Emotionally, I’d like to see (or hear of) her get tortured in a way that’s worse than what she did to the kids.
Logically, I think the best idea is to get her off the face of this Earth (without so many damn appeals) quickly, and inexpensively.
No need to waste our tax dollars on trying to make her “better”.
They shouldn’t even allow for a proper burial (waste of money again).
Just get it done and throw the body in the city’s dump to let the bugs and animals turn her into fertilizer.
[quote]SWR-1240 wrote:
Emotionally, I’d like to see (or hear of) her get tortured in a way that’s worse than what she did to the kids.
Logically, I think the best idea is to get her off the face of this Earth (without so many damn appeals) quickly, and inexpensively.
No need to waste our tax dollars on trying to make her “better”.
[/quote]
Well, that is my one issue with the Insanity status. Most of the people that are found legally insane are severely mentally ill and never do recover. They can be treated but not cured. So, in my mind it comes down to a death penalty issue. And I do hesitate to put to death such people more than I would people not in that condition. So, then it’s a containment isssue. I don’t see a problem with them being in a mental instiution as opposed to prison. I don’t think it’s any more expensive for taxpayers. And there are at least attempts at treatment. Also, things that cannot be treated effectively today may be able to be treated/cured in the future.
Obviously none of you have ever been mentally ill.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
I also wanted to add that it can be argued very easily that anyone can commits murder is insane. [/quote]
You are using the word insanity in its common society meaning not its legal meaning as relating to the mens rea (mental element) of a crime.
Having not read the decision and the case facts, I cannot judge whether the decision was correct.
…Oh wait I mean ERRR HANG HER ERRRR BURN ERRRRRR.
[quote]AlbertaBeef wrote:
Obviously none of you have ever been mentally ill.[/quote]
Elaborate.
This whole thing is insane. The law is fucked up.
It should be guilty but insane. She should spend the rest of her life locked up either in as mental instiution or a prison.
The fact that some doctor can decide she is not a threat to society and let her out of jail some day makes me sick.
I think the death penalty is justified in this case.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This whole thing is insane. The law is fucked up.
It should be guilty but insane. She should spend the rest of her life locked up either in as mental instiution or a prison.
The fact that some doctor can decide she is not a threat to society and let her out of jail some day makes me sick.
I think the death penalty is justified in this case.[/quote]
I think that is a standard in some states. Guilty but Insane. They stay in the psych ward for life. Not in Texas though. I do think it’s saying something when a Texas jury rules that someone’s insane.
From a legal standpoint they are right, she killed her kids with no other motive other than the fact that she is a very sick woman. I take issue with the law rather than the verdict. If you have a dog that you love, and he goes rabid, you shoot him!
Right?
If you kill your kid, YOU are insane. Just to do something like that makes you insane, and that doesn’t mean you should be not guilty. She should be shot in the face.
[quote]and1bball4mk wrote:
If you kill your kid, YOU are insane. Just to do something like that makes you insane, and that doesn’t mean you should be not guilty. She should be shot in the face.[/quote]
I disagree. I think there is sometimes a fine line between evil and insanity. But they can exist independently. Someone can be evil and totally sane and kill their kid or anyone else for any number of selfish reasons. I don’t think what happened here. But it exists.
A sensible American public is upset about this ridiculous verdict, and for good reason.
Only in Texas.
Hell, California, a Blue State, convicted David Westerfield and Scott Peters to death and they only killed ONE child.
How, how, how does Yates get off the hook?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
and1bball4mk wrote:
If you kill your kid, YOU are insane. Just to do something like that makes you insane, and that doesn’t mean you should be not guilty. She should be shot in the face.
I disagree. I think there is sometimes a fine line between evil and insanity. But they can exist independently. Someone can be evil and totally sane and kill their kid or anyone else for any number of selfish reasons. I don’t think what happened here. But it exists.[/quote]
But you know what else exists? Great actors and role players. I’ve been around insane people first hand and can tell you that in their moments of clarity they said the can do anything and get away with it BECAUSE they’re insane. Don’t let your clear thinking be clouded with fancy language by experts and their “credentials” and such. Such mind spinning can convince anyone of anything. Anyone who murders like that IS insane, not by legal definition, but by common sense.
Let me put it to you this way.
I here by propose that after she is declared healthy, let her babysit your kids. You know go to work, leave her with them, go on vacation for a few weeks, leave her with them. Go ahead do it. Then when she flips and harms them, you can be her defense lawyer.
She get’s away because we don’t execute women. Only white, black and hispanic MEN.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
We already knew she was crazy. There should be a “we know you’re crazy but you’re still frying for this, bitch” clause.[/quote]
Gosh I thought I was the only one to understand it. Sane…insane. What does it matter? She KILLED her kids. I dont care what state she was in, she did it.
Cmon. The next lady that decides to cause a pile up on the interstate and kill 50 people… we’ll let her go cause “she had a rough day.” Get real.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
and1bball4mk wrote:
If you kill your kid, YOU are insane. Just to do something like that makes you insane, and that doesn’t mean you should be not guilty. She should be shot in the face.
I disagree. I think there is sometimes a fine line between evil and insanity. But they can exist independently. Someone can be evil and totally sane and kill their kid or anyone else for any number of selfish reasons. I don’t think what happened here. But it exists.
But you know what else exists? Great actors and role players. I’ve been around insane people first hand and can tell you that in their moments of clarity they said the can do anything and get away with it BECAUSE they’re insane. Don’t let your clear thinking be clouded with fancy language by experts and their “credentials” and such. Such mind spinning can convince anyone of anything. Anyone who murders like that IS insane, not by legal definition, but by common sense.
Let me put it to you this way.
I here by propose that after she is declared healthy, let her babysit your kids. You know go to work, leave her with them, go on vacation for a few weeks, leave her with them. Go ahead do it. Then when she flips and harms them, you can be her defense lawyer.[/quote]
However she didn’t kill anyone else’s kids, only her own.
Moreover, her family has a history of psychosis and she was being treated for postpartum psychosis after she had her fourth child.
Her psychiatrist urged the Yates not to have more children but her they were followers of Michael Peter Woroniecki who says that “women should have as many children as nature allows”.
Why’d she kill her kids… in accordance with Woroniecki’s sermons she said this: “It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren’t righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell.”
So she thought that my killing them while they were still innocent, she’d save them from hell.
Her killed her kids under pretty specific circumstances, so it’s not the same as running around and randomly killing children.
Do I buy the insanity defense? I dunno… if she knew that it was still wrong and illegal to do so, she should be deemed insane, but still guilty of murder. Doesn’t an insanity defense only apply if you don’t know right from wrong at the time that you commit the act?
I can see why she might have done what she did, IF she TRUELY believed that she was saving the souls of her children.
But that’s a seriously slipper-slope, because, under that logic, that’d also mean that you’ve have to acquit a attempted suicide bomber because they believed that they were carrying-out the will of God (and and people generally accept that suicide == crazy).
[quote]Gregus wrote:
She get’s away because we don’t execute women. Only white, black and hispanic MEN.[/quote]
Texas executed Karla Tucker (in spite of please from people including the Pope and Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson of all people).
So yeah, Texas would execute a woman if she fit the criteria for the death penality.
[quote]jjoseph_x wrote:
Gregus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
and1bball4mk wrote:
If you kill your kid, YOU are insane. Just to do something like that makes you insane, and that doesn’t mean you should be not guilty. She should be shot in the face.
I disagree. I think there is sometimes a fine line between evil and insanity. But they can exist independently. Someone can be evil and totally sane and kill their kid or anyone else for any number of selfish reasons. I don’t think what happened here. But it exists.
But you know what else exists? Great actors and role players. I’ve been around insane people first hand and can tell you that in their moments of clarity they said the can do anything and get away with it BECAUSE they’re insane. Don’t let your clear thinking be clouded with fancy language by experts and their “credentials” and such. Such mind spinning can convince anyone of anything. Anyone who murders like that IS insane, not by legal definition, but by common sense.
Let me put it to you this way.
I here by propose that after she is declared healthy, let her babysit your kids. You know go to work, leave her with them, go on vacation for a few weeks, leave her with them. Go ahead do it. Then when she flips and harms them, you can be her defense lawyer.
However she didn’t kill anyone else’s kids, only her own.
Moreover, her family has a history of psychosis and she was being treated for postpartum psychosis after she had her fourth child.
Her psychiatrist urged the Yates not to have more children but her they were followers of Michael Peter Woroniecki who says that “women should have as many children as nature allows”.
Why’d she kill her kids… in accordance with Woroniecki’s sermons she said this: “It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren’t righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell.”
So she thought that my killing them while they were still innocent, she’d save them from hell.
Her killed her kids under pretty specific circumstances, so it’s not the same as running around and randomly killing children.
