You guys keep saying Texas. It was Houston - huge difference.
And to think, had she done this anywhere else in Texas but Houston - not only would she have been found guilty, she would have been put in the express lane for a lethal injection.
[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]
Nothing else needs to be said!
Next thread.
Newspaper headline this morning:
“Yates to be released soon”
Seriously. The shrink in charge had says that her psychosis is well-managed and expects her to be relased soon.
Trying to find the online version to link to, but the site hasn’t updated for today’s news yet.
[quote]ThatGirl77 wrote:
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”.
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]
I don’t you can say taht Rusty Yates knew that this was going to happen (I don’t think that anyone would have imagined that it’d have been this bad).
He didn’t help the situation any and they should have listend to psychiastrist and she should have been on medication (I don’t know if she refused to take the meds (for personal or religious reasons).
The thing is that people have a right to have children… unless they do something to harm them (in which case they can be taken away, but I don’t know of any case were a woman or man was forcibly prohibited kids). So if everyone agreed that they shouldn’t have more kids… would be have been any way to stop them?
[quote]Kayrob wrote:
…The issue in this case is more with the actual law rather than the verdict.
[/quote]
Exactly. The law should allow for Guilty but Insane, rather than the ridiculous Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity travesty.
She obviously is the devil incarnate if she killed four children! And then she possessed the jury to say what she wanted too…
More seriously, this whole system is screwy. People punish thier pets who don’t always know the difference between right and wrong, but no, people who don’t know right and wrong for a day can’t be punished for anything in thier life. Give me a break.
[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]
Well like i said, there are plenty of very good actors, with Mrs. Yates being up there for sure.
We execute people because they are a danger to society and their crimes are unforgivable by us humans. I think she should at the very least have life in a max security prison. Anyone who disagrees, Let her babysit your kids after she’s been rehabbed.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
AlbertaBeef wrote:
Obviously none of you have ever been mentally ill.
Elaborate.[/quote]
He didn’t have a point, he just wanted to be a jackass. Surely after frequenting the boards for as long as you have you’ve learned to recognize this.
My take on this: why should we let a supposed “insane” person get off? Is anyone really convinced that some person who killed her kids is really going to be, at some point, rehabilitated enough that anyone in their right minds would want to be in striking distance of her?
I like the idea of insane but still guilty. If you attack someone or whatever, but you didn’t mame or kill them, ya know, maybe at some point you’ll be ok. You kill your kids, and I think it’s safe to say that you’re a menace to society who doesn’t need to be on this earth any longer.
[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]
I can’t tell what you’re trying to say. But my point was that not everyone that kills is insane such as they should be intutionalized rather than imprisoned. Most who kill should be in prison.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Kayrob wrote:
…The issue in this case is more with the actual law rather than the verdict.
Exactly. The law should allow for Guilty but Insane, rather than the ridiculous Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity travesty.[/quote]
What would this accomplish? What do you think the sentencing should be as opposed to what it is for Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity?
[quote]jjoseph_x wrote:
I don’t you can say taht Rusty Yates knew that this was going to happen (I don’t think that anyone would have imagined that it’d have been this bad).
[/quote]
No, no, of course not. Nobody knows whether somehting this horrific will happen. But my point is that he knew his wife was ill but he didn’t see to it that she got help.
Sterilization comes to mind… But then that’s infringing on ppl’s rights, as you stated. It’s an ugly topic.
Rusty Yates should have made sure Andrea was medicated and if she wasn’t, then he should have used a freaking condom while making sure she took the pill every morning or gotten himself a vasectomy. And if he can’t find it within himself to avoid driving her even further into insanity by continuing to procreate, then he should have medicated her so that she would have been ok.
I’ve dealt with PPD (LESS extreme than Post-Partum Psychosis)and it SUCKS. Thank God I had a good husband and good friends around to keep me grounded.
I kind of have pity for her, but you know, they’re both looney tunes as far as I can tell. And there is NO WAY anyone with any kind of sense or decency could do that.
They both should be in prison. For a very long time.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
And she can be freed if the doctors feel she has made a full recovery.
This is beyond a travesty.
She should be drowned in the same bathtub she killed her kids in and have the demons driven from her drowned, lifeless body.
[/quote]
Actually I think the jury who voted her not guilty should drowned along with her.
