Andrea Yates is NOT GUILTY

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: veggz

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Methodically drowned her kids in the bathtub? The only kind of therapy she needs is the kind found strapped to an electric chair.

Well its a good thing that the Jury thinks otherwise.

I for one feel this country needs to work harder on helping those with severe mental illnesses and take them more seriously.

I think her husband is guiltier than sin for leaving his mentally ill wife to care for their children and is as much a killer of those kids. And he is sane, so he has no excuse

Please tell me this post is some sort of ill-humored joke..

I believe it is positively absurd that those deemed "insane" are held to a different moral standard than the rest of society. The entire notion of a "relative morality" is a failure of justice itself.

You say that this country needs to make a better effort towards helping those who are mentally ill, and I wholeheartedly agree. But once the cost of this diagnosis becomes the death of five innocent children, that is where we must draw the line. This woman is unquestionably guilty, and does not deserve to ever be set free.

Edit: As a final note, I find your abashed blaming of the husband appalling, to say the least. I will leave it at that.

Read Aristotle and Plato... There is a difference between premeditated and passion crimes. Not having your senses is a passion crime, but to another degree. The person is still guilty but the consequences are different degrees. Then, finally, get to a degree where the person is unaware of anything that they are doing, so has no conscious idea that what there are doing is wrong (much like a child). (If a child accidentally killed someone, but was totally unaware of doing it thought they were playing, would the child be put to death?)

In this case though, she got off scott free because Andrea Yates was totally aware of what she was doing and also aware that it was wrong. She is clinically disturbed so the punishment should have been less severe, but to get off "scott free" -- I am incensed by it.

 

[veggz]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: veggz

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Methodically drowned her kids in the bathtub? The only kind of therapy she needs is the kind found strapped to an electric chair.

Well its a good thing that the Jury thinks otherwise.

I for one feel this country needs to work harder on helping those with severe mental illnesses and take them more seriously.

I think her husband is guiltier than sin for leaving his mentally ill wife to care for their children and is as much a killer of those kids. And he is sane, so he has no excuse

Please tell me this post is some sort of ill-humored joke..

I believe it is positively absurd that those deemed "insane" are held to a different moral standard than the rest of society. The entire notion of a "relative morality" is a failure of justice itself.

You say that this country needs to make a better effort towards helping those who are mentally ill, and I wholeheartedly agree. But once the cost of this diagnosis becomes the death of five innocent children, that is where we must draw the line. This woman is unquestionably guilty, and does not deserve to ever be set free.

Edit: As a final note, I find your abashed blaming of the husband appalling, to say the least. I will leave it at that.

Read Aristotle and Plato... There is a difference between premeditated and passion crimes. Not having your senses is a passion crime, but to another degree. The person is still guilty but the consequences are different degrees. Then, finally, get to a degree where the person is unaware of anything that they are doing, so has no conscious idea that what there are doing is wrong (much like a child). (If a child accidentally killed someone, but was totally unaware of doing it thought they were playing, would the child be put to death?)

In this case though, she got off scott free because Andrea Yates was totally aware of what she was doing and also aware that it was wrong. She is clinically disturbed so the punishment should have been less severe, but to get off "scott free" -- I am incensed by it.

Who is to say that our justice system should value the selective justice ideas of Aristotle/Plato over the absolute morality principles of Descartes and Leibniz? I have read both Aristotle and Plato (philosophy major) but respectfully do not agree with their views on morality and do not see how any of them have to do with the situation at hand. But with regard to your example concerning the child: yes, the child should be held accountable for his/her actions. Not necessarily put to death, but certainly punished by equal standards.

Regardless, Yates was fully aware of her actions, and should be punished as such.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: veggz
Who is to say that our justice system should value the selective justice ideas of Aristotle/Plato over the absolute morality principles of Descartes and Leibniz? I have read both Aristotle and Plato (philosophy major) but respectfully do not agree with their views on morality and do not see how any of them have to do with the situation at hand. But with regard to your example concerning the child: yes, the child should be held accountable for his/her actions. Not necessarily put to death, but certainly punished by equal standards.

