Of course you are insane if you kill 5 of your children. If you were sane and did that then you should be put in a mental institution. Justice system muffs it again.
Weird thing is her husband was all "yeah she's crazy, the mental institution is the way to go" i woulda been all "JAIL, SEND HER TO JAIL."
"I'm looking for love. Real love. Ridiculous, inconvenient, consuming, can't-live-without-each-other love." - Carrie Bradshaw
"The danger of an adventure is worth a thousand days of ease and comfort" - Paulo Coehlo
Live your life like it's your last day on earth
Life is not how many breaths you take, but how many moments take your breath away.
HECK! said this in post #8 : Put him on trial because she kept getting pregnant? That led to stress which made her committ murder? Maybe in Bizarro world.
She could have gone on the pill, had her tubes tied, left him, make him wear a condom, whatever.
Finger pointing poopola that is.
-HECK!
Wow, you really do need to google this topic. Do you think people who follow religions like the religion that Rusty Yates followed use birth control? Or let their wife make important decisions?
Remember the guy who made his wife and several children live in a small, crowded bus, because of the "teachings" of the religious freaks that he followed - and introduced his wife to? That he only moved her out of said bus and into a normal house at the desperate behest of her family? The same idiot who left his wife, who had had a psychotic break after the birth of child #4, had been institutionalized and was on medication, in charge of small children? Not only that, despite the doctor telling him that having any more children would be very dangerous for his wife (because people who suffer severe issues like this after childbirth are very likely to have recurrences if they have more children) off he went in his quest to "have as many children as god would allow?"
At that point, Andrea Yates was not in a position to be making responsible choices. The people who should have cared about her - and been caring for her - made the wrong choices for her. The guy left her alone with five young children despite her well-demonstrated mental state at the time. He is the one who is responsible for what happened to those children, since he was the party involved who still had some mental capacity for making responsible choices. Andrea Yates should not have been left home in charge of house plants. She was a wreck because she believed in his religion, had duly borne all the children he could impregnate her with while following it, and had was suffering very real psychiatric issues as a result of both.
Is "inflicting emotional abuse" actually a crime? I'll have to look that one up. The guy's a dink, that's for sure, but the woman herself had a responsibility to the children she bore. If he made her insane, then there was a point where she was completely aware of what was going on around her, and she just decided to go with the flow anyway...
I have to agree that she's insane though. I mean, a sane person usually doesn't drown kids. Adults, perhaps, but not kids.
"I'm for it so we can put Nuclear power plants up there, and then beam the power back to earth on a laser beam." ~ Whidden
First off...I dont care what religion someone is...if a woman doesnt want to get pregnant, then she shouldnt and should open her mouth and say something. Women arent living in the day where we bow to our men anymore. So, to whomever, spare me the speech about that b.s.
The fact remains that we dont put someone on trial for fathering a child.
They charged her for three out of the five...I say put her back on trial and charge her with the other two...especially the oldest one...you know, the one that fought tooth and nail to stay alive but lost out in the end.
It makes me sick to think that this woman is only getting hospital time and will never truly pay for the crimes she committed.
Rusty Yates didnt kill his children.
Phalaris...no offense..but you seem to be blaming everyone else BUT Andrea Yates. Every murderer always has a sob story to tell. Should we have let all of them go and put their family members or whomever on trial because they did the murderer wrong? No..we put the murderers away.
The fact remains that the insanity plea means that the persons state of mind at the time of the crime made it impossible for that person to have necessary intent that would satisfy the legal definition of their crime. They had to NOT know right from wrong at THAT time. The fact that she planned it and had that bath ready and waited for Rusty to leave, means she KNEW it was wrong!
You want to scream justice....and blame everyone but her...but where is the justice for her children...especially the older ones who fought for their lives?
So...okay, she goes to a mental hospital...I say if in five years, they find her to be "okay" then send her back and let her serve out the rest of her time in prison.
She is a murderer no matter how you slice it.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
gaboman said this in post #11 : Is "inflicting emotional abuse" actually a crime? I'll have to look that one up. The guy's a dink, that's for sure, but the woman herself had a responsibility to the children she bore. If he made her insane, then there was a point where she was completely aware of what was going on around her, and she just decided to go with the flow anyway...
As near as I can tell, the only crime Andrea Yates committed was having the sort of personality that made her susceptible to belief in whacked religions. I expect that she was probably eager to please, compliant and unquestioning, traits typical of people I've known who got caught up in cultish religions. It's easy for us here on the nice, sane outside to question why she didn't cut and run - I promise that it would've been pointless to suggest birth control - but she actually believed this stuff.
She believed that the life her husband was dictating was god's will and to do otherwise would be failing to do god's will. This is a fundamental point of the whole issue and if you don't understand why some people will do, believe and/or accept astonishing things because they think it's "god's will," you're not going to understand why Andrea put up with the horrific conditions inflicted upon her by her husband. There's a great quote from a letter written to Andrea by the wife of the religious figure they followed: "Life is so short. It is so very cruel. It is so lonely and empty. You must accept the reality that this life is under the curse of sin and death." She's being told that life is supposed to be miserable and part of it, of course, is due to the curse of the sin of Eve.
I'm not saying that everyone who believes in cult religions like this one kill all their kids. By all accounts, the deaths of the Yates children is a tragic combination of a couple's belief in a cult religion that teaches a doctrine of damnation and physical psychiatric issues which were worsened by post-partum psychosis. Andrea, who already had a lengthy history of suicide attempts, institutionalizations and medications, had just gone off antipsychotic medications within about two weeks of when the children were drowned. A friend testified at the trial that prior to the drownings, she saw Andrea in a state when she was unable to take care of herself - she was disgustingly dirty, talking about "the darkness" and acting oddly. There are many crimes that went on here. The most critical one was leaving someone without full possession of their faculties alone in a house full of small children, and Rusty is 100% guilty of that.
mystic said this in post #12 : First off...I dont care what religion someone is...if a woman doesnt want to get pregnant, then she shouldnt and should open her mouth and say something. Women arent living in the day where we bow to our men anymore. So, to whomever, spare me the speech about that b.s.
...
Phalaris...no offense..but you seem to be blaming everyone else BUT Andrea Yates.
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.
However, that doesn't change the fact that many people living in other places, times and cultures buy into the literal reading of the religious texts that make the foundation of the judaeo-christian-islam beliefs and within those writings, it is stated very clearly, to those who choose to interpret it that way, that women were created in a secondary role to man and, moreover, bear the responsibility for introducing sin. There are those who believe this to this day, and there are entire cultures - islam in particular comes to mind - which are still medieval hardcore when it comes to women's place in society.
Don't airily assume that all women everywhere have the right, understand the right, and stand up for the right, to differ from what the men in their lives, be they husbands, fathers or brothers, tell them what they must do. It's very American to assume that our modern-day sensibilities, freedoms and rights are universally accepted as proper, inherent and appropriate. It's one of the reasons that whole cultures hate us for our immorality, but that's a whole other topic.
There are people who get involved in fringe religions who accept things as right and proper that you and I think are ridiculous. Did Andrea leave when Rusty said that they would live the "simple life" promoted by their religious leader and live with several small children in a 350 square foot bus? Apparently, all she did was beat the hell out of herself mentally for failing to be an ideal mother under these circumstances. Why then do you expect her to stand up to her husband - whom she believes she is supposed to obey without question - and suggest that they shouldn't have more kids?
I can blame Andrea for physically drowning the children. There's no doubