Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum Chat or Talk in the INReview Discussion Forum
 
register chat members links refer search home
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Politics & Government > Law > Andrea Yates Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
Search this Thread:
Pages (2): « 1 [2]    Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   
hazel_dragoneye
[Why Pink?] [Ignore User]

offline
Registered: Sep 2004
Local time: 06:21 AM
Location: Avalon where the Hippies play
Posts: 882

post #16  quote:

quote:
Phalaris said this in post #16 :


Mystic, you and I are living in a place and time where we don't have to bow to man's every demand and whim. Thank whatever you believe in that you were born in the US in the 20th century to a family without extreme religious beliefs and did not manage to entangle yourself later on in any such things.



I don't think that Andrea Yates drowned her children in a pool or bathtub because she was overwhelmed and had too many children. I believe that she was emotionally instable and killed her children because she was on a low key; meaning that she felt depressed about life and her children at that moment and wanted to kill them. She was on so many medications, horrible medications that increased her depression and illness.

However, I do think that she should go to jail because was guilty of the crime and knew exactly what she was doing at the time.
It maybe that she was manipulated by the Roman Catholic church to not use birth control and to have as many children as "God pleases" but I don't think that that is a plausible excuse to not use birth control. IF you are a strong woman and had an independent mind, you would use birth control and not let anyone else to you differently. If Andrea Yates is that stupid and lets her husband tell her how many children she should have, then she needs to leave him.
I think that women regardless of their religion, should think for themselves regarding child birth.


Old Post 07-28-2006 06:56 AM
Click here to Send hazel_dragoneye a Private Message Find more posts by hazel_dragoneye Add hazel_dragoneye to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore hazel_dragoneye REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Phalaris
Enthusiast

offline
Registered: Aug 2004
Local time: 10:21 PM
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 56

post #17  quote:

quote:
mystic said this in post #18 :

If we all defined this the way you obviously have...all murderers would be walking free under your definition. See, there's a reason why this term is legally defined.


It's obvious in your atypically noneloquent response that you have strong feelings on this topic. What may not be evident in my posts is that I have personal experience to understand what horrific things pregnancy can do to your mind. So I have strong feelings on this topic also. That could've been me, if childless-by-choice wasn't a choice, like it isn't for those who believe in the barbaric demands of literal readings of certain major religious texts of the world. I guess you live in a place where no one believes that stuff and no one suffers problems like those Andrea suffered as a result of the pregnancies she believed she had no choice but to have.

That must be a nice place, but back here on planet Earth, both of these things are real.

There's little point in arguing further but I will anyway.

We have a person who was in and out of mental institutions, on and off medications, with a history of violent visions and suicide attempts. Medical professionals accurately predicted total disaster if the Yates maintained their present course. Less than two months before the drownings, Andrea was a described as being a significant risk to herself and others. Yet, there she was, alone in a house with small children - less than two weeks after being taken off antipsychotics. I'm not a lawyer and I don't really give a rat's hind end what the legalese definitions are. The culpable party here is the person who left someone who should've been under medical treatment alone with the kids. What kind of moron would do that? We know, thanks to this tragedy, exactly what kind of moron would. His name is Rusty Yates.

If he had left his kids alone at Penn Station at midnight, the whole world would consider him to be an irresponsible, miserable excuse for a parent. So why doesn't anyone seem to think that leaving his kids alone with his wife was anything but irresponsible and dangerous? Rusty was not unaware of his wife's issues; in fact, just two days earlier, he had told the doctor that she wasn't doing better. Yet he left for work that morning thinking it was OK for his mentally troubled wife, who was doing poorly since recently being taken off some of her medications, to be left alone with the kids. That is criminal negligence as far as I'm concerned.

