All I want to say about this is to ask: Aren’t we glad now that the District Attorney didn’t charge her with the murders of all five children? If this overturning of her original convictions doesn’t result in them being upheld by a new trial, the DA can go back and try her for the other children. What’s sad is that the justice system is being required to spend who knows how much money to go through this whole process.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
14 Responses to “New Trial for Andrea Yates”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
From the link
“She has been told she will be retried,” Parhnam said. “She doesn’t want to go through this process. She is very concerned about it. The right thing needs to be done here.”
Seems to me Andrea is sane enough to know that this time she could get the needle.
Why will she be retried if she is opposed to it? I thought they got a say-so in their defense???
I don’t get it. If she is being held and treated at a state prison mental hospital, doesn’t that give us an indication of whether she was or is insane or not? Regardless of what you think about if she knew it was wrong or not, I hope nobody out there seriously thinks that she wasn’t or isn’t still severely mentally ill. I don’t buy the insanity defense for alot of these guys who suddenly decide that they were insane when it comes time to try to avoid the needle. But Andrea had been treated for years for being SEVERELY mentally ill, and even if she KNEW what she was doing was wrong, there is no way to know if it was within her capacity to prevent herself from doing it, nor has anybody provided any motive for why she would do what she did that gives any indication that she WASN’T insane. This wasn’t a case like the ones you see elsewhere in the country where she killed her kids to get them out of the way so she could be with a new boyfriend or some crap like that.
So I guess my point is that if we all agree she is mentally ill, why spend a bunch of money on a new trial. Put her in the mental hospital where she can get treatment, and if there ever comes a time where they think she is sane enough to leave, then we can revisit whether she should be punished for what she did.
I say she’s guilty by reason of insanity. Who cares if she’s in a private mental hospital or a state prison mental hospital?
Bill F #3
“If she is being held and treated at a state prison mental hospital, doesn’t that give us an indication of whether she was or is insane or not?”
No it says she is in a mental hospital. I spent four years voulunteering in prisons. I spent a lot of time talking with the prisoners. Ya know what I found out? They are all innocent. Wow imagine that.
No I don’t agree that she was/is mentally insane. See my first post.
Psychosis would be a welcome relief to waking to the horror of what she did to her defenseless children. I would think I would prefer death or insanity to reality if I were in her shoes. So sad…the entire case.
#3: “So I guess my point is that if we all agree she is mentally ill, why spend a bunch of money on a new trial. Put her in the mental hospital where she can get treatment, and if there ever comes a time where they think she is sane enough to leave, then we can revisit whether she should be punished for what she did.”
I look at it a bit differently. Here’s my take: Whether she’s insane or just evil, she ought to be locked up forever so that she’s not a danger to others, and I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that.
That said, it doesn’t make much sense to me to spend tax dollars on treating her. If a mental hospital has the facilities (padded room or whatever) to keep her from being a danger to herself or others, then put her in the looney bin. If a prison can do it, then put her in the pokey.
It just doesn’t make much sense to me to spend a bunch of money on psych treatment to make her sane enough to lock up. Let’s just keep her locked up as cost-effectively as possible.
I don’t disagree with you Matt. In most cases, there is a clear indication that even if the person was “healed” by treatment, you 1) wouldn’t trust them out on the streets, and 2) don’t really trust that their crime was really caused by “insanity”. But in this case, the woman was clearly in dire need of mental treatment, and in my opinion (based on reading histories and testimony from the other psychiatrists who had treated her) was failed in that regard by her husband and the doc who took her off of the meds that had been working for her. In that situation, where somebody is ill, and has not been effectively treated for it, and commits a crime that they may or may not have known was wrong, but were unable to stop themself from doing, isn’t there some room in there to wonder if we are contemplating punishing her for the rest of her life for the failings of others? Clearly her crime was horrific. Clearly we can’t just let her go because she was insane. But John Hinckley is able to leave his hospital and go visit family after trying to kill the president. He was AT LEAST as crazy as Andrea Yates was at the time they committed their crimes, so why should we let him go visit his family, yet she deserves the needle?
#5 Have you read any of the psychiatrist testimony in the case? Have you read any of the histories of how often she was treated and what treatment she was or wasn’t receiving in the days and weeks before she killed her kids? If not, you really ought to go look at them.
