Andrea Yate's Murder Convictions Overturned

[crozby 0]

Quote

Justice is about protecting the rest of us from known threats, it's not about punishing the criminal, or closure for the victims, or rehab, or other self congratulatory social experimentation or touchy feely aspects.

Is it? Then why do relatives of the dead get to sit in on executions? Why do 80% of US prisoners get abused? Why do mentally ill people end up getting put in prisons when it should be apparant to everyone who understands that mental illness is an illness that prison isn't likely to help.

[crozby 0]

Quote

She is a danger. You said that counsiling and medication MIGHT help.

So shouldn't she be managed in an environment where it can be checked that she sticks to her medication, rather than put in jail with a bunch of criminals?

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

I think that is probably a bit extreme given the nature of the illness she was suffering. As long as she is prevented from having children she should not be a danger to anyone.

Would you want her to be anywhere near your children?

Mental illness can cause a lot of strange behavior, but many with mental illness do stop taking their meds due to the feeling of not being themselves, being pharmaceutically altered. It isn't uncommon for this to happen.

She needs to be in a psych facility permanently, not in jail, I agree with that.

I also think her husband should be held partly responsible for reproducing though the court advised against it then leaving her alone with the kids knowing she's a nut case.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

If she is insane, why should she be punished for it? Insanity isn't a choice, it is an illness isn't it?

She is a danger. You said that counsiling and medication MIGHT help.

She has killed 5 of her own children. She is insane, she should never be free again.

Her walking the streets is a risk we are putting on society as a whole. The cost of being wrong is she kills another.

She is already an ACE.

I agree with Ron

Meds only can only work for people take them and even then not for everyone.
Counseling is only as good as the counselor and the patients ability to be receptitive to treatment
The women had a safety net, her husband who

The question as I see it is what do we do with the mentally ill in this country treat them as criminals, wharehouse them with criminals or treat them in a more human way.

Yes she did the deed and can do it againduring way back in the day the mentally ill were thrown in a dungeon and treated like animals.

Thats where we 're headed or already there.

How do the europeons treat their mentally ill/criminally insane?

R.I.P.

[wmw999 2,545]

Andrea Yates deserves a new trial; but even her lawyer doesn't think she should get out, just that her insanity should be acknowledged. She was not guilty by reason of insanity -- but the insanity MUST be treated.

She's interned; within the last year she's been sent to the hospital because she wasn't eating. She's still extremely depressed, not always responsive, and barely able to participate in normal life when she is.

With a different life and husband, she'd most likely be a somewhat emotionally fragile fully-functional nurse. That's how she started. But when you take someone who's emotionally fragile, and tell them that there's ONE RIGHT WAY to do things or they and their children are going to hell, and assure them that all normal people can do this easily, and add to that the kind of massive hormonal/chemical imbalance that post partum depression and psychosis are, and you end up with this kind of situation.

Take a seriously disordered thought process, and add to it that
a. innocents go to heaven
b. if I keep raising them they will no longer be innocent -- I am a bad mother
c. going to heaven is the most important thing
and you can see where this is the most awful consequence. Not evil, just really really fucked up.

She had no business having that many kids. They were instructed not to have more. If their lives hadn't been so tied up in a "many kids - go to God - we can take care of our needs" way of life, they might have heeded that advice.

And as far as living with that many kids on one salary -- I know the neighborhood they lived in. It's entirely possible.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ron 10]

Quote

So shouldn't she be managed in an environment where it can be checked that she sticks to her medication, rather than put in jail with a bunch of criminals?

In case you missed it...She is a Criminal. So she belongs with criminals.

She is insane. That is not a crime. Killing 5 children IS a crime. Insane or not, she is also a criminal and a threat.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Michele 1]

If understanding right and wrong is missing due to a brain disease, is it still a crime?

This is an enlightening thread. Sad, but enlightening. So many people are not willing to understand what happens with a brain disease...that's sad.

She should be placed in a facility where she can get treatment...not jailed. Treated. The depth of her brain disease is such that she will likely never be released from it, as she will probably always pose a threat to self or others; but I'd rather see her in a place where treatment can be received rather than just shut away.

Sigh.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Ron 10]

Quote

I agree with Ron

Only hurts the first time.

