particularly if a popular revolution is supported by a large proportion of the population, or, as in the case of Syria, the “improving […] economic conditions of the large Syrian refugee communities in neighbouring countries [provide] economic alternatives to joining armed groups”; decreasing the state’s military stronghold over its population. It is certain, however, that the likelihood of the collapse of a non-democratic regime as a result of an economic shock depends on its depth and severity, and the degree to which there is the resulting loss in welfare incentivising the population to mobilise. Furthermore, if the state is able to reallocate resources effectively despite an economic crisis, they may be able to withstand opposition to power; for example, by “[cutting] back outlays on subsidies, enabling it to concentrate more resources on the police, domestic security, and the state’s cultural and media propaganda machinery” (page 165), as was undertaken in Egypt under Mubarak. While wealth and development are undoubtedly significant in causing a shift towards democratic governance, “authoritarian regimes around the world [have shown] that they can reap the benefits of economic development while evading any pressure to relax their political control. [An example is China’s economy, which] has grown explosively over the last 25 years, [>GET ANSWER