A Harris County jury has found Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity during her second capital murder trial for the drowning deaths of her children in the family’s bathtub in 2001.
The verdict upholding Yates’ insanity defense comes after the jury deliberated more than 12 hours and spent two nights sequestered at an area hotel.
The jury’s verdict means Yates, 42, will be sent to a state mental hospital for treatment, rather than be sentenced to life in prison.
Here’s the part that has always troubled me about this case:
Why treatment?
I think everyone agrees that this woman should never go free. Some say it’s because she’s evil, some say it’s because she’s nuts, but everyone agrees that this woman is dangerous. Society must protect itself from her by locking her up forever, either in a prison or in a psych ward. I don’t think anyone wants to run the risk of this woman getting out. Now, if we agree she’ll be locked up forever (whether in a prison or in a psych ward), why spend the time and effort to treat her?
We don’t worry about rehabilitating criminals who are under sentence of life in prison or death. They don’t need to be rehabilitated, because they’re never getting out. Similarly, sanity is a requirement for living in society. She’s not going to live in society. She’s going to live in a state-funded cinder block building somewhere.
So, this “treatment” means one of two things:
1. The state is pissing away money, or
2. She has a chance of getting out someday.
I don’t like either case.
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Comments
84 Responses to “Andrea Yates’ insanity defense pays off”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
Nor is sanity a requirement for blogging.
What would your minimal standards be for treatment and care in a mental hospital? How do those differ from your minimal standards for prison?
I’m not a softie — I know Delaware was using flogging as punishment as late as 1948 … 1 9 4 8 — and believe in it for many crimes. But only because it is more humane and cheaper than what we do now.
We have sentenced no one to be stabbed, no one to be raped. But they are. If incarcerated/hospitalized persons are returning to society, we increase our safety by trying to help them.
There is, of course, the question about who should return and when. Interestingly, it is possible to keep them too long! At the point a convict realizes he can make it in prison, the threat of prison no longer is a deterrent.
I say flog ‘em on Friday afternoon (in private), pour alcohol on the stripes, turn them over to the Salvation Army and let them return to work on light duty on Monday. That way, you have not ripped them away from family and employment.
What we do with prisons today amounts to punishing the first person who upsets a just-released convict.
That is dumb.
And so is denying treatment to the mentally ill who may return to society.
Matt,
Perhaps we should view the $500,000.00 that Harris County (we the taxpayers) spent to prosecute her a second time as just as big a waste as treatment. Especially if you consider that the outcome will be the same. (life in prison versus life in psych ward).
This could have been handled with a plea agreement and the outcome would have been the same or better and for a lot less cost.
Simple
Rusty Yates and Andrea Yates should both be in jail. Treatment, yes. But jail, absolutely! Anyone who allows this to happen as Rusty did should be in jail and Andrea should not be allowed to see the freedom her kids should be enjoying. Lawyers have set another guilty person free.
Another question:
He said he stands by her, why did he divorce her?
That very well could be true. That said, I don’t know what sort of plea agreements could have been made. I would kind of suspect that Yates’ lawyer wouldn’t have agreed to life (either in Huntsville or the nuthouse.)
#3
I agree with you on that one point. He should go to jail, but I understand it would have been an uphill battle to convict him.
Matt,
George Parnum was actually pushing for a plea agreement that would have gotten a guilty plea and committment to a mental institution.
It was Rosenthal who couldn’t go for a plea.
Simple
#5 I guess you think she should be found not guilty then. My point on her is the only legal way we can ensure she will not get out and do this again is to find her guilty. I agree she needs treatment, but I think she is guilty and if tht two don’t meet, then so be it.
Notrelated
He divorced her so he could start over with another young woman who he recently married.
I think you’ve completely misunderstood my point. As you mentioned, there is the question of who should come back to society and when. My point is this: Andrea Yates ought not return to society. Ever.
Sorry, but I have this funny little rule that I think society should live by: no drowning five kids in a row.
