[Elsiejay]

Yates being pronounced not guilty represents a flaw in judicial logic, IMHO. There should be in our system of justice the possibility of finding an accused "guilty, but not culpable by reason of insanity."
Incidentally, I belive criminal law draws a distinction between "not guilty" and "innocent." This was brought out, as I recall, in the instance of OJ, who was found "not guilty" but not "innocent," and presumably to this very day continues his search for the "real killer." (I suspect he shaves without using a mirror).
Perhaps a real lawyer would care to comment on this.

[GB]

I'm not a lawyer, haven't even stayed at a Holiday Inn in a while, but I don't think anyone thinks a not guilty verdict in any case, whether insanity is attached to it or not, connotes innocence beyond a metaphysical doubt. It connotes that the state could not convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, and the way our legal system works, when that happens, the defendant walks.

As far as the "guilty, but not culpable by reason of insanity" finding, again I absolutely would support that and would participate in an effort to codify that into law. Where I would disagree with some who've posted in this thread is that I don't know if I'd go as far as saying that somebody found "guilty but insane" should be executed, even though I generally support the death penalty for the most heinous crimes.