Regardless, Yates was fully aware of her actions, and should be punished as such.

Wow that is quite harsh. Your social ideal though would not work in a democratic system, because punishing the young or indigant is looked down upon in a democratic society, and would cause too much social unrest.

Even Descarte and Kant would have agreed that social order is the key to the Law, and if punishing a totally ignorant child with the same punishment as a person who premeditates the crime throws a democratic society into socially disorder, the only two ways of dealing with this are change the social structure (goodbye democracy) or change the laws to reflect the differents in consequence. Absolute moral principles are vital in both systems. Plato's Laws reveres the code of ethics, and stresses the unchanging value of laws and consequence. But such a strict view on what the consequence for one type of crime is misguided (Plato, I feel was misguided in this aspect, too).

Premeditation should have different consequences than childlike innocence. I am glad you aren't a judge if you think otherwise, because that would be scary. That would mean that the punishment that a baby child in a grocery that just grabs a piece of candy and eats it without the parents knowing should get the same punishment as a shoplifter who premeditates the crime. I totally disagree with that logic. Mind you, both are guilty (absolute morality is important to maintain law), but the punishment should fit the actions and the motives.

But I do agree Yates was guilty and should have been punished, now I am unsure as to where exactly on the line of consequences she falls under is though, because she obviously premeditated it as well. 20 years to Life in a minimum security prison with counseling would have been what I would have thought was justified.

This is a great topic to discuss BTW.

 

[FeuerFrei]

Just because one can rationalize killing their kids in their sick and twisted mind doesn't mean they are insane. Humans can rationalize anything they want to do without being insane. AND one should not considered insane just because she murdered her children. Too many look at what she did and think ... "She must be insane." No, she's obviously rational. Just because you can't imagine how someone could kill their kids doesn't mean they are insane.

Who cares what she was thinking, she slaughtered her kids, ergo she deserves to die. Mulitple deaths preferably.

And NO, her husband is not responsible for leaving his "clinically disturbed" wife to care for his kids. It's normal everday people that end up killing and those closest never see it coming. You just can't read a persons heart and know what they are capable of or what's brewing inside them. You can only read their heart by their actions, and then sometimes it's too late to prepare yourself.

 

[tcsenter]

If you follow this line of thinking, then the doctors who evaluated the woman should be thrown in jail for not having her institutionalized. The husband did not know she was going to kill all the children, the doctors did not know, nobody knew. She is insane and her behavior was unpredictable.

Right, that's why at least one of her treating physicians advised her husband she was not well enough to have more children and should not be left to care for her children alone without adequate depression support (i.e. more than bringing a paycheck home or saying please when asking for another beer).

They never went back to that physician because the husband didn't want to hear that his wife was not able to carry more 'fruits of his loin' like a good Christian child-bearing woman should.

She was admitted to the hospital for acute mental illness more than once. Being well enough to leave a hospital doesn't mean well enough to resume normal responsibilities as though there were never an illness to begin with, especially if there is a spouse present who can provide adequate domestic and depression support (i.e. more than bringing home a paycheck or saying please when asking for another beer).

The exact behavior or consequence need not be predicted, the standard is a reasonably foreseeable risk of serious harm. e.g. leaving a loaded unsecured firearm within reach of children

One need not predict that a child will accidentally shoot himself or another resulting in serious injury or death. It is enough that a risk of serious harm resulting from a child gaining access to a loaded unsecured firearm be reasonably foreseeable.

e.g. having more children with a woman who has a documented history of homicidal delusions, hallucinations, and severe depression, leaving her alone on a daily basis to care for F-I-V-E young children without adequate depression and domestic support in defiance of prior warnings by a treating mental health professional (and common sense)

Since you admit she was insane and thus not accountable for her own actions due to her inability to understand, appreciate, or control her actions, somebody should be held accountable for the preventable deaths of five children who were in the care of women with a known history of serious mental illness.

