Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Yates found Not Guilty by reason of insanity

Crime Andrea Yates Murder of Children Not Guilty Insanity 2006

  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#1 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 03:01 PM

Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14024728/

I'm so disgusted with this weak a$$ jury it's not even funny.

So basically they put no value on these childrens lives, I hope the jury can sleep at night...especially if they have children...cause someone just might value their children as little as they valued this woman's. And no I'm not calling for violence....I'm just so annoyed it's not even funny.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#2 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 03:17 PM

Quote

Some testified about her two hospitalizations after suicide attempts in 1999, not long after her fourth child was born. At the time, the family lived in a converted bus. Dr. Eileen Starbranch, a psychiatrist, again testified about how she warned Yates and her husband not to have more children because her postpartum psychosis would probably return.

Yates’ stayed in a mental hospital for about two weeks in April and 10 days in May 2001. Psychiatrists testified that she was catatonic and wouldn’t eat and that her postpartum condition from Mary’s birth in November worsened after her father died in March.
^I got that from the article you linked to : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14024728/

She had a history of mental illness.  I do wonder how long they'll give her in the mental hospital.  To drown that many kids, without snapping out of it seems like she'd be a danger to society if she ever had a relapse.

Edited by Caesar of the Stars, 27 July 2006 - 11:07 AM.


#3 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 03:45 PM

Well she was only charged with the murde of 3 of her kids...the prosecutor could decide to try geting her behind bars, where she belongs, by trying her for the other 2.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#4 Bobby

Bobby

    FKA LiberalBob

  • Islander
  • 4,369 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 03:49 PM

If she's nuts, as the jury believed and the time in institutions seems to indicate, I don't think she should be in prison.  In a mental institution, for sure, I don't think she needs to be walking around unattended.  She has to really seperate from reality to be able to drown five kids, especially her own.

Edited by Caesar of the Stars, 26 July 2006 - 03:49 PM.


#5 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 03:51 PM

LoTS, do you draw no distinction between criminal acts motivated by malice aforethought and criminal acts motivated by genuine cases of mental illness?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#6 Lord of the Sword

Lord of the Sword
  • Islander
  • 15,681 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 03:52 PM

View PostCaesar of the Stars, on Jul 26 2006, 04:49 PM, said:

If she's nuts, as the jury believed and the time in institutions seems to indicate, I don't think she should be in prison.  In a mental institution, for sure, I don't think she needs to be walking around unattended.  She has to really seperate from reality to be able to drown five kids, especially her own.

Any person that did what she did HAS to be nuts to begin with....But those children deserved justice...And shrinks are the easiest people in the word to BS....She could be out in no time at all.
"Sometimes you get the point of the sword, sometimes the edge, sometimes the flat of the blade (even if you're the Lord of the Sword) and sometimes you're the guy wielding it. But any day without the Sword or its Lord is one that could've been better  " ~Orpheus.

The Left is inclusive, and tolerant, unless you happen to think and believe different than they do~ Lord of the Sword

Looks like the Liberal Elite of Exisle have finally managed to silence the last remaining Conservative voice on the board.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” ~Thomas Jefferson

#7 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 04:01 PM

View PostLORD of the SWORD, on Jul 26 2006, 04:52 PM, said:

View PostCaesar of the Stars, on Jul 26 2006, 04:49 PM, said:

If she's nuts, as the jury believed and the time in institutions seems to indicate, I don't think she should be in prison.  In a mental institution, for sure, I don't think she needs to be walking around unattended.  She has to really seperate from reality to be able to drown five kids, especially her own.

Any person that did what she did HAS to be nuts to begin with....But those children deserved justice...And shrinks are the easiest people in the word to BS....She could be out in no time at all.

Justice, or vengeance?  

And if (as you stipulate) she IS, indeed, "nuts," then why would any shrink BS'ing be necessary in the first place?

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#8 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 04:07 PM

I think the jury did the right thing.  A person who kills her kids because they're a pain in the ass and she wants to run off with a new boyfriend (like Susan Smith) isn't the same as a person who kills her kids because she hears voices in her head that tell her to do it.  The former deserves only contempt, while the latter is more worthy of pity in my mind.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#9 Hambil

Hambil
  • Islander
  • 5,492 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 04:29 PM

I'm not sure I really understand the insanity defense. I mean, it seems like more of an add on to me. I'm a murderer AND I'm insane. Which would you rather have living next to you - a murderer, or an insane murderer?

Edited by Hambil, 26 July 2006 - 04:30 PM.


#10 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 04:35 PM

I would point out that we all are: one hit on the head, one microbe, one morsel of tainted food, one whiff of the wrong common chemical, or one poorly performed medical procedure, away from devastating mental illness.

The brain is the most easily damaged organ in the human body.

If you’ve hit your head hard enough to see lights, or have a headache, you have done brain damage. The question is not if all human beings have brain damage the question is how much.
Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#11 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 04:41 PM

View PostHambil, on Jul 26 2006, 09:29 PM, said:

I'm not sure I really understand the insanity defense. I mean, it seems like more of an add on to me. I'm a murderer AND I'm insane. Which would you rather have living next to you - a murderer, or an insane murderer?