Do I have sympathy for Rusty, who had to bury his kids? Not a bit. The only sympathetic party here are the kids themselves. Andrea got into this mess by being weak-minded and Rusty is a blind fool, but given that he at least was able to hold down a job while his wife was in and out of psychiatric care, he's the closest thing to a responsible party in this household. Whether it was denial or stupidity that convinced him that Andrea, fresh out of the mental institution, should be at home alone with the kids, he left her there and left his kids in harm's way. Whether it was belief or mulish stubbornness that convinced him that having more kids was the right thing to do after the doctor told them not to, it was he who had not recently been under medical care and should've had been the one to make the responsible decision to stop.

See, that's the tricky thing about responsibility. Sometimes responsibility is not about who committed the action but about who could've, and should've, prevented the action. Whenever you are dealing with people who are not able to make rational, responsible decisions on their own, there should be someone, or some entity, in a position to be responsible for that individual. A parent is responsible for the actions of a minor. Rusty - particularly since he reportedly limited his wife's contact with the outside world - should've been responsible for her. Surely he had no idea that she was capable of killing the children - even I don't think that of him - but she was apparently at this time barely able to take care of her own personal hygiene and had no business looking after young children.

Son of Sam is probably not a good comparison, since I don't believe that he was left unattended with his victims by someone who was aware of his history and had the power to intervene.


Old Post 07-28-2006 07:22 AM
Click here to Send Phalaris a Private Message Find more posts by Phalaris Add Phalaris to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Phalaris REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
Invisible
InReview Thread Killer!

offline
Registered: Mar 2004
Local time: 12:21 AM
Location: My Own Little World...
Posts: 778

post #18  quote:

Forget jail. Fill up a tub, throw her a$$ in and hold her under. Let her feel what those kids felt as they looked up into their own mothers face and watched her take thier life for NO REASON! But instead of killing her with drowning, just hold her long enough to scare the hell out of her, and do that every single solitary day. THEN we'll talk about her being insane.

Edit: I'm sorry but I have 4 kids and there are times when I have felt like I wanted to run away and never come back. I just cannot justify killing your kids just cause your stressed out because you have too many. She wasn't the least bit insane (In my opinion. Your milage may vary). There were thousands of other options she could have taken. THOUSANDS.

I won't argue about this. It's how I feel and the second I saw that verdict I held all four of my kids and held on to them tight.


Old Post 07-28-2006 07:30 AM
Click here to Send Invisible a Private Message Visit Invisible's homepage! Find more posts by Invisible Add Invisible to your buddy list Send an AIM message to Invisible Send a Yahoo message to Invisible Click Here to Ignore Invisible REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
mystic
Evil Queen

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 12:21 AM
Location: In my castle
Posts: 13357

post #19  quote:

quote:
Phalaris said this in post #20 :


It's obvious in your atypically noneloquent response that you have strong feelings on this topic. What may not be evident in my posts is that I have personal experience to understand what horrific things pregnancy can do to your mind. So I have strong feelings on this topic also. That could've been me, if childless-by-choice wasn't a choice, like it isn't for those who believe in the barbaric demands of literal readings of certain major religious texts of the world. I guess you live in a place where no one believes that stuff and no one suffers problems like those Andrea suffered as a result of the pregnancies she believed she had no choice but to have.

I live in the real world as you do....what I do, is look at the fact at hand...the definition of insanity as is stated by our law. She didnt fit it...nothing else to argue. You cannot put yourself in her position because you didnt kill your kid. People suffer from depression, etc, everyday. Youre making excuses for something in which the facts and the definition dont coincide. Again, nothing to argue.

That must be a nice place, but back here on planet Earth, both of these things are real.

Real issues, yes...but again, the facts dont fit the plea. You know, if you said that it did to yourself long enough, I guess you would believe that, but regardless, it doesnt work. BTW...I live on earth...and I live in the real world, not some clouded version of what I interpret the world to be.

There's little point in arguing further but I will anyway.

I was thinking the same thing.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't really give a rat's hind end what the legalese definitions are.

And thats why we have losers running around on the streets because people like yourself dont give a rats patootie about the damn law. I care about the law because thats my life. We legally define things so that not everyone can use this plea and because if we didnt define it, we would say every murderer is insane and belongs in a mental institution.