The only other person with legal and custodial obligations to the safety and welfare of those children is the father, who figgered if he could just get his wife busy enough rearing the fruit of his loins she wouldn't have no time for any of that depression and hallucinations.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Right, that's why at least one of her treating physicians advised her husband she was not well enough to have more children and should not be left to care for her children alone without adequate depression support (i.e. more than bringing a paycheck home or saying please when asking for another beer).

They never went back to that physician because the husband didn't want to hear that his wife was not able to carry more 'fruits of his loin' like a good Christian child-bearing woman should.

Seriously? I did not know that. That definitely makes him more culpable, but it doesn't lessen Andrea Yates responsibility in the least. She is still the one who premeditated it knowing it was wrong. She could have just as easily done something different if her "fundie" marriage was making her depressed. He probably deserves jailtime as well though.

Some people really need to think about what they believe before they blindly accept it (blind faith doesn't equal ignorant acceptance).

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: ValkyrieofHouston

Originally posted by: Feldenak
Methodically drowned her kids in the bathtub? The only kind of therapy she needs is the kind found strapped to an electric chair.

Well its a good thing that the Jury thinks otherwise.

I for one feel this country needs to work harder on helping those with severe mental illnesses and take them more seriously.

I think her husband is guiltier than sin for leaving his mentally ill wife to care for their children and is as much a killer of those kids. And he is sane, so he has no excuse

Ah yes, deflection towards the man....typical.

If the husband was the one that did it. 10 to 1 he would have been sentence to death.

 

[veggz]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: veggz
Who is to say that our justice system should value the selective justice ideas of Aristotle/Plato over the absolute morality principles of Descartes and Leibniz? I have read both Aristotle and Plato (philosophy major) but respectfully do not agree with their views on morality and do not see how any of them have to do with the situation at hand. But with regard to your example concerning the child: yes, the child should be held accountable for his/her actions. Not necessarily put to death, but certainly punished by equal standards.

Regardless, Yates was fully aware of her actions, and should be punished as such.

Wow that is quite harsh. Your social ideal though would not work in a democratic system, because punishing the young or indigant is looked down upon in a democratic society, and would cause too much social unrest.

Even Descarte and Kant would have agreed that social order is the key to the Law, and if punishing a totally ignorant child with the same punishment as a person who premeditates the crime throws a democratic society into socially disorder, the only two ways of dealing with this are change the social structure (goodbye democracy) or change the laws to reflect the differents in consequence. Absolute moral principles are vital in both systems. Plato's Laws reveres the code of ethics, and stresses the unchanging value of laws and consequence. But such a strict view on what the consequence for one type of crime is misguided (Plato, I feel was misguided in this aspect, too).

Premeditation should have different consequences than childlike innocence. I am glad you aren't a judge if you think otherwise, because that would be scary. That would mean that the punishment that a baby child in a grocery that just grabs a piece of candy and eats it without the parents knowing should get the same punishment as a shoplifter who premeditates the crime. I totally disagree with that logic. Mind you, both are guilty (absolute morality is important to maintain law), but the punishment should fit the actions and the motives.

But I do agree Yates was guilty and should have been punished, now I am unsure as to where exactly on the line of consequences she falls under is though, because she obviously premeditated it as well. 20 years to Life in a minimum security prison with counseling would have been what I would have thought was justified.

This is a great topic to discuss BTW.

Admittedly my post may have been a little ambiguous, as I do agree with many of the things you mention. My argument is that the so-deemed "mentally handicapped" (and also, at the risk of sounding heartless, children) be subject to the same code of morals that dictate the actions of normally functioning people within society.

