Andrea Yates found not guilty

TzenaRena

Wed, Jul 26 2006, 1:19 pm

No! I believe the circular reasoning went like this: any mother who could do something like this to her kids is insane. So, not guilty by reason of insanity. Rolling Eyes

Just goes to prove how insane the liberal society we live in is!

cindy324

Wed, Jul 26 2006, 1:46 pm

I don't believe she was sane when she killed her kids. the whole story does not make sense for someone who was sane at the time. I truly believe she was suffering from untreated postpartum psychosis, and I feel almost as sorry for her as I do for those poor kids. she might've known what she was doing, but it's her reasoning for it that was insane.

I agree with momoftwins about the father, he is as guilty as she is if not more. he was the one who ignored her plea for help for ppd, he insisted on having the kids homeschooled, no help, no support, what could've been nipped in the bud early on, he failed to help her.

sister

Wed, Jul 26 2006, 1:51 pm

1.I dont believe andrea yates is guilty. But you know what? Being convicted of insanity in America is the same thing as going to jail. she will probably be in serious psychiatric lockdown for the rest of her life, something that I believe is pointless and wrong.
2.I think it is so unfair that her husband is walking scott free, in my mind that man is a big part of why those poor kids are not alive today Sad

mumsy23

Wed, Jul 26 2006, 2:00 pm

sister wrote:

The news said that she will have reviews every so often to see if she is sane enough to leave the hospital.

MommyLuv

Wed, Jul 26 2006, 2:18 pm

sad, sad, sad!!!

Mothers should be told to call 911 or another urgent call line if they are feeling murderous, suicidal or abusive and feel like doing something terrible to their kids....I'm sure most of us feel horrified at the thought, but it can happen to good people too, who lose control.

in fact, at one of my prenatal birthing classes, the instructor gave a long talk about what havoc the postpartum period can wreak on mothers' emotional stability...she talked about shaking a baby, etc...and that if anyone feels like they are at the end of their rope, they should put the baby in a safe place, let him cry and call for help!

if she had only had some resources and some support,, her kids might be alive today. What a tragedy!

amother

Wed, Jul 26 2006, 3:17 pm

PPD could be BAD. I had aa child who cried endlessly, One day I realized that if someone won't take the child I would be liable to harm him CH"Vshalom. But at least I had my head in place and called my sister who immidietly came to pick the child up. I slept a few hours, and then felt ready to go on. Sleep deprivation could also drive you insane.

Any person who does what A.Y. did, whether premeditated or not , IS INSANE!

Chani

Wed, Jul 26 2006, 3:31 pm

If Andrea Yates isn't an example of someone who is not guilty by reason of insanity, then we should just get rid of it as a defense altogether. When I was a young lawyer I was appointed by the court to defend indigent patients in "lunacy" hearings once a week (yep, that was the technical name in that state), for judges to decide if patients should continue to be committed (or should be committed in the first place as well). Several times they involved people who had committed violent crimes, even murder. It was the saddest thing in the world. People who were hallucinating, or violent and had to be kept in restraints while we talked...just terrible. Sometimes the people would be just stark raving mad - tearing their clothes off, hurling excrement, really really pitiful. These people do NOT belong in a prison; they belong in a hospital. To put them into the prison system puts a burden on that system that it is not capable of handling, it's dangerous for the individual, and dangerous for the other prisoners and guards as well. Better that they should go into an environment better equipped to handle them.

mumsy23

Wed, Jul 26 2006, 3:33 pm

only1 wrote:

She's insane. So if she is let out and goes to a bar and meets a guy and gets pregnant should she be allowed to keep the child?

If she is let out, it is on the basis that he is "better", so I would say yes.

amother

Wed, Jul 26 2006, 3:37 pm

amother wrote:

different amother.
One time when I was nursing my baby at night and was exhausted and frustrated (after many days of night of very painful and very unsuccessful nursing) I think I shook her. I don't think she was actually hurt, but I felt so guilty in the morning. I can understand how a mother can be at teh end of her rope which cna caus thoughts of hurting the child.

healthymama

Wed, Jul 26 2006, 5:12 pm

last amother- don't make yourself stressed out. Don't nurse if it is too much to handle, use formula. and leave the baby to cry in the crib while you go into another area for a while. Crying doesn't hurt them- it just annoys the moms !

Last edited by healthymama on Wed, Jul 26 2006, 7:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

anon

Wed, Jul 26 2006, 6:34 pm

Quote:

only1 wrote:
She's insane. So if she is let out and goes to a bar and meets a guy and gets pregnant should she be allowed to keep the child?

Quote:

Mumsy23 wrote:

If she is let out, it is on the basis that he is "better", so I would say yes.

You're saying that a woman who killed all her children should have the right to have more children shock

I don't care who says that she's "better". This is one of those screw ups that one has to take with them for life![/b]

edited to attempt to fix the quotations. At this point, I can't figure it out. But you get the idea.

Tefila

Wed, Jul 26 2006, 7:36 pm

Heeellllo anyone then that performs abnoxious terrible crimes can plead insanity coz technicall they r. Wether it was Hitler y'ms, Stalin, even pedophiles and murderers out there.

Now if she did it in a fit of irrational anger one kid in the bath is one thing shock

but to methodically do 5 one at a time I mean I think she still deserves to serve time and more.
And yes her husband is to blame though not sure what yet Exclamation

Chani

Wed, Jul 26 2006, 7:55 pm

Actually, you're getting at the difference b/n first degree murder and second degree murder (in most states - I don't know TX specifics). 1st degree involves premeditation, which a prosecutor would attempt to show, at least in part, by the fact that there's a time gap b/n each killing. 2nd degree doesn't involve premeditation. Then there's manslaughter, which can be either basically negligence based or based on provocation (e.g. the classic is a spouse walking in on the other spouse in flagrante delicto and immediately committing homicide). Insanity defense is different - insanity defense in most states would be unable to tell right from wrong (which is probably the case with Andrea yates from what I've read - she thought that she was sending them to heaven saving them from Satan or some such thing and that it was the right thing to do) or suffers from an "irresistible impulse" (admittedly I'm not too crazy about the irresistible impulse argument myself). I think that the inability to tell right from wrong is pretty rare and does not cover the vast majority of murders, but it does exist. In my opinion there's a world of difference b/n an inability to know right from wrong versus knowing very well right from wrong but not caring.