Well in both cases, you want the murderer locked safely away for a long time.  But in the case of a mob hitman or thrill killer, the primary goal is punishment, deterrence, and public safety (with perhaps rehabilitation in there somewhere), while in the case of someone who's genuinely in the thrall of mental illness, you hopefully lock the person up in a situation where they're not a danger to the public but provides him or her with the treatment to hopefully get better.  As Sparky points out, the brain is an organ that can malfunction like any other, and in some rare cases, mental illness can cause an otherwise decent human being to do terrible things.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#12 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 05:59 PM

I don't understand postpartem,

you love it when it's inside, but then when it comes out into your luvin arms you don't love it anymore? you want it gone? you want to kill your own child? how does that happen in those synapses up there?

the one that got me was the testimony on how the one son fought for his life, and the killer just fought through his fighting, determined with a capital D that he would DIE that Day! :eek4:

:( (oh let me edit: ) I also don't believe in innocent by insanity laws: if you did it, you are not innocent: they should have laws for Innocent But Insane, with different sentencing, with minimums in place, like eval and therapy in an institution with no release before fifteen years, and different ones for different crimes and circumstances, like a schedule of them, legislated so it can't be circumvented. So in her case, she'd be held and treated and could not be released before twenty five years. You did it or you didn't do it, there is no you did it but you didn't do it.

Edited by offworlder, 26 July 2006 - 06:03 PM.

"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#13 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 06:20 PM

Quote

I think the jury did the right thing. A person who kills her kids because they're a pain in the ass and she wants to run off with a new boyfriend (like Susan Smith) isn't the same as a person who kills her kids because she hears voices in her head that tell her to do it. The former deserves only contempt, while the latter is more worthy of pity in my mind.

Similar view, only in my opinion both are worthy of pity, they just need different kinds of help. The latter is also worthy of sympathy.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#14 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 06:25 PM

Actually, people who are put in institutions for the criminally insane are basically given a life sentince.  They arent allowed to leave until a board decides that they are mentally fit for release and almost everyone on those boards is terrified that the person who acts, talks, and looks totally sane is going to go on a killing rampage if they get let out.  In reality, this woman would get out of inprisonment sooner if she had been sentinced to jail.  Since state mental institutions are often henously underfunded, she would also have a much more comfortable stay in a regular jail.  Just now she going to get medication and therapy (both of which she obviously needs).  She is not getting off lightly.

Also, once she becomes (or became) lucid again, shes going to have to come to terms with the fact that she killed her children.  I very much doubt anything could feel worse than that.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#15 emsparks

emsparks
  • Forever Missed
  • 2,426 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 06:42 PM

View Postoffworlder, on Jul 26 2006, 06:59 PM, said:

I don't understand postpartem,

you love it when it's inside, but then when it comes out into your luvin arms you don't love it anymore? you want it gone? you want to kill your own child? how does that happen in those synapses up there?

If I understand it properly: When you get pregnant the developing fetus needs large quantities of hormones to develop properly. So as long as the fetus is physically in the woman’s body her body produces these hormones. Two of the culprit hormones are Testosterone, and Oxytocin, I believe and I could have the names wrong. It is a medical fact that if a women’s progesterone level: is too low or not countered by a proper levels of her own Testosterone, she may become murderously violent. Oxytocin helps to moderate mood swings. When some women give birth, the levels of these hormones just drops.  In most women it just means a period of depression until the hormonal levels return to normal for her non-pregnant state. This condition can last a couple of days to a couple of months.

In a very small percentage of women the hormonal level can swing so widely that they actually are a real danger to their child. In fewer still women repeated pregnancy can leave them mentally damaged, worsening with each pregnancy. Ms Yates is one of these women, and the doctors knew it. What is worse one of the medications she was prescribed also have been proven to make the condition much worse. Religion was the reason they didn’t stop having children. Don’t get me started on Mr. Yates, and the male patriarchal society she was forced to live in.

View Postoffworlder, on Jul 26 2006, 06:59 PM, said:

:( (oh let me edit: ) I also don't believe in innocent by insanity laws: if you did it, you are not innocent: they should have laws for Innocent But Insane, with different sentencing, with minimums in place, like eval and therapy in an institution with no release before fifteen years, and different ones for different crimes and circumstances, like a schedule of them, legislated so it can't be circumvented. So in her case, she'd be held and treated and could not be released before twenty five years. You did it or you didn't do it, there is no you did it but you didn't do it.

As Nikcara says above, being declared innocent by means of insanity does not mean you go free. In Texas “innocent by means of insanity,” means they become a ward of the judge that tried the case, and the person stays in the prison hospital until the doctors can prove to that judge that they are safe to release.

Edited by emsparks, 26 July 2006 - 06:46 PM.

Sparky::

Think!
Question Authority, Authoritatively.