When someone does something that heinous, I just don’t think we can take a chance on that person’s recovery. No doctor could honestly say in 2 or 10 or 20 years, “I can guarantee 100% that she won’t kill again.”
Since we can’t take a chance, she should have no possibility of getting out. This isn’t about revenge, it’s not even about punishment, and it’s certainly not about rehabilitation. It’s about protecting the world from a killer. She is a dangerous person, and she needs to be put away until she dies.
Amen Matt!
There should be a verdict allowed called ” guilty by reason of insanity”. Those convicted of such a crime, should be “sentenced” to an institution for the criminally insane for the rest of their lives. Perhaps a section of an existing prison would do.
There have always been 2 things about this case that have made me go “Hmmmmmmm.”
1. She had struggled with post-partum depression after the birth of at least her last 3 children. If the depression had been getting worse after the birth of each child, why did she keep having children?
2. Why did Rusty seemingly not bother to get her some help? It has seemed that time after time, she told him about her desires to kill the children. Why didn’t he help? Why did he keep getting her pregnant?
Listen Rusty, when your wife says that she’s “thinking about killing the kids because she’s a bad mother”, THAT’S A CRY FOR HELP!! So get up off your rear end and get her some help!!!!
I’ve always thought there ought to be a verdict of guilty by reason of insanity. She did kill those children so she is guilty of this. I think she truly knew right from wrong, but could not control her actions. Rusty should be guilty of manslaughter by reason of omission. He did nothing to help!
She should be held down in a tub of water until she drowns! If this had been a father he would be on death row now. Can you imagine what went through the minds of the kids as they fought for their life with their own mother!
“Common sense just isn’t very common any more”
— Mark Twain
That’s what kills me about this whole thing. It is, IMO, by definition insane to drown 5 kids in row, so there was never any doubt in my mine that she was insane. Why is it somehow worse for a man to do that than a woman?
And you guys admit it. Dave D is right. If it had been Rusty Yates who drowned the kids, he would be on death row right now.
Society demands her to be rehabilated so she does not pose threat to other inmates around her
I do not agree with the findings of the jury. However that is the system we live under so I will accept the verdict.
I belive that Mr. Yates should be tried for criminal neglect and at the least tried for contributing to the deaths of those children.
my dos centavos
Matt,
Society’s first rule should be protecting itself, including its core values.
That means society must do things that put its own members at risk. War is an example.
Not treating a mentally ill person, even if that person never should be returned to society, is cruel. Beyond harsh, cruel.
Cruelty is not a core value of this society and won’t be until the Muslims take over or the Christians are forced underground.
Mercy and humane treatment are either core values of the U.S. or a reflection of our core values.
Thus, consistent with the survival of society and the reasonable safety of guards and mental health personnel, I think we have to treat the hospitalized mentally ill even if they are never coming back.
The death penalty is way more humane than life without treatment in a mental hospital, in my view. That sort of cruelty erodes what moral authority and power this nation still has.
A sane person does not drown their children. Hence, she was clearly insane, and the doctors verified that.
What is more interesting is the reaction from the pro-life hypocrites who just yesterday called the doctors/nurses from N.O. Memorial murderers.
Andrea Yates has a mental illness. She did a horrible thing, and should never see society up close again. But putting her to death is wrong, and those that advocate it are practicing double standards.
Squawk, you have the floor, flame away. I’ll be on a boat.
#17
Court trial is about substance and not hiersay.
Having said that Mr. Yates criminal neglect will be an uphill task to prove.
Hence your 2 cents have found to be counterfieted.
Sorry!
oysterperson
My statement is not very hard to understand. My stance is black and white. Let me highlight the main points for you.
Read the words. You can do it. Really it is not hard. Just like in kindergarten.
“See Dick Run”
Please note how the sentence tells you what to do and what the subject is doing. No gray area.
Rahman
NWOR
A just verdict. Not popular, but just.