People know her name and her story, even if she is released she will not be living a very happy life. I just hope someone decides to save her soul from hell and kill her right after she gets out so she can’t do more “evil” and maybe she can be saved.
I mean the whole argument is ridiculous. So if my wife is about to have an affair and before such affair occurs I kill her to keep her from commiting the sin so she wont go to hell can I get off the hook too??? Of course not because the jury would see me as a jealous husband instead of a nutcase who thinks he’s a savior.
Speaking of which: My roommate is going to amsterdam next month I should kill him before he goes so he doesn’t do any of those evil things. Sure I’ll be killing him but in the end he’ll thank me because I’ll be saving his soul.
Well gotta go sharpen my knife.
(i’m kidding of course)
Had this been Mr. Yates, he would never see the outside world again even if determined insane.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Kayrob wrote:
…The issue in this case is more with the actual law rather than the verdict.
Exactly. The law should allow for Guilty but Insane, rather than the ridiculous Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity travesty.
What would this accomplish? What do you think the sentencing should be as opposed to what it is for Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity?[/quote]
It could allow for a life sentence, but remove the possibility of the death penalty perhaps.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Kayrob wrote:
…The issue in this case is more with the actual law rather than the verdict.
Exactly. The law should allow for Guilty but Insane, rather than the ridiculous Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity travesty.
What would this accomplish? What do you think the sentencing should be as opposed to what it is for Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity?[/quote]
It meass that if at some point it is decided she is mentally fit she won’t be released back onto the streets as she is guilty of a crime.
She is insane. She is also clearly guilty of murdering her kids. The only innocents were her kids.
Like this?
Psychiatrist predicts hospital will release Yates soon
THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
RELATED STORY
?
Jury reaches verdict in Yates murder trial
NEW YORK - The Texas mother who drowned her five children in a bathtub five years ago could soon be freed after a Houston jury decided Wednesday that she wasn’t guilty of murder because she was insane at the time.
Andrea Yates
Andrea Yates wept quietly in the courtroom as the jury returned its verdict after three days of deliberation, ending the high-profile retrial.
Yates, 42, will be committed to a state mental hospital until a judge deems her well enough to be released.
But New York forensic psychiatrist Dr. Michael Welner - who interviewed Yates in May as the prosecution’s lead expert - predicted that she would be released quickly because her disorder is being well-managed.
“I expect she will be home soon,” Welner said.
Welner, of NYU’s School of Medicine, said he respected the jury’s “difficult decision” but disagreed with the verdict.
“There’s a tremendous amount of evidence supporting the fact that she knew what she was doing was wrong,” he said.
However, the jury of six men and six women sided with Yates’ lawyers, who argued that she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and believed she was trying to save her children from Satan when she drowned them one by one in June 2001. The defense did not dispute that Yates drowned Noah, 7; John, 5; Paul, 3; Luke, 2; and newborn Mary.
Juror Todd Frank said it was clear to him that Yates had psychosis before, during and after the drownings.
“She needs help,” Frank said. “Although she’s treated, I think she’s worse than she was before. I think she’ll probably need treatment for the rest of her life.”
The children’s father, Rusty Yates, said the jury reached the right decision.
“Yes, Andrea took the lives of our children. That’s the truth. But also yes, she was insane,” he said. The couple divorced in 2005, and he has remarried.
Yates was convicted of murder in 2002, but the verdict was later thrown out on appeal because of prejudicial testimony.
Yates’ crimes highlighted the risk of postpartum psychosis, which affects less than 1 percent of women who give birth, said Dr. Stephan Quentzel, a psychiatrist and family practitioner at Beth Israel Medical Center in Manhattan.
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Well like i said, there are plenty of very good actors, with Mrs. Yates being up there for sure.
We execute people because they are a danger to society and their crimes are unforgivable by us humans. I think she should at the very least have life in a max security prison. Anyone who disagrees, Let her babysit your kids after she’s been rehabbed.[/quote]
So you’re sure that she’s faking the insanity thing? Based on what? At the very least the jury got to hear testimony.
If you’ve already made-up your mind based on the crime, then there’s nothing much to say, is there?
I think that she’s crazy and that’s why she killed her kids. However, she knew what she did was wrong (or at least illegal)… that’s why I think that she should be in jail (even if she truely believed that she did was for the best).