Jury Doesn't Buy Insanity Plea

[TheThing]

Originally posted by Garnet FalconDance: Agreed, Moni. This is quite the topic in our house right now--evey time the case is mentioned on the tv, I go off the deep end and Budha reins me back in gently. Clearly this woman was insane--what sane mother could so cold-bloodly kill her her own (or any other) children? But to say she didn't know or realize she was doing wrong at the time....Weak, at best. She knew. The manner in which she continued her masacre was no less pre-meditated than that of any other killer. And her husband ought to be held accountable to a degree. Five children in what, six or seven years? No help whatsoever with them, even after she had had to go on medication for depression. And he 'thought she was cured' so let's have a few more?!?!? Maybe he ought to be examined as well since this appears to me to be a case of delusion (or gross stupidity). I have children and after the first, I had a mild case of the potpartum 'blues'. I wondered how on earth I was going to care for this tiny baby properly, why did I make this huge decision to have a baby, yadda yadda yadda. I cried and felt very alone. But *never* did the thought of even harming the baby cross my mind. *Never*, even when the kids have tried my patience and it seemed everything was going to hell in a handbasket, did I *Ever* consider harming them (sending them to military school/convent, maybe). And to hear the lawyers saying she did this because she was trying to save their souls from the devil---don't even get me started. No fan of lawyers already, but this confirms my distaste for the profession. (yeah, I know there are a few good, upstanding ones) Ok, I'd better step off the soapbox before I really get wound up.

I agree with you.

all I say is, the fall from humanity is not done in one day. Obviously, it took years for this woman to slowly decay to the point that she no longer knows wrong from right... does she? I dont know. I dont know her feelings when she committed such a crime, if she had feelings at all, but I know that there are people endured much worse traumas, suffered pains beyond comprehension, yet they are such gentle souls. They live with their torment, struggling daily, and never fail to give compassion to those who are in need.

It is all individual's choice, I say. I dont know if she deserves to die or not, but I believe she is guilty.

Originally posted by Moni: quote: Originally posted by Ryanamur: I agree with the life sentence without the death penalty. However, I also think that the schrink who let her loose should have been charged with second degree murder, loose his licence and put away for 40 years. It's just too bad that you can't fry him for that because he's the real danger to society here!

See, the thing is....Andrea Yates never got any real psychological treatment prior to kiling her children. She was depressed and suicidal but no one ever thought she would hurt the kids.
The state may yet charge her husband with Child Endangerment and Negligent Homicide since he was the only person who really had any idea of how sick she was, he was the only person who could pay for her treatment and he was the one who didn't help her and kept having children with her.

MagiK,
Living in Texas, I don't relish the idea of paying for her upkeep either but this woman seriously needs treatment.
I doubt she'll last the full 40 years before she makes parole, being the killer of her own children, but let's at least hope that she does make some headway in getting well and realizes what she has done so that she can ask for forgivness with the full understawnding of her actions before she is taken out of this world.[/QUOTE]Well actually, if she really is "INSANE" then Im sure God would have no problem figuring out what to do with her and wether she should be judged or excused due to illness. Man doesnt have to cover the bases for God...IMO [img]smile.gif[/img] but either way, the only person I have any emmotions about are the kids, who are beyond the caring for vengence or punishment. Personally Id rather help her along so her maker can sort her out.

Oh and on an economic point [img]smile.gif[/img] A decent calibre bullet averages out to roughly 83 cents each...much cheaper and just as humane as a needle.

[ 03-17-2002, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Scholarcs]

Just for the record, the government cant execute ppl in NZ.

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Moni: See, the thing is....Andrea Yates never got any real psychological treatment prior to kiling her children. She was depressed and suicidal but no one ever thought she would hurt the kids. The state may yet charge her husband with Child Endangerment and Negligent Homicide since he was the only person who really had any idea of how sick she was, he was the only person who could pay for her treatment and he was the one who didn't help her and kept having children with her.

Moni, I saw a special on her on 20/20 (or dateline). She's been in a psychiatric facility a few times. She was release from the last one less then a week from the murders (if memory serves well). Her schwrink said she was totally cured and had to leave today because that's the day she was sloted to leave on when she first checked in. Her husband complained and said that she was not ready but they let her out anyway.

She obviously wasn't cured. Which means that the schrink who signed the discharge was lying (or incompetent). He put the population at risk and for that, he should at a minimum be charged with negligence causing death.