Quote

The question as I see it is what do we do with the mentally ill in this country treat them as criminals, wharehouse them with criminals or treat them in a more human way.

Mentally ill people we try to help. Mentally ill people who commit crimes we punish for committing those crimes.

Do the crime, do the time. One could argue that Hitler was insane and therfore not responsible for his actions....To those people I say "I don't care, he was a criminal".

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

If understanding right and wrong is missing due to a brain disease, is it still a crime?

Are the kids still dead?

How hard is it to grasp the concept of do a crime do the time?

Mental problems or not, she commited a crime. Having a mental hang up is not a free pass.

Quote

So many people are not willing to understand what happens with a brain disease...that's sad.

I understand exactly the process and results of a brain disease. However she still killed 5 kids.

Would you let Hitler off?

Quote

She should be placed in a facility where she can get treatment...not jailed. Treated. The depth of her brain disease is such that she will likely never be released from it, as she will probably always pose a threat to self or others; but I'd rather see her in a place where treatment can be received rather than just shut away.

And if she did get healed....Would you let her loose? Or whould she got o jail?

She should never be in society again. She is insane and has killed 5 small helpless children. No matter how you color it she is a criminal.

I wish people would stop using excuses in this country.

She IS a criminal. She DID murder her children. Insane or not that makes her a criminal.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Justice is about protecting the rest of us from known threats, it's not about punishing the criminal, or closure for the victims, or rehab, or other self congratulatory social experimentation or touchy feely aspects.

Is it? Then why do relatives of the dead get to sit in on executions? Why do 80% of US prisoners get abused? Why do mentally ill people end up getting put in prisons when it should be apparant to everyone who understands that mental illness is an illness that prison isn't likely to help.

1 - as I said - it's extra stuff for those that like to complicate things.

2 - If you are mentally disturbed and commit a crime - you still should be evaluated as a further threat based on your actions. As a second issue, treat the disease. Two things. Don't make it one thing.

so - A - relatives watch executions - side benefit, but it surely doesn't do anything non-subjective and I believe is a bad idea. OK, they just watched someone get killed. Guess what? The crime still happened.

B - Prisoners get abused - has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but I suspect there are bad people abusing them. They (the bad people - I don't want flamed for a misread) should reap the consequenses of their actions.

C - Mentally ill people get put in prison - because they break a law and are deemed likely to break it again. Again, we can still treat them. And if a treatment center does the same thing as pull them from society and the risk of further law breaking, that's preferable to me and likely more efficient with the tax dollars.

Edit: Of course you deleted the answer to your question in the reply - "The other stuff is side effects for those can't understand this. "

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[crozby 0]

Quote

Do the crime, do the time. One could argue that Hitler was insane and therfore not responsible for his actions....To those people I say "I don't care, he was a criminal".

If someone has a stroke driving their car, blacks out and crashes killing 5 people would you think them a criminal? I'm guessing not.

Why does it suddenly become a crime when the brain malfunction is caused by something less well understood by the general public, like a particular kind of mental illness for example?

People don't understand mental illness and that makes them scared of it and because of that mentally ill people suffer prejudice and injustice.

Here in the UK mentally ill people who are considered a danger to themselves or others are held in secure facilities. They are not dumped in with the general prison population.

[Keith 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I've never understood why her husband was never held accountable. If anyone deserves jail time, it's him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What was he going to do? Seralize her against her and her husbands will?

Huh??????? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer as if you read my response wrong. He (her husband) should have stopped having unprotected sex for one. If you've heard any of his interviews, you'd know he knew what was going on with her and did nothing about it except keep impregnating her. In my view he's more responsible than Andrea.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If someone has a stroke driving their car, blacks out and crashes killing 5 people would you think them a criminal? I'm guessing not.

He would certainly be charged with manslaughter and then evaluated as to whether it could happen again. If it is determined it could, then something needs to be done, from simply taking away his license to maybe jail time.

Alcoholism is a disease, replace stroke with driving drunk and tell me what you think.