#16 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 07:02 PM

View PostMuseZack, on Jul 26 2006, 04:07 PM, said:

I think the jury did the right thing. A person who kills her kids because they're a pain in the ass and she wants to run off with a new boyfriend (like Susan Smith) isn't the same as a person who kills her kids because she hears voices in her head that tell her to do it. The former deserves only contempt, while the latter is more worthy of pity in my mind.


Well put, Zack.  

Make no mistake about me:  If a cold-blooded, calculated murder has been committed (i.e.--Susan Smith), I say either give 'em the needle or lock 'em up.  But, in this case we have a woman who had been in the throes of post-partem depression at least twice before (and once was a nearly psychotic break) who snapped and killed her kids.  She did it in a progression, an order, but, "though this be madness, there is method in it."  Insane people have their methods and worldview, but it's nothing like the rest of the world.  

However, I firmly believe that both she and her husband will have to answer for the deaths of the five children.  Right now, she is being punished.  Andrea Yates isn't quite right and never will be.  She's more of a threat to herself than to anyone else and if she were set free, she might try to kidnap a child to replace the ones she lost (acting out in a psychotic episode).  But, just because she along with her husband (who should have a functioning brain) isn't criminally responsible doesn't mean they aren't morally responsible.  This could all have been prevented and it was so terribly senseless.  I pity her and I despise him.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#17 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 07:05 PM

I can tell that she has shown more emotion than during the first trial. Back then she was so heavily medicated that she was literally numb, emotionally and physically.  

(BTW--now the medication helps her deal somewhat with the realization of the horror of her actions comes to her)

Houston Chronicle article

Quote

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. Yates and attorneys will return to Judge Belinda Hill's courtroom at 10 a.m. Thursday for a hearing, formalizing the details of Yates' hospitalization. She will go to a maximum security hospital initially.

"I just want to get her back home to Rusk,'' said George Parnham, Yates'  lead attorney, in reference to the hospital where Yates had been  receiving care before the start of her second trial.

and Nikcara is exactly right about how the process works.

Andrea will not be allowed to go just based on a psychiatrist evaluation.....more like a whole panel plus it must be returned to this particular judge or her replacement's courtroom.

Don't know what to tell you,offworlder, about postpartum psychosis....not every woman diagnosed with it kills their children.

But the verdict is not  'innocent by reason of insanity'    It's 'not guilty by reason of insanity'   Believe it or not, the 2 things are not one and the same.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#18 Tricia

Tricia

    To err on the side of kindness is seldom an error.

  • Islander
  • 10,245 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 07:12 PM

View PostLost Cause, on Jul 27 2006, 12:02 AM, said:

However, I firmly believe that both she and her husband will have to answer for the deaths of the five children.  Right now, she is being punished.  Andrea Yates isn't quite right and never will be.  She's more of a threat to herself than to anyone else and if she were set free, she might try to kidnap a child to replace the ones she lost (acting out in a psychotic episode).  But, just because she along with her husband (who should have a functioning brain) isn't criminally responsible doesn't mean they aren't morally responsible.  This could all have been prevented and it was so terribly senseless.  I pity her and I despise him.

I am so glad to see someone else who feels like Rusty Yates is just as responsible for what happened to his children.

In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change. --Thich Nhat Hanh


You don't need to attend every argument you are invited to


Do not ask that your kids live up to your expectations.  Let your kids be who they are, and your expectations will be in breathless pursuit.


#19 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 07:12 PM

I believe the jury reached the proper verdict. Yate had a long history of documented and severe mental illness. She will likely spend the rest of her life in a mental institution. Personally, if i were looking for justice for the deaths of those children, I'd lock that idiot husband of hers up. He was sane, he knew she was mentally unstable and still continued to have children with her inspite of the doctors warnings. He left a mentally unstable women trapped in cramped quarters with a gaggle of kids to care for all day alone. If that isn't criminally negligent I don't know what is. Yet he walks free, in fact I believe he's remarried.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#20 Mel

Mel
  • Islander
  • 447 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 07:34 PM

View PostLin731, on Jul 26 2006, 07:12 PM, said:

I believe the jury reached the proper verdict. Yate had a long history of documented and severe mental illness. She will likely spend the rest of her life in a mental institution. Personally, if i were looking for justice for the deaths of those children, I'd lock that idiot husband of hers up. He was sane, he knew she was mentally unstable and still continued to have children with her inspite of the doctors warnings. He left a mentally unstable women trapped in cramped quarters with a gaggle of kids to care for all day alone. If that isn't criminally negligent I don't know what is. Yet he walks free, in fact I believe he's remarried.

Lost Cause and I have discussed this at length.  Personally, I think he's more responsible than she is.  She was having these children so close together, I'm not sure she'd fully recovered from one birth before she was pregnant with the next. Plus, at least from what I've read online (not sure if it's accurate) she was on/off various anti-psychotic meds throughout the time perioud.  Her judgement may have been clouded by either her disease and/or her meds.  He wasn't drugged, wasn't psychotic, and should have known better than to have pushed for (or allowed) more children.  I wish they had gotten him on some type of negligence charge.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Crime, Andrea Yates, Murder of Children, Not Guilty, Insanity, 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users