As far as, “We don’t worry about rehabilitating criminals who are under sentence of life in prison or death. They don’t need to be rehabilitated, because they’re never getting out.” Unfortunately, not true. Remember Furman v Georgia and the 70 someodd former deathrow inmates that were released? How about the overcrowding in the 80’s that led to wholesale releases?
Squawkie, do you think she’s sane? Prove it.
Don’t have to:
I do not agree with the findings of the jury. However that is the system we live under so I will accept the verdict.
The jury found her insane. That means you think she’s sane.
What causes you to believe she is/was sane?
Nobody is arguing she was sane. Like I said, drowning 5 children, sequentially, is like a textbook definition of insanity or evil, one or the other. What I do suggest is that “not guilty by reason of insanity” is a message that you’re not necessarily responsible for your actions. She should, and will be, held accountable by God, that’s for sure.
And, ClamShaker, the only double standard being practiced here is that a man who drowned the same 5 kids would be sitting on death row right now. That’s why I happen to disagree with the jury’s verdict.
I will, however, accept it much as Squawk does…
I would hope that the idea of at least removing this woman’s uterus has come into play. The day will come when she is released and will still have a sex and will become pregnant. At that time does history repeat its self?
2. Since the majority of what I am reading is “there is no reform in the prison system”.
3. I do believe Andrea Yates knew what she was doing at the time she was doing, but I was not in the Jury room. I did not hear all the evidence or testimony, nor did I see the faces of the accused and family members in the court room, without all the information I do not feel I am in a position to be her Jury.
4. I would have hope that there is reform. I would have hope that therapy and medication can balance out a chemical imbalance. Because to drown 5 of your own let alone any children in a bathtub you need to seriously mentally challenged.
#12 She said she’s “thinking about killing the kids because she’s a bad mother.” Between that statement and, as reported in the first trial, the fact that she called the police after the deed was done AND her statement to the police when they arrived at the scene that she did a bad thing establish that she knew it was wrong! If she knew it was wrong, then she is LEGALLY insane, notwithstanding that she is ACTUALLY insane. The jury blew this one big time!!
You are legally insane if your mental/psychological condition is such that you cannot appreciate the difference between right and wrong. This woman clearly understood the difference. She intentionally decided to ignore what was wrong with her deed and proceed with the heinous act to rid herself of the children for her stated reason that she was a bad mother.
Those poor children, how they suffered. Where is her remorse? And yet nobody on that jury cared. How pitiful.
Leave it to an insanity trial to drive everyone crazy…
1. If I recall correctly, the Yates lawyers wanted to have Andrea committed to a psychiatric hospital (pretty much forever), and the DA said no. To bad, it would have saved a ton of taxpayer’s money, and had the same outcome. Andrea’s attorneys have not sought to have her released at any time during this time when her case was reversed (they wanted her in another hospital). I think that is pretty telling.
2. Andrea Yates was psychotic. Pretty much everyone agreed to that. Psychotic meaning she had lost contact with reality. Read more here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotic_disorder
3. Rusty Yates was well aware that his wife was very, very sick. He was well aware that his wife was having severe post-partum depression. (If I recall correctly, she was diagnosed with severe post-partum psychosis.) She was told not to have more children. When your spouse is psychotic and mentally ill, you are the ADULT in the relationship. That means you make the decisions. Rusty Yates at that point should have “closed up shop” to keep from having more children, if you know what I mean. Side Note: Personally I believe that Rusty Yates has a LOT of culpability here. I don’t know if he could have been prosecuted for it; but Chuck Rosenthal’s office has been known to pursue cases with a lot less evidence and “cause”. I personally believe that Rusty thought his wife would commit suicide, if she were left alone long enough. I don’t think he thought Andrea would kill the kids.
4. I’m betting that if Andrea Yates ever sees the world outside the psychiatric ward, it will be when she is very, very old. That’s the way it should be. I’m betting that she serves more time than most convicted murderers.