That is to say, given identical circumstances I believe all members of society should be prosecuted under the same standards. The drowning of five children should demand an equivalent apportionment of justice, regardless of whether it was a fully competent man, a child, or Amanda Yates committing the crime.

The examples cited in your post are hardly comparable. Of course the crime committed by Yates should not be compared to a child "accidentally" killing another person; likewise, a child stealing a candy bar should not be compared with one who periodically plans and executes robberies. But yes, I think a child who devises a plan to steal a candy bar should face the same penalties as a full grown man committing the same crime (albeit there would be a rather disproportionate allotment of embarassment )

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Doesn't this set a precedent for excusing all sorts of PPD crimes as legal insanity?

Yup

not really. trial courts don't set precedents. the decisions usually aren't published and no other court has to follow. they're merely persuasive authority. and this was a finding of fact from a jury. not a ruling of law. you can't argue prior legal authority to the jury, iirc.


and she isn't getting off scott free. the only difference between her and death row RIGHT NEXT DOOR is that she won't have a prisoner number. she is going to spend the rest of her life at a maximum security state mental hospital.

 

[z42]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Doesn't this set a precedent for excusing all sorts of PPD crimes as legal insanity?

Yup

not really. trial courts don't set precedents. the decisions usually aren't published and no other court has to follow. they're merely persuasive authority. and this was a finding of fact from a jury. not a ruling of law. you can't argue prior legal authority to the jury, iirc.


and she isn't getting off scott free. the only difference between her and death row RIGHT NEXT DOOR is that she won't have a prisoner number. she is going to spend the rest of her life at a maximum security state mental hospital.

I think you missed the part of the article about her being evaluated to determine if she should be released.

edit for quote:
"Every year thereafter, a hearing before a judge or a jury will be held to decide whether she should be released into the community.

"The state is not going to be watching Andrea Yates," Owmby said. "This thing about her now being under supervision for the rest of her life is rather misleading."

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: z42

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Doesn't this set a precedent for excusing all sorts of PPD crimes as legal insanity?

Yup

not really. trial courts don't set precedents. the decisions usually aren't published and no other court has to follow. they're merely persuasive authority. and this was a finding of fact from a jury. not a ruling of law. you can't argue prior legal authority to the jury, iirc.


and she isn't getting off scott free. the only difference between her and death row RIGHT NEXT DOOR is that she won't have a prisoner number. she is going to spend the rest of her life at a maximum security state mental hospital.

I think you missed the part of the article about her being evaluated to determine if she should be released.

edit for quote:
"Every year thereafter, a hearing before a judge or a jury will be held to decide whether she should be released into the community.

"The state is not going to be watching Andrea Yates," Owmby said. "This thing about her now being under supervision for the rest of her life is rather misleading."

i don't expect her to recover. if she ever comes around to sanity the realization of what she's done will drive her insane again.

 

[episodic]

Now let a dad do that. . .

See what would happen . . .

Remember - men can't be depressed . . ..

 

[batmang]

hrmm.. i would think she would have gotten the death pentalty... thats whack.

 

[tcsenter]

The same argument could go like, "This girl who is a bad driver ran over a pedestrian, but it is not her fault because she is prone to bad driving behavior (although she knew talking on her phone while diving was bad)."

I'm going to chose talking on a cell phone while driving rather than not.

I'm going to chose having hallucinations and delusions rather than not.

Yeah...its the same. I am amazed it is 2006 and there continues to exist those who believe mental illness is something one decides to have on any given day, like deciding whether to have chicken v. beef for dinner. We are not talking about bad behavior or misconduct. We are talking about a documented history of serious mental disease or illness; hallucinations, delusions, homicidal and suicidal thoughts, and clinical depression (not defined as being 'bummed out, dude').

I suppose, then, it should come as no surprise that the legal standard of mental illness and insanity is only about 150 years behind current scientific and medical understanding. Imagine if the law's recognition of physical sciences were similarly behind current understanding:

Prosecutor: Your Honor, I motion to have all testimony and evidence relating to this supposed science of DNA be stricken from the record on the basis that it is the demonic work of the Occult, probably even witches.