Keith: Andrea is responsible for her actions - killing 5 children. The husband is responsible for what he did to Andrea - and he should have to answer for it - I definitely agree there. It's two different things, there is no such thing as a "more responsible" type of issue.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[crozby 0]

Quote

Edit: Of course you deleted the answer to your question in the reply - "The other stuff is side effects for those can't understand this. "

i guess i find it hard to believe they are all side effects because there are so many of them.

for example if punishment is not the objective and only protection is, how do you explain locking up a minor offender for 3 months - is it to protect the rest of us for 3 months only, or is it a punishment to deter the offender from doing it again?

if it is the latter, then by locking up mentally ill people the system is suggesting that they can be made safer, or less mentally ill, by locking them up. which is simply not true.

[Ron 10]

Quote

If someone has a stroke driving their car, blacks out and crashes killing 5 people would you think them a criminal? I'm guessing not

You guessed wrong. They would be charged with manslaughter and go to trial. At that trial a decision would be made as to if they were a danger, if it was intentional...ect.

A verdict would be read and a punishment (Or lack of) would be done.

Don't confuse a medical condition that rendered someone unconscious to a premeditated murder.

Quote

Why does it suddenly become a crime when the brain malfunction is caused by something less well understood by the general public, like a particular kind of mental illness for example?

It did not suddenly become a crime....Murder is murder. One could argue that anyone that kills another person is insane. Should we let any killer go? How about a rapist that was molested as a child...Is he a criminal?

Yes he is.

Would you have let Hitler off?

Quote

People don't understand mental illness and that makes them scared of it and because of that mentally ill people suffer prejudice and injustice.

I understand it...I also understand a criminal act. I am not saying take a person who is depressed and throw them in jail...I am saying take a person who commited a crime and punish them for the crime. I don't see a mental issue as a free pass to murder someone.

As Rehmwa said alcoholism is a disease, but we throw folks in jail for driving drunk.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Huh??????? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer as if you read my response wrong. He (her husband) should have stopped having unprotected sex for one. If you've heard any of his interviews, you'd know he knew what was going on with her and did nothing about it except keep impregnating her. In my view he's more responsible than Andrea.

He did not kill his kids, she did.

While I would not vote him dad of the year, he didn't kill the kids.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Michele 1]

Andrea Yates had a record (very long) of significant mental illness. A brain disease. She had been treated and diagnosed. Her illness isn't simply "depression" but rather Post Partum Psychosis, Schitzophrenia with psychotic breaks, and something else (iirc.)

She cannot be held as responsible as you or I would be. The murders were not "premeditated" as you or I would premeditate them.

Brain disease is real. It's effects are real. It's prognosis is real. It's treatment is uncertain, but steps can be taken to minimize the symptoms for the most part.

The attitudes I'm seeing here are horrifying. She is sick. End of story. She cannot be held to the same standards you or I would be. It's not an excuse...it's not something to foist off the responsibility.

Ron, you don't like the stroke analogy. How about this one. You have diabetes, and you go into diabetic coma. You are flying a plane at the time. You lose control of the plane and crash it. Somehow, you survive but all your passengers die. Should you be held to the same standards as others who do so with malicious intent? Who do it with an evil, black heart?

And I'm invoking Godwin's rule here, too.

I get that most people don't understand brain disease. I really understand that most people just don't understand what happens when the chemicals in the brain start doing funky things. What I dislike is that there is no intent to understand that at all.

But such is society. Such is a fear based reaction to a brain disease.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[crozby 0]

Quote

Alcoholism is a disease, replace stroke with driving drunk and tell me what you think.

its a tricky one that, but i think the two cases have to be treated differently because in one the person has fore-knowlege of their condition and so is able to take precautions.

a similar issue: here in the uk we occasionally get really old people who are a bit senile getting in their car, driving the wrong way up dual carriageways, sometimes crashing into oncoming traffic, sometimes with terrible consequences.

would you jail a senile wrinkley for that, or would you take away their driving license and make sure they get the care they obviously require?

[Ron 10]

Quote

She cannot be held as responsible as you or I would be. The murders were not "premeditated" as you or I would premeditate them.

Bull shit, she still choose to kill them. Like I said I think anyone that kills someone is sick in the head. That does not mean I don't think they are guilty of a crime.

Simple fact, she killed her children.

Quote

Brain disease is real. It's effects are real. It's prognosis is real. It's treatment is uncertain, but steps can be taken to minimize the symptoms for the most part.

Like I said is a rapist guilty of rape if he was molested as a child? Is an alcoholic guilty if he gets drunk and kills someone? Was Hitler guilty of genocide?