5. I think a lot of people “pooh pooh” mental illness. It is very difficult to understand and comprehend. But I think mental illness is a big problem in this country; just walk around downtown and see how many homeless hit you up for a “donation”. Want to bet how many are psychotic? Delusional? I’m willing to bet that at least half are and the other half are drug and alcohol dependant. Get the mentally ill treated and you might get half the homeless off the street. (The whole thing is so complicated by “rights” and medications that it is worth its’ own post another day.)
6. Bottom line with me: The Losers are: kids, mom, dad, society. The winners: none. It would have been the same line-up with a guilty verdict.
Sometimes there is just no justice in this world.
I normally do alot of lurking, and not much posting, but this one is bugging me, so I’m going to throw in my 2 cents.
I don’t think that anyone is going to argue whether Andrea Yates was sane or insane. She took her 5 children, and held them under the water until they were dead. These are not the action of a person we as a society would attribute to a sane person.
The jury on this case was not allowed to know that if they ruled her not guilty by reason of insanity, that there is a possibility that she will be released at a future date, should the system determine that she is now competent.
I believe however, that this is a bigger problem. The problem occurs when we as a society want to get into someone’s head while they were committing the crime to basically ‘rank’ where they were at when they committing it. Our judicial system - which we all know is severly screwed up - is interjecting the thinking behind the crime, as opposed to dealing with just the crime.
It’s the same issue with what is labeled as a hate crime. If I’m white, and kill a black man - is the life that I took any more or less valuable than if I’d been black and killed a white man? Why does the situation seem to change if I’m a black man and kill a white woman?
What gives us the right to assign value, or lack of value to a crime based on the thoughts going on in the brain of the person who committed the crime?
I have a younger brother who has been incarcerated no less than 3 times for anywhere from 2 to 3 years at a time. I happen to believe that there are rocks out there that are smarter than he is - however, his repeat offenses were in part to a complete lack of fear on the punishment for being caught for future crimes.
We house criminals at great expense to the taxpayer because we haven’t determined an alternative. The return to the life of crime rate - is enourmous, and the taxpayers cost doubles…or in the case of my brother …triples.
I believe that as a society, we are either going to have to
a.) make the penalties greater for crimes - and I mean brutal. Not the locked up in a hotel that provides basic neccesities type of brutal. Our rate of repeat criminals shows that this isn’t working.
b.) resign ourselves to educating/reforming the criminal.
The problem with this is that solution A will have the whole world up in arms at our brutality. And B - it requires self motivation on the part of the criminal, something we can’t guarentee or ensure. But a criminal that comes out with a trade, or a education is more likely to be productive in society than a criminal who came out with the same 8th grade education that he went in with.
I don’t believe the option of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ should be an allowable defense - period. It provides for the abandonment and abdictation of free will - and that was granted by the Divine. So any arguements regarding that will need to be taken up directly with Him.
Wow this turned into a long post.
I am sure she is crazy.
She should be dead!
Most people that kill are sick in some sort of way. Thats why they kill.
Sorry. I am not a softy either. She killed/drown her own kids. Death to her!
#31
Great post!
Cajan
Good comments. Thanks for sharing your personal experiences. Don’t be such a lurker! You have good ideas.
“But putting her to death is wrong, and those that advocate it are practicing double standards.”
Please tell me where the double standard is in the following statement: a person who kills another person without just cause ought to be executed by the established authority. “Just cause” for the authority that executes a murderer is that the murderer killed someone else without just cause. There is no double standard here. If the established authority, aka government, kills people or persons without just cause, it is fitting for that government part of the government to be abolished or destroyed. Making an error is not the same as murdering. For instance, if I do my best to drive on the road but a severe weather conditions shove my car into incoming traffic, I am not held responsible for the deaths that came from that instance if the event was not reasonably forseable. A state who makes a mistake in executing someone who is not but has done the best job possible in attempting to discover the guilty party is like a person involved in an accident. Just because people die in accident doesn’t mean we should drive our cars. And just because innocent people may die due to enacting justice, does not mean justice should be abandoned. I, personally, would be willing to be executed wrongfully (given the government did the best job possible in its attempt to discover the guilty party) so that justice could prevail in 90% or more of cases involving violent and unacceptable crimes. There is no double standard for people who support the death penalty (a fetus has no killed someone without just cause, lol). But people who claim there is a double standard are guilty of extreme moral relativity. Morality relative to what? Morality relative to absolutely nothing…
Oops, sorry CAJUN!
