The Insanity Defense of Andrea Yates Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

The Insanity Defense of Andrea Yates - Essay Example June 20, 2001, which had started as a normal day in the Yates family living in the suburban area of Houston, brought some tragic misfortunes to the family. Following her daily routine, Andrea Yates, a suburban housewife, made breakfast for her five children and then the hell broke out in the family when she drowned each of her five children one by one in the family’s guest bathroom. The eldest among the children, Noah, was just 7 years old and the youngest one, Mary, was only of 6 months. Her other three children whom she killed were John, 5 years old, Paul, 3 years old and Luke, 2 years old. Once she found all of them to be dead after drowning them in the bathtub, she spread the bodies of her four children out on her bed, and left Noah, her eldest child, floating in bathtub. After committing this horrifying crime, she called the police as well as her husband for disclosing the crime she had committed. (McLellan; Keram) There is no doubt that no crime could be more heinous than killing one’s own children. However, looking at the nature of crime committed by a mother, questions are bound to arise regarding the mental status of Yates at the time of the crime. It was her psychological disorder which prompted her to commit such crime and considering her psychological problem her defendant demanded insanity defense in the first trial. She was under treatment and was taking drugs even two days before the incident occurred. She claimed of having odd visions and hearing sounds which was not real. She believed that for the good of her children she must kill them. The act was committed when her husband had left her alone with the children despite the doctor’s instructions against it. However, in the first trial, she was accused of committing the crime of killing her own children and sentenced to life. (Keram) She was declared not guilty only in the second trial and released on

Fiedler Contingency Theory vs House-Path Goal Theory Term Paper

Fiedler Contingency Theory vs House-Path Goal Theory - Term Paper Example It concludes that none of the theories can be applied single handedly hence, they need to be correlated. Key words: contingency theory, goal path theory, leadership, and management. Fiedler Contingency Theory vs House-Path Goal Theory Introduction Leadership is increasingly becoming an interesting subject of study with various theories emerging to explain why some leaders are more effective than others are. Such theories open up our minds to the various leadership approaches and enrich our leadership skills. The theories include trait theories, power and influence theories, behavioral theories, contingency theories, and path theories. This essay will focus on Fiedler’s Contingency and House’s Path Theory as models of analyzing leadership (Lussier & Achua, 2010). Fiedler’s contingency theory and its applicability Fiedler’s contingency theory is the brainchild of Fred Fiedler a scientist who majored in leadership and personality. The model posits that there is no standard style of leadership instead; the leadership styles adopted depend on the situation and circumstances. As such, the leadership style depends on the situations favorable. The first step in the model is identifying the leadership style. Fiedler holds that leadership styles are fixed and can be measured through a model he refers to as the Least Preferred Coworker (LPC) scale. The scale requires one to consider the person they enjoy working with the most and rate them for each factor then give them a score. The factors include friendliness, cooperation, pleasance, sincerity, loyalty, kindness, cheerfulness, openness, supportiveness, calmness, and acceptance (Nohria & Khurana, 2010). If the person scores high then you are a relationship-oriented leader. If the score is low then you are a task-oriented leader. This implies that task oriented leaders have more negative LPCs. Fiedler also refers to them as low-LPC leaders (Lussier & Achua, 2010). He explains that such leaders are effective in task completion and quick in organizing groups to accomplish a particular task. Relationship building is not their priority. On the other hand, the relationship-oriented leaders have LPCs that are more positive. They are also known as high-LPC leaders. They focus on personal connections and are effective in avoiding managerial conflict. They can also make complex decisions (Sadler, 2003). The next step to one’s type of leadership is through situational favorableness. Fiedler relates this to three factors. First is the leader-member relations, which is the trust, and confidence the team has in their leader. A leader that is trusted is in a more favorable situation than one who is not. Then there is the task structure, which is the clarity or vagueness of the task being performed. Unstructured tasks put the team and their leader in an unfavorable situation. The last is the leader’s position of power, the more power a leader has the more favorable the sit uation. Application Fiedler’s theory main premise is that a leader in a strict and task-oriented environment has different qualities from one in an open-minded environment. The theory helps to improve leader-member relationships by helping both the leaders and the group members to understand group problems and help solve them. It also allows for consultation and feedback within an organization. The model prepares leaders and other group members to work with difficult individuals (Nohria & Khurana,