Do I buy the insanity defense? I dunno… if she knew that it was still wrong and illegal to do so, she should be deemed insane, but still guilty of murder. Doesn’t an insanity defense only apply if you don’t know right from wrong at the time that you commit the act?
I can see why she might have done what she did, IF she TRUELY believed that she was saving the souls of her children.
But that’s a seriously slipper-slope, because, under that logic, that’d also mean that you’ve have to acquit a attempted suicide bomber because they believed that they were carrying-out the will of God (and and people generally accept that suicide == crazy).
[/quote]
The jury must have been full of folks like you.
[quote]jjoseph_x wrote:
Moreover, her family has a history of psychosis and she was being treated for postpartum psychosis after she had her fourth child.
Her psychiatrist urged the Yates not to have more children but her they were followers of Michael Peter Woroniecki who says that “women should have as many children as nature allows”.
[/quote]
Yet they kept having kids KNOWING she was mentally unstable and NOT MEDICATED.
I think Rusty Yates should have been on trial, too, because he KNEW his wife was screwed up and yet did nothing about it. In fact, he went on to help her procreate YET AGAIN and then all the kids got killed.
I was also under the impression that she was homeschooling them all. Correct me if I’m wrong, please.
He’s just as much to blame as she is because he didn’t do anything to help her or stop the downward spiral she was on.
They both ought to be in prison. Sane or not, those kids were murdered and those parents are to blame.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
jjoseph_x wrote:
Gregus wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
and1bball4mk wrote:
If you kill your kid, YOU are insane. Just to do something like that makes you insane, and that doesn’t mean you should be not guilty. She should be shot in the face.
I disagree. I think there is sometimes a fine line between evil and insanity. But they can exist independently. Someone can be evil and totally sane and kill their kid or anyone else for any number of selfish reasons. I don’t think what happened here. But it exists.
But you know what else exists? Great actors and role players. I’ve been around insane people first hand and can tell you that in their moments of clarity they said the can do anything and get away with it BECAUSE they’re insane. Don’t let your clear thinking be clouded with fancy language by experts and their “credentials” and such. Such mind spinning can convince anyone of anything. Anyone who murders like that IS insane, not by legal definition, but by common sense.
Let me put it to you this way.
I here by propose that after she is declared healthy, let her babysit your kids. You know go to work, leave her with them, go on vacation for a few weeks, leave her with them. Go ahead do it. Then when she flips and harms them, you can be her defense lawyer.
However she didn’t kill anyone else’s kids, only her own.
Moreover, her family has a history of psychosis and she was being treated for postpartum psychosis after she had her fourth child.
Her psychiatrist urged the Yates not to have more children but her they were followers of Michael Peter Woroniecki who says that “women should have as many children as nature allows”.
Why’d she kill her kids… in accordance with Woroniecki’s sermons she said this: “It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren’t righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell.”
So she thought that my killing them while they were still innocent, she’d save them from hell.
Her killed her kids under pretty specific circumstances, so it’s not the same as running around and randomly killing children.
Do I buy the insanity defense? I dunno… if she knew that it was still wrong and illegal to do so, she should be deemed insane, but still guilty of murder. Doesn’t an insanity defense only apply if you don’t know right from wrong at the time that you commit the act?
I can see why she might have done what she did, IF she TRUELY believed that she was saving the souls of her children.
But that’s a seriously slipper-slope, because, under that logic, that’d also mean that you’ve have to acquit a attempted suicide bomber because they believed that they were carrying-out the will of God (and and people generally accept that suicide == crazy).
The jury must have been full of folks like you.
[/quote]
The jury did their job. They were given very specific instructions as to what the law is, then they were presented evidence, and decided that the eveidence showed that she was insane. The issue in this case is more with the actual law rather than the verdict.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
The jury must have been full of folks like you.
[/quote]
People who want to think about a situation rather than whip-out a needle to finish the job right there and then?
I’d hope so.
If you believe that killing her children means that she must be guilty and go the jail (or be execute) end-of-story… you wouldn’t be qualified to be a juror (only because the law says she has to be proven guilty).
Personally, I agree more with the first jury’s verdict: Life imprisonment. If she believed that she was the one who’d ruin her children she could have left them… and even if she was insane, she must have known that it was wrong or at least illegal.
But insanity cases are tough because you’re supposedly dealing with someone who can’t or couldn’t think rationally. So the test of “would a reasonably person do this” doesn’t necesarily apply.
However much more often than not, insanity defense don’t work.