I for one applaud the DA and prosecution for standing up for those 5 innocent children who were brutally murdered at the hands of their own mother. The DA and the first Yates jury understood the heinousness and gravity of the crime. I have yet to see any of the Yates or Kennedy family members stand up for those kids and demand justice — outside their own eulogizing and “sympathy” primarily for Andrea or Rusty Yates. Those poor kids lives were just swept under the rug like nothing ever happened because of today’s jury verdict. Hope they can sleep tonight.
Andrea Yates will be reevaluated by her doctors and those doctors will give the judge their evaluations on whether or not she should be released. Hopefully, that will be a long, long time, but it may be within a year or two, depending on her treatment and the doctors’ opinion of her mental state. Don’t even think she is going to be there for life. Hopefully, the mental hospital will keep her there at least until she is too old to have any more kids.
I need to proof read my comments, lol. wow… Please add in corrections as you go. Here are a few important corrections to my grammar.
If the established authority, aka government, kills people or persons without just cause, it is fitting for that part of the government to be abolished or destroyed.
A state who makes a mistake in executing someone who is not guilty but has done the best job possible in attempting to discover the guilty party is like a person involved in an accident, because the resulting verdict was the result of elements out of its control. Just because people die in automobile accidents doesn’t mean we should quit driving our cars.
DanielJames
So a soldier killing in the line of duty is sick?
Simple
Simple
A soldier killing in the line of duty is a patriot.
Cut her freaking head off!
#40
You know what I am saying… Dont you?
#40
Lets see if I can play simples game.
A soldier who kills in the line of duty is a patriot?
So Hitlers soldiers were patriots?
See simple any goof can play with words.
bivalve mollusk Milquetoast,
#26
I am saying that I believe the woman is evil not insane. She needs to be put down like a rabid dog. The jury found “not guilty” I’ll accept it.
Daniel James
I believe the “patriot” comment was mine. What I meant is an American soldier killing in the line of duty is a patriot.
The woman is not insane. She is evil. She deserves the death penalty. She knew what she did was wrong and even planned it out to be able to commit her crime between the time her husband left for work and her MIL came over to help her with the kids. She then called the police so that she wouldn’t have to face MIL alone. But noone cares about the poor kids except the DA’s office. Since they only tried her for killing 2 of the children, maybe they can go for the other 3 and get the death penalty. No excuses for her - or Rusty either. He needs to be hung out to dry as well. I think he pushed her over the edge purposely. At the very least he was negligent in protecting his children from a murderer. But since we are becoming a nation of victims - after all no one is responsible for anything they do anymore - I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by this dumb-as-rocks jury’s decision.
#46 dcgirl AMEN SISTER!!!
BTW; I think that she blamed Rusty for all her problems and knew the best way to really hurt him was to take away his kids. How evil is that?!?!
#45
I know. I was just playing simples silly game.
Our we still buds?
Daniel James
#49
Of course we are still buds! I was just pointing out to you that it was me that made that comment, not simple.
#30) Ree-C:
Well stated.
Wot Willie said #51!
Neo and Daniel,
I don’t consider a soldier killing in the line of duty a patriot or sick-in-the-head.
Killing in a time of war is a necessary evil and you can drive yourself crazy with the moral conundrums. I always viewed it as protecting my brothers on either flank.
My point was to counter your argument about most of the folks who kill must be sick (crazy). I disagree with that point of view.
It is perfectly sane to kill when protecting one’s life, the lives of loved ones, or to defend society.
Neo, I do not find it very patriotic to kill in the line of duty, just necessary. I suspect that if you talk to anyone who has actually had to do this, you will find they took no joy in the act. It was just survival. You have been watching too many John Wayne movies.
Simple
THEY HAD TO LET ANDREA GO BECAUSE THEY LET O.J. GO
FUNNY, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYDAY YOU SEE ON THE NEWS THEY LET SOME BLACK GUY OUT OF JAIL AFTER SPENDING 25 YEARS OF HIS LIFE IN JAIL FOR A CRIME HE DID NOT COMMIT. LIKE THE GUY ON HANNITY AND COMBS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
HERE YOU HAVE A ADMITTED MURDERER WHO CONSPIRED AND PLOTTED TO KILL HER CHILDREN AND SHE IS LET OUT OF HER CONVICTION BECAUSE A EXPERT WITNESSED LIED. HEY I GOT NEWS FOR YOU GENUISES THEY ALL LIE THE PROSECUTION, THE DEFENSE, THE JUDGE ALL OF THEM. YOU KIND OF HAVE TO SEE THE BIG PICTURE \\\”CRIME AND PUNISHMENT\\\”. WE HAVE CRIME AND SELECTED PUNISHMENT FOR SELECTED INDIVIDUALS OF SELECTED RACE, SEX AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION.
HEY MAYBE ROSIE O\\\’DONELL PAID FOR HER DEFENSE LIE SHE DID FOR THE THE TWO KIDS THAT MURDERED THEIR FATHER IN FLORIDA.
PEOPLE WANT TO KEEP RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT AND COURTS. WELL IT\\\’S OUT
Andrea had a history:
*she fell under the spell of a “Priest” that convinced her that her kids were going to hell because of her
*she had a history of suicide attempts
*after child #4, the psychiatrists finally got her medications tweaked so she was functioning fairly normally
*she decided she wanted child #5, and her husband agreed; they both willingly stopped the psych meds and BCP
Her husband is just as guilty as she is (not the jury verdict, the reality) as an accessory to the murders of his five children, since he knowingly allowed her to go off her meds and BCP. If your spouse had a severe mental illness that was being well controlled by meds, and you had a strong suspicion that once she stopped them, she would become severely impaired again, would you allow her to discontinue them? Me, I would grind them up and put them in her coffee. And knowing that she had a history of problems after each of the children’s birth, increasing exponentially each time, would you even think for a second to have another child? Not me; I would rather have 1 less child and a more sane wife, albeit perhaps unhappy, than 5 fewer children and a wife convicted of capital murder, even though overturned saying she was insane; I would grind up the BCP in her coffee as well; either that or get snipped without telling her.
The sad thing is, as soon as the mental health personnel feel she is “sane”, they will release her. If you have observed her lately, she looks pretty sane to me. There is no minimum time spent in the mental health facility. I hope for her sake her lawyers are able to keep her there a long time. But if the state is not going to pay for it, she will probably be out next week.
I feel there was a great injustice done by the jury, but again I was not there, either in the courtroom, nor in her mind when she was drowning her 5 children, one at a time.
flygal
I don’t understand how people can be pro-life and for the death penalty, particularly in “gray area” situations.
You wonder why I shake my clamshell™
#57 - Are you trolling? “Pro-Life” (as in opposed to abortion ake the killing of the innocent unborn for convenience sake) and “in favor of the death penalty” (meaning society can put heinous murderers to death for heinous murders) are 2 completly different things, and cannot be compared.
#58 jimb
I do not equate being “pro-life” with just abortion.
If all life is precious and a gift from God, who are we to say it’s OK to take it away, no matter what the circumstances?
Are we not “playing God” by doing this?
bivalve mollusk Milquetoast,
#59
It is because I put a premium on life that I believe murderers should be put to death. But I do not expect you to understand that. It is a black and white issue.