I notice that you said I cannot use the Son of Sam in this case, but I can...because as you say, you dont care about the legal definition of insanity...and Berkowitz, under your perception of the definition, should also be in a hospital. For that matter all murderers should. he had issues too...why is he different in your view now? Because you didnt experience his feelings. Give me a break.



The culpable party here is the person who left someone who should've been under medical treatment alone with the kids. What kind of moron would do that? We know, thanks to this tragedy, exactly what kind of moron would. His name is Rusty Yates.

Funny, unless you were living in that house...Im not sure you are an expert on Rusty Yates. You say she had issues after the 4th kid...but I didnt see her killing those 4 kids. The doctors took her off the meds....not her husband. Last time I looked, he wasnt medically trained .

If he had left his kids alone at Penn Station at midnight, the whole world would consider him to be an irresponsible, miserable excuse for a parent. So why doesn't anyone seem to think that leaving his kids alone with his wife was anything but irresponsible and dangerous? Rusty was not unaware of his wife's issues; in fact, just two days earlier, he had told the doctor that she wasn't doing better. Yet he left for work that morning thinking it was OK for his mentally troubled wife, who was doing poorly since recently being taken off some of her medications, to be left alone with the kids. That is criminal negligence as far as I'm concerned.

So, put him in jail and put her on a pedestal??? Were you there? Maybe she looked fine that morning. Maybe she told him that she was fine and told him to leave. Unless you know the conversation in that house from that time until the MURDERS, then you are only taking a partial bit of something and turning it into some story that you conjured up.

Do I have sympathy for Rusty, who had to bury his kids? Not a bit.

Thats obvious, and yet so sad and pathetic that you would even say that

Surely he had no idea that she was capable of killing the children - even I don't think that of him - but she was apparently at this time barely able to take care of her own personal hygiene and had no business looking after young children.

You say that he could have never thought she was capable, but you find him in your mind to be criminally negligent??? Wow, what a completely massive contradiction you just threw out. Then again, if you say she should be free after murdering her children then why do I find it shocking that you would say he had no idea she could do this, yet find him to be worthy of jail time.

Son of Sam is probably not a good comparison, since I don't believe that he was left unattended with his victims by someone who was aware of his history and had the power to intervene.

Im not talking about Rusty Yates...Im talking about insanity, and your choosing of deinfitions to suit you.

Its obvious that I lost you in the analogy. The point was, and you said it yourself, you dont care about the laws and its definitions, you are choosing to use the definitions at your convenience....AND since that is unrealisitic, and you can only choose one way to apply it. Since you applied insanity as a convenient law for Mrs. Yates, then you have to afford that same law to everyone else.

I am sitting here wondering why I am arguing with someone who is interpreting the law in this bizarre type of way. If you dont care about the laws and cant even interpret our laws, then how can you argue the law? This is the result of your argument? A few unoriginal Rusty Yates stories combined with some personal unrelated and different episodes that you and Andrea Yates shared, and voila, a new law is born? Or should I say unlaw, since the law you have argued doesnt exist.




Last edited by mystic on 07-28-2006 at 09:15 AM |
Old Post 07-28-2006 08:50 AM
Click here to Send mystic a Private Message Find more posts by mystic Add mystic to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore mystic REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
mystic
Evil Queen

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 12:21 AM
Location: In my castle
Posts: 13357

post #20  quote:

quote:
Heavens11 said this in post #23 :
Listening to the trial and closing arguments, both the prosecution and defense agreed that she knew that what she did was illegal. The defense, however, argued that her insanity led her to drown her children because she believed she was saving them from going to hell.


I wonder, who is now going to save her from going there herself?

Well....the fact that they agreed that she knew what she was doing was illegal, makes it a moot case for pleading insanity...but thats neither here nor there anymore since its all been said and done by some loopy jury.