BillF
I followed Ms. Yates trial. I heard all about her treatments and lack of etc. I’m not buying it. The prosecution showed that she systematically killed her children with premeditation. Her demeanor in court was one of silent defiance not someone who was temporarily insane.
NOTE: This next statements are my unfounded opinion. She killed her children in retaliation toward her husband. Parhnam knew she was guilty of murder and that his only chance of saving her life was getting her interned in a hospital for the criminally insane. He knew that if she was placed in prison that the prisoners would take her life.
This tragic case cries out for justice for the sake of the children rather than compassion for Ms. Yates. Sorry but we will have to disagree.
If you have ever seen somebody struggling with depression and had to face firsthand the kinds of things their mind convinces them to do that seem to defy reason, while at all other times, they present an absolutely flawless ability to function in other settings, you wouldn’t be as skeptical of Andrea’s behavior. I am not excusing what she did or saying she shouldn’t have to face the consequences of it. I just question whether retrying her instead of working out a deal that includes continued treatment and confinement is really the best use of the available funds in our judicial system. You are probably right though…we will probably just have to disagree.
Bill
I took a few moments and thought about your statements. Must admit I missed a very important piece of your reasoning:
“I just question whether retrying her instead of working out a deal that includes continued treatment and confinement is really the best use of the available funds ”
….my apologies….
I can accept that. You are correct on the funds also. When I think about the ramifications of a second trial, maybe for the hearts of the friends and families your point may be best.
Thanks for the reasoned discussion
Best regards
Squawk
I agree with you, Bill. I don’t think the death penalty should be on the table. And honestly, I don’t care about punishing her at all.
There are 4 generally accepted purposes of prisons: punishment, rehabilitation, incapacitation and deterrence. To me, the most important one of those in the Andrea Yates case is incapacitation. I don’t care if she’s punished, rehab is irrelevant since I don’t think she ought to breathe free air again, and deterrence is probably not a factor due to the freak nature of the crimes.
My primary concern is keeping this lady away from society, because the last time she was in society, she killed several members of it. Let’s just do it as cheaply as possible, like you said.
As far as Hinckley goes, I don’t think that guy ought to be out on furloughs, either. Maybe I’m a bit harsh, but there are a few things you’re just not supposed to do. And if you do those things, you go away forever. Shooting the freakin’ president is definitely on that list.
#6: You make an excellent point. If she was crazy when she killed her kids (as I think she probably was), I hope for her sake she stays crazy. I can think of few things that would be more horrible than the knowledge that I murdered my own children.
Thought:
Everyone who commits murder is temporarily insane.
No one in their right mind would kill someone? Even those who do it with evil in their hearts…are they not also insane that they take it so far as to take another human life??? Are even they just off their rocker for a moment???
Don’t confuse insanity with lacking value for human life. Many murderers are NOT “temporarily insane”. They just don’t place value on a life other than their own. That may make them abnormal or whatever label you want to place on it, but it is very different than the definition of insanity that has been promulgated for use in the courts. I happen to think that the definition used by our courts tends to place too much emphasis on the ability to determine right from wrong and too little emphasis on ability to avoid destructive or self destructive behavior. If you have ever heard of “cutters”, you know what I mean. They are people (usually women), who are mentally ill (usually depression), that cut themselves. They know it is wrong and self destructive to cut themselves, but they can’t stop themselves from doing it. So if they killed somebody, would they be considered insane? They are known to be mentally ill. They have an established pattern of self destructive behavior that they are unable to control. Yet if asked, they would say “yes, I knew what I was doing was wrong”. Therefore, they would be considered sane by our courts. I am not arguing that people with an inability to control a homicidal impulse should be released back onto the streets. I am just saying that there are SOME cases where our current definition of insanity is inadequate to protect people whose only failing may be that they didn’t get adequate treatment for a mental disorder. I am a staunch supporter of the death penalty and fully believe in harsh punishment for violent crimes, so don’t think I am a bleeding heart. I also recognize that expanding the definition of insanity would likely clog our courts with every violent offender claiming a lack of self control. So I am against it for that reason. I just think that cases like Andrea’s are ones that slip into that gray space in the law and really deserve more scrutiny than we will ever get in the traditional battle between the state’s doc who believes everybody is sane and the rent a doc who thinks everybody is insane.