BTW
I am curious, If someone murdered your kids and they got off on an insanity plea would you call it just?
/if I get an answer I’ll faint
It depends upon your concept of justice.
If you believe that God and only God grants the gift of life and He alone is the only one who can take it away, then you accept the fact that justice was done in this case.
Otherwise, you’re just rationalizing, misinterpreting Scripture, and trying to “play God” when you shouldn’t.
I’m still waiting for an answer to #26.
I gave you my answer. And it is not my concept of justice that I asked about. Let me type this real slow for you.
If someone murdered your kids and they got off on an insanity plea would you call it just?
One who lives in a world of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil has very little room for rationalization.
If someone was truly insane, and our system of justice is such as it is, then it was just.
I know it’s hard for death-mongers to comprehend.
I seriously pray to God nothing ever happens to your family cause you would loose your mind.
Death monger? Hmmm seems I remeber it was you that supports abortion on demand.
Squawk, there are many examples of people who have had tragedy strike their families in the manner of which you speak, and they have been able to take a true “God-like” approach to handling it.
I know it’s a hard concept for death-mongers to comprehend.
#65 Squawk - you have me confused with someone else. I am on record here many times regarding abortion, and that is not my position. Check it out.
Ypu believe that abortion should be legal. I don’t. Seems we are on equal footing…Death Monger.
How is it you say oh yeah hypocritical ain’t it.
#68 Squawk
Show me where I have ever said abortion should be legal. In words you like to use…”prove it”.
You can’t.
On the question of insanity. This person was sane when she killed her children in my opinion. She conspired and plotted to kill the children. She called 911 to report her crime, not to ask for help she knew they were dead. If she were truly insane she could not have been left around the children without supervision as insane people are by definition unfit parents and psychiatrist must make that determination. She had improved so much that her psychiatrist reduced her medication. Post partum depression in the medical world is over in 6 months,only in a politically influenced court room can it last for years and years at infinitum with no scientific basis in reality.
As far as the death penalty “render unto Ceaser all that is Ceaser’s” If Ceaser’s law is eye for an eye. life for a life that is the law especially if you have voted Ceaser in. Personally I think this goes back to crime and punishment.
Drowning your children and being sane are mutually exclusive. They cannot co-exist, no matter what.
Claiming she is “evil” instead of “sane” is merely a rationalization for advocating that she should be put to death. Her actions were evil, but caused by mental illness. Ree-C hit the nail on the head earlier.
I know these are hard concepts for the death-mongers to comprehend.
I disagree that drowning children and being sane are mutually exclusive. One can be sane, knowing your actions are wrong, but still do a terrible deed.
When one is truly insane, one cannot organize their thoughts, especially enough to decide on the appropriate time to do it. She may have been acting inappropriately, mentally ill, listening to voices in her head, but that does not necessarily mean she is insane. She was organized enough to call her mother in law, her husband, and the police, to let them know she had done a terrible thing.
If you saw the photos/video of her, and compared the ones post-murder, and post-verdict yesterday, what a world of difference proper medication makes. But that does not mean she was insane at the time of the murders. It means she was mentally ill, and not on medication. Now she looks like a normal woman in a courtroom, understanding the meaning of the verdict. If she is sane, and on medication, and understanding that she needs to remain on medication, she is no longer a danger, and her lawyers can prepare a habeas corpus request (whatever that is that says she should not be kept against her will).
Her ex shuold be tried for domestic violence, for allowing her to stop her medication, knowing what would become off medication.
Temporary insanity, permanent insanity, what’s the difference?
She was insane at the time she drowned her kids.
If the medication makes her sane, and she wasn’t on the medication, then she was insane, right?
You invalidated your own argument.
Matt, why don’t we just kill everyone who will spend the rest of their lives in prison or an institution and save the taxpayers a fortune?
Maybe you can get Dan to propose the legislation once he’s in office.
She would’ve gotten life in prison had she been found guilty, not the death penalty.
