at least one substantive response post to this post and use references. "The case of Andrea Yates provides one of the most widely discussed examples of the insanity defense in modern American law. Yates, a Texas mother of five, drowned her children while suffering from severe postpartum psychosis. During her retrial, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Under the M'Naughten Rule, a person is legally insane if they didn't know what they were doing or didn't know it was wrong (Greene & Heilbrun, 2019). Because Yates's delusions made her think she was helping her children, she likely didn't understand that her actions were wrong. She would meet the M'Naughten standard for insanity. The Durham Rule says someone isn't responsible if their actions were the result of a mental illness. In Yates's case, doctors testified that her postpartum psychosis directly caused the drownings (Resnick, 2007). Her mental illness clearly led to the crime, so she would also be considered insane under Durham. The A.L.I. (Model Penal Code) standard asks whether a person could understand their actions or control their behavior. Because Yates's psychosis affected both her judgment and her ability to stop herself, she would meet this test too (Greene & Heilbrun, 2019). No matter which standard is used, the outcome is about the same. The evidence shows Yates was severely mentally ill and not thinking rationally at the time