Old Post 07-28-2006 07:47 PM
Click here to Send mystic a Private Message Find more posts by mystic Add mystic to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore mystic REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Diamond Member
Lawless
All About Brad!

offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 10:21 PM
Location: Freezing in Colorado
Posts: 27144

post #21  quote:

How can ANYONE release a person who killed her children?

Old Post 07-28-2006 08:16 PM
Click here to Send Lawless a Private Message View Lawless's Journal Visit Lawless's homepage! Find more posts by Lawless Add Lawless to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Lawless REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
HECK!
Bluto

offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 10:21 PM
Location: Delta House
Posts: 17648

post #22  quote:

If it would have been the father he would be cooking eggs in his lap while on the electric chair.

I don't see how on Earth this perversion of justice can be tolerated.

-HECK!


Old Post 07-28-2006 08:51 PM
Click here to Send HECK! a Private Message View HECK!'s Journal Find more posts by HECK! Add HECK! to your buddy list Send an AIM message to HECK! Reply w/Quote

Diamond Member
Lawless
All About Brad!

offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 10:21 PM
Location: Freezing in Colorado
Posts: 27144

post #23  quote:

He SHOULD take her back. I don't care if she KNEW that it was wrong. She still MURDERED her children.

Damn... if I go up to our boxes of snacks here at work, and I take something without paying for it, I KNOW that I'm doing wrong. If I still take it, and don't put money in, then I've commited a crime. It might not be something like murder... but if you willingly break the law, you should HAVE TO pay the consequences.


Old Post 07-28-2006 10:32 PM
Click here to Send Lawless a Private Message View Lawless's Journal Visit Lawless's homepage! Find more posts by Lawless Add Lawless to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore Lawless REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Gold Member
mystic
Evil Queen

offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 12:21 AM
Location: In my castle
Posts: 13357

post #24  quote:

quote:
HECK! said this in post #27 :
If it would have been the father he would be cooking eggs in his lap while on the electric chair.

I don't see how on Earth this perversion of justice can be tolerated.

-HECK!


How correct you are!


quote:
Heavens11 said this in post #28 :
Well, there are still the other two children with which to contend (this trial was only on three of the five). The Harris County District Attorney has stated he may very well take her back to court.


I said earlier that I hoped they would do this. I think they should. I think if they take her to court for the older children it might be harder for a jury to sympathize with her. The fight that the oldest put up with...well, I cant even imagine what he went through.


quote:
Lawless said this in post #29 :
if you willingly break the law, you should HAVE TO pay the consequences.


Absolutely!


Old Post 07-28-2006 11:24 PM
Click here to Send mystic a Private Message Find more posts by mystic Add mystic to your buddy list Click Here to Ignore mystic REPORT this Post to a ModeratorNOMINATE this Post for Reward Points Reply w/Quote

Staff
gaboman
What Would Jack Do?

offline
Registered: Aug 2003
Local time: 02:21 PM
Location: The land, the land down under.
Posts: 12701

post #25  quote:

quote:
Heavens11 said this in post #28 :
Well, there are still the other two children with which to contend (this trial was only on three of the five). The Harris County District Attorney has stated he may very well take her back to court.
Unfortunately, with her being found not-guilty for reason of insanity, she has a good chance of being found "unfit to stand trial."

This chick should definitely get her fricken tubes tied, whether she's in prison, hospital or whatever.


Old Post 07-31-2006 07:23 AM
Click here to Send gaboman a Private Message Find more posts by gaboman Add gaboman to your buddy list Reply w/Quote
Time: 06:21 AM Post New Thread   
Pages (2): « 1 [2]    Print Version | Email Page | Bookmark | Subscribe to Thread
INReview INReview > The Scuttlebutt Lounge > Politics & Government > Law > Andrea Yates Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
Search this Thread:
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
Forum Policies Explained
 
Rate This Thread:

< >

Copyright 2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.25401998 seconds (94.36% PHP - 5.64% MySQL) with 46 queries.

ADS

© 2013, INReview.com.   Popular Forums  All Forums   Web Hosting and Web Design by Psyphire.
INReview.com: Back to Home