#76
Yeah, only because prosecutors didn’t go for it this time. But many here think she deserves death.
Do you?
Nope. As I said yesterday, my only concern in her case is protecting the people of Texas from her. I don’t care about rehabilitation, punishment, treatment or revenge.
I care about removing her capacity to do violence to society.
OK, you can date my daughter then.
LOL!
Y’all heard it.
Very unfortunate verdict. I certainly would not have voted not guilty for any reason, insanity, stupidity or otherwise. The guilt or innocense of someone must be determined separately without regard for the reason behind it. I would have gone for guilty with a sentence of most anything involving some sort of treatment, even allowing for release down the road once “cured”. But to say she is not guilty is Ludikriss. By the way, she will get out. She will be “cured”, because that’s what these treatment professionals do. It will look good on their resumes, so they will do whatever it takes to “cure” her. Then they will petition a bleeding heart liberal judge who will agree she is “cured” and she will walk away scot-free, declared not guilty with not a care in the world.
#81 AMEN!!!!
Anyone recall what they did in the 70’s with all the long term mental patients int he state hospitals? They kicked em out of the loony bins and onto our streets. Where do you think all the bums came from?
Anyone recall what happened in the 80’s when the jails were overcrowded? They started kicking murderers loose to make more room.
Anyone care to bet on how long Ms. Yates spends in the nuthatch? I’ll give it until the next fiscal crisis and they’ll be turning her and every other homicidal maniac loose just to free up some beds and some money.
Mark My Words.
There is a huge differance between temporary insanity and permanent insanity. People that are temporaroily insane react to unusually stressful external stimuli which temporarily renders them psychotic and when you take away that stressor they return to their normal state.The stressor is usually for a brief period of time not over a period of weeks or months as in this case.
People that are deemed in a constant state of psychosis in this day and age are managed by medication that is modulated by a psychiatrist and they may or may not have ongoing psychotherapy with a psychiatrist and psychologist.
This case is much less about that and much more about our own feelings as a society about responsebility , crime and punishment. Many of you feel as the first jury did that although she was mentally not completly normal she was on antidepressives etc. and she had been deemed well enough to function as a parent that did not require supervision with her children. She sought to relieve herself of her parental burden by acting out and killing her children and blaming it on her depression. She then left it up to society to have the courage to punish her. The first jury saw it as their responsibilty to society to children and to themselves to hold her responsible for her actions as she was responsible.
The second jury found her blameless, basically no one was responsible except for maybe the children for being there. She had no culpability in the death of her children despite the fact that she plotted, and conspired over a period of months and carrried out their tortous deaths. She just had her lawyers lay out texas size crock of dung that she was “insane”.This is the sort of microcosm that plays out all over our country everyday and is a sure sign that we are on a moral decline.
As I recall there were more women on the first jury and more men who act somewhat like women on the second jury. The entire change of verdict was predicated on a TV show and the memory of a single expert witness who will lie for which ever side hires him or her. Lost in all of it were the lives of the children and their suffering and death. This is of course the quintessential form of insanity.
The defense paraded out their lying experts who never even spoke to Andrea Yates or evaluated her during her period of psychosis. She was deemed fit to stand trial and they began their dog an pony show succesfully convincing these 12 weak people to forget common sense, forget any thought of personal responsebility and parental duty and to believe the dog and pony show and because they are mentally and spiritually weak they did. Actually most of these people believed she was nuts prior to her ever being retried because they want to believe that, they feel better believing that fairy tail. They are relieved of all responsiblity because she “nuts”.
Honestly the people who have bought into this really need to seek spiritual help from their pastor or preacher and proffesional help from a board certified psychiatrist as this is a symptom of other bigger problems in their own life. Chances aree you could end up commiting some heinous crime like Andrea Yates or Susan Smith and blaming it on the victim or creating a perpretrator like Susan Smith did when she conjoured up a black man to blame it on. She did not get the death penalty for drowning her kids either, they said she was insane. Hmmm where have I heard that before.