Please answer how these are different than this?

Quote

The attitudes I'm seeing here are horrifying. She is sick

She is also a murderer...End of Story.

Quote

She cannot be held to the same standards you or I would be. It's not an excuse...it's not something to foist off the responsibility.

You say two opposite things in the same sentance.

She can be held responsible. She did it.

To say otherwise is using a mental illness as an an excuse.

Quote

Ron, you don't like the stroke analogy. How about this one. You have diabetes, and you go into diabetic coma. You are flying a plane at the time. You lose control of the plane and crash it. Somehow, you survive but all your passengers die. Should you be held to the same standards as others who do so with malicious intent? Who do it with an evil, black heart?

Yes. If I fly knowing I might go into a Coma I would be guilty of neglect. I would be charged. I don't use diabeties as an excuse.

Quote

I get that most people don't understand brain disease. I really understand that most people just don't understand what happens when the chemicals in the brain start doing funky things. What I dislike is that there is no intent to understand that at all.

But such is society. Such is a fear based reaction to a brain disease

You always say that but you don't know what I do or don't know.

A mental disease is not an excuse to kill and get away with it.

I am still waiting to hear what you say about Hitler. Most think he was insane...Was he guilty?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Mentally ill people we try to help. Mentally ill people who commit crimes we punish for committing those crimes.

Ron,

What if a blind person crosses the street at a pedestrian crossing, but since he can't see crosses at a red light.....Would you be in favour if giving this person a ticket?

[masterrig 1]

I heard on the news this morning, that Andrea Yates, has been on 'medication'. Her mother had visited her shortly after being put on medication and Andrea asked her mother; "Who's taking care of the children?. Her defense lawyer is trying to claim now, that Andrea had watched a television series, where a mother had drowned her child... due to 'post-partum depression'. That Andrea's 'viewing' the show, put a 'thought' in her mind while suffering 'post-partum depression'. The woman is a brick shy of a full load and needs to be kept out of society!

Chuck

[Michele 1]

Quote

Yes. If I fly knowing I might go into a Coma I would be guilty of neglect. I would be charged. I don't use diabeties as an excuse.

So you agree, you wouldn't be guilty of murder. Just neglect. So you do allow separate standards.

It's cool. It's also really enlightening.

Quote

Like I said is a rapist guilty of rape if he was molested as a child? Is an alcoholic guilty if he gets drunk and kills someone? Was Hitler guilty of genocide?

Please answer how these are different than this?

I'll try. (But I'm not going to discuss Hitler...Goodwin's law and all that).

A rapist is guilty because he has made the choice, with sanity and with intention, to rape someone. The same with the alcoholic. He made the choice to go to the bar, get behind the wheel, and drive.

What people don't really understand at all is that with mental illness, the choice becomes different. Your illness affects your pancreas, the insulin/sugar regulating part of your body. It's a part that you need to keep working correctly, or supplement the chemical output, to be functioning mostly normally, right?

Well, brain disease affects the part of our body which creates thought, decision, emotion. The same way that diabetes affects the body's ability to create sugar controls, brain disease affects the ability to think the same way "normal" people do. The thoughts are different. Very different sometimes. This is a trackable issue. Neurological studies have shown far different reactions to things while the subject is involved in a psychotic break than normal. It's quantifiable. It's "provable", the same way a sugar test demonstrates high or low sugar.

I don't expect you to be convinced, especially by me (who you already have a low opinion of.). I do wish you'd look at the issue with an open mind...and see the differences and acknowledge them as real.

Quote

Simple fact, she killed her children.

Do you think it's important to understand why? Or just "she killed them, off with her head!" You already acknowledge that you'd expect a separate standard if it were your medical issues that caused the death of others...why not her?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Ron 10]

Quote

What if a blind person crosses the street at a pedestrian crossing, but since he can't see crosses at a red light.....Would you be in favour if giving this person a ticket?

Good question. Really good. In fact the best comparison yet.

Yes, I would give him a ticket. He broke the law. Being blind is not an excuse for breaking the law. Now I would not shoot him on the spot, but we don't shoot jaywalkers anyway. The judge would then have a chance to decide what punishment if any the blind guy should recieve.

See he is a danger to himself and you and I. If I swerve to miss him and crash is it his fault or mine?