Get the bastard. She's not the only guilty party here!

[ 03-20-2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Ryanamur ]

[Galadria]

Well, I guess that everyone now knows that Andrea Yates was sentenced to LIfe Imprisonment, not death, the deciding factor seemingly to have been that she was not an ongoing danger to anyone else. I happen to agree with this. The worst punishment for her is going to be walking around with the knowledge of what she did. Oh, and she will not be eligible for parole until 2042.

Originally posted by Ryanamur: Moni, I saw a special on her on 20/20 (or dateline). She's been in a psychiatric facility a few times. She was release from the last one less then a week from the murders (if memory serves well). Her schwrink said she was totally cured and had to leave today because that's the day she was sloted to leave on when she first checked in. Her husband complained and said that she was not ready but they let her out anyway. She obviously wasn't cured. Which means that the schrink who signed the discharge was lying (or incompetent). He put the population at risk and for that, he should at a minimum be charged with negligence causing death. Get the bastard. She's not the only guilty party here!

Like I said, she never got any real psychological treatment prior to kiling her children.

I saw an interview with her husband and his whole family on the Today show...they talked about her state of mind prior to "the offense", how family members visiting were warned what to expect from her when they came over...she was lethargic, unsociable and "likely wouldn't even talk to them" (which she didn't).
They knew she was mentally ill, they knew her condition was bad but they refused to get her further treatment, even going so far as to leave her alone with her children for two hours a day in full awareness that she was not capable of providing them with quality care.
Forget the shrinks that they said let or made her come home. Her husband and his family did not mention once of any complaints to any facility or that they thought she should not come home. They even went so far as to say they thought she was making progress under their care which is why they allowed her that time with her kids without supervision...the time she spent later killing them all.
It is not the shrink's fault that she was let to go home, it is not the shrink's fault that she was never re-institutionalized, it is not the shrink's fault that her husband and his mother left her alone with those kids or that she was taken off of her medication.
Let's just hope that in the 40 years she'll serve before she becomes eligible for parole that someone will make contact with the woman lost inside (and that the cost and availability of psychological treatment in this country can be re-evaluated in order to make it possible for people in need to continue with getting much needed treatment and counseling).

[Galadria]

Moni, I saw her husband on Oprah and he is really scary. Oprah tried and tried to get him to express some emotion at all about the devastation that he should feel about the loss of his whole family, and he never even tried to answer. All that he would do is repeatedly bash the "medical profession." Now, as a medical professsional, I take umbrage at that. I try and imagine what I or my husband would do if this woman came into our offfice, besides immmediately refer her to a psychiatrist. We have discussed this, and we came to the conclusion that: 1) She should not be left in sole care of any child, let alone an infant and 2) she should definitely not have gotten pregnant after her fourth (!) child. Why was this man having sex with a semi-catatonic individual anyway, and why, for the love of God, if he just had to, wasn't she using some form of birth control? He had better watch out, because if he does sue the shrinks, thos (and more) are the very questions that the plaintiff's attorney will ask.

[Donut]

Not totally relevant in this case I know but in Britain women who commit infanticide (killing of a child under 1 year old)cannot be charged with murder. The maximum is manslaughter.

The law was changed in 1922 because juries would not return a guilty verdict if the sentence was death.

I know a woman who is paralysed for life after she jumped from the first floor hospital window with the baby in her arms a day after the birth.

[Galadria]

No offense, Donut, but isn't that the whole abortion mindset? I mean if a fetus isn't a *real* human being subject to all the protections of law, why should an infant be? Admittedly infanticide is still a crime, and abortiaons are not, but I feel that there is a danger in defining whole categories of people as less protected.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Galadria: No offense, Donut, but isn't that the whole abortion mindset? I mean if a fetus isn't a *real* human being subject to all the protections of law, why should an infant be? Admittedly infanticide is still a crime, and abortiaons are not, but I feel that there is a danger in defining whole categories of people as less protected.

No offence taken Galadria because you have completely missed the point. [img]smile.gif[/img] Or more likely I didn't explain it clearly. The reason why infanticide by the mother is not considered to be murder in Britain is to do with post natal depression and female hormones. I can't begin to understand what would drive a mother to jump out of a first floor hospital window with her baby. It is not a 'sane' act and I know her to be a sane person. I do know that this woman has had to live with the memory of what she did ever since and that is more punishment than any amount ofincarceration could inflict.