{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021570319240724764, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005176876617773943, 'mean_word_length': 5.0732984293193715, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The insanity defense and game theory: reflections on Texas v. Yates.

On March 14, 2002, the murder trial of Andrea Yates, a woman with a psychotic illness who drowned her five children, ended in a guilty verdict and a life sentence. Ten days later, A Beautiful Mind, the movie about John Nash, a man who recovered from a psychotic illness, won the Academy Award for Best Motion Picture. In what might be called “a beautiful irony,” Nash’s Nobel Prize-winning work, which revolutionized the understanding of rational human behavior during conflicts, serves as a useful framework for an exploration of the current state of the insanity defense in the United States. The result suggests that our adversarial system of justice may not provide an effective means of arriving at fair and meaningful insanity determinations. In addition to providing a basis for understanding how the adversarial process may lead to unjust insanity trial outcomes, Nash’s work also encompasses concepts helpful in creating a system that better facilitates thoughtful examination and understanding of the complex interaction of mental illness and behavior in specific criminal cases.