What if the blind guy says "I am blind I will do as I please since it's not my fault". Would you accept that? Knowing he could do it again since he saw no reason why it was wrong, do you think that he should be allowed to do as he pleases no matter the risk it will put on you and I?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wmw999 2,545]

Quote

Her defense lawyer is trying to claim now, that Andrea had watched a television series, where a mother had drowned her child... due to 'post-partum depression'. That Andrea's 'viewing' the show, put a 'thought' in her mind while suffering 'post-partum depression'.

Misinformation. Actually, at her trial, the attorney for the prosecution (who also consults for "Law and Order") said that episode had just been shown, and that the mother had "gotten away with it."

Actually, "Law and Order" never had such an episode. He might have misremembered, or made it up. Either way, that's why the mistrial now, because that, a complete falsehood, was used as part of her basis of conviction.

She is several bricks shy of a full load now. No one is trying to put her straight back into society, just make sure that she won't go to prison, but where she is treated psychiatrically.

Sometimes when children are severely molested and abused when they are young, they are incapable of becoming normal human beings. They should be isolated from society, and treated. But they never had a chance of being normal.

Just as some people are blonde and others black-haired, and some physically strong and others born with CP, some people are more resilient than others emotionally. It's just the way it is. We don't blame the guy with CP for being weak, do we? We also tend not to see him as a competitor at the Olympics in weightlifting -- it's not in his skill set. Such is life. Not always fair, but blaming the victim doesn't make us stronger or better.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ron 10]

Quote

So you agree, you wouldn't be guilty of murder

No it would be murder. But don't confuse a medical condition that made it so I passed and was unable to do anything with a active roll in killing someone.

She didn't not save her kids, or pass out and them die of neglect. she choose to kill them. She made an effort to kill them, don't confuse being knocked out with actively killing them.

Quote

I'll try. (But I'm not going to discuss Hitler...Goodwin's law and all that).

That is a lame attempt to avoid answering a question that would condem your argument. Would you charge Hitler with his crimes, or let him go? If you don't feel like answering that don't both answering me again.

Quote

A rapist is guilty because he has made the choice, with sanity and with intention, to rape someone

No, I said what if the guy had a mental problem due to being molested as a child...If he had documented evidence of mental problems and the manifestation of those problems was he felt a need to rape, would you let him off the hoook for his crime?

Quote

The same with the alcoholic. He made the choice to go to the bar, get behind the wheel, and drive.

But alcoholism is a mental disease? Its not his fault he was abused and turned to alcohol. We knew he had the problem, but he could just not stop drinking...so is it his fault? If he runs over a kid when he is drunk is that his fault?

Quote

The same with the alcoholic. He made the choice to go to the bar, get behind the wheel, and drive.

And Andrea made the choice to kill all 5 of her kids in the tub. She made a choice just like the alcoholic did. They both had mental problems that made it so they made that choice. But they are both still guilty.

Quote

What people don't really understand at all is that with mental illness, the choice becomes different

You keep acing like we don't have the knowledge you do. you are wrong. I just don't see a mental problem as an excuse to commit a crime.

Quote

I don't expect you to be convinced, especially by me (who you already have a low opinion of.).

Who said I have a low opinon of you? I don't agree with you, but that is not the same. Dont' confuse me not agreeing with you with not liking you. I don't know you, so I can't make a choice if I like you or not. I can say I don't agree with you. Please try and keep the two seperate.

Quote

I do wish you'd look at the issue with an open mind...and see the differences and acknowledge them as real.

You keep saying that. I do know the differences. I just don't buy that a person with a mental problem should not pay for the crimes they commit.

Quote

Do you think it's important to understand why? Or just "she killed them, off with her head!" You already acknowledge that you'd expect a separate standard if it were your medical issues that caused the death of others...why not her?

She mad e achoice to kill her kids. Is a guy that drank to much and shoots someone in anger able to claim that he was not in his right mind when he did it?

Alcohol changes the way the brain thinks. Bad ideas seem to be good ideas. But I bet if I got pissed tonight and took a gun and shot someone I would not get off casue I was drunk.

But I was not able to think clearly since my thought process was changed due to the alcohol. Same thing. I would still be guilty, just like she is.

To say it was due to the alcohol while maybe true...Is still no excuse.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334