Judge: Motion granted.

Prosecutor: I also motion to have Your Honor order the jury to disregard all such testimony and evidence in their deliberations about the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

Judge: So ordered.

Although, the fact that an insanity defense has been recognized in our law and jurisprudence for well over 100 years actually cuts against the arguments and logic of those opposed to the Yates verdict. Even with the abysmally deficient understanding of medical science and the grotesquely wrong notions of mental illness that existed 150 years ago, it was obvious to many that there existed diseases of the mind that render its victims powerless against its insidious influences and thus they ought not be held criminally responsible for their actions.

It would seem in some ways, ironically, that the knowledge and sophistication possessed by some 150 years ago vastly exceeded that possessed by some today, in spite of all our incredible advances in science and medicine. If Andrea Yates does not meet every rational and informed criteria for insanity, then nobody does nor ever will.

I'm betting that somewhere we have people who insist flies spontaneously generate from rancid meat. lol!

 

[T9D]

She needs to die either way. Insane or not she killed her kids and should be put to death herself.

 

[Number1]

veggz wrote:

"My argument is that the so-deemed "mentally handicapped" (and also, at the risk of sounding heartless, children) be subject to the same code of morals that dictate the actions of normally functioning people within society.

That is to say, given identical circumstances I believe all members of society should be prosecuted under the same standards. The drowning of five children should demand an equivalent apportionment of justice, regardless of whether it was a fully competent man, a child, or Amanda Yates committing the crime.

But yes, I think a child who devises a plan to steal a candy bar should face the same penalties as a full grown man committing the same crime (albeit there would be a rather disproportionate allotment of embarassment )"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You got to be kidding. You claim a 5 years old should be held to the same moral values as an adult? In this line of thinking this same youngster who slaps Kinden garden playmates should be convicted of assault, given a criminal record and then sent to jail. We would have to build jails for toddlers complete with playgrounds. Ridiculous.
Demented individuals who commit murder should be incarcerated for the rest of their life and treated for their illness. They can never be trusted again.
They should not be punished for doing something they did not know was wrong.

 

[episodic]

If a guy killed my kid - and let us say he was mentally ill - I would not give 2 cents about his illness. He would need to pay retribution in the maximum form.

 

[veggz]

Originally posted by: Number1
veggz wrote:

"My argument is that the so-deemed "mentally handicapped" (and also, at the risk of sounding heartless, children) be subject to the same code of morals that dictate the actions of normally functioning people within society.

That is to say, given identical circumstances I believe all members of society should be prosecuted under the same standards. The drowning of five children should demand an equivalent apportionment of justice, regardless of whether it was a fully competent man, a child, or Amanda Yates committing the crime.

But yes, I think a child who devises a plan to steal a candy bar should face the same penalties as a full grown man committing the same crime (albeit there would be a rather disproportionate allotment of embarassment )"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You got to be kidding. You claim a 5 years old should be held to the same moral values as an adult? In this line of thinking this same youngster who slaps Kinden garden playmates should be convicted of assault, given a criminal record and then sent to jail. We would have to build jails for toddlers complete with playgrounds. Ridiculous.
Demented individuals who commit murder should be incarcerated for the rest of their life and treated for their illness. They can never be trusted again.
They should not be punished for doing something they did not know was wrong.

Once again, this is not exactly a fair comparison. Charging a kindergartener who "slaps playmates around" with assault would be akin to pressing criminal charges after a routine barfight where nobody is hurt, i.e. it simply is not done. Would you charge a woman with assault if she slapped you due to an inappropriate remark?

Now if said kindergartener attacked his teacher with a weapon, yes, that would be assault. But how often does that happen?

Please keep in mind that small children are far less likely of premeditating and executing a serious crime, and stop with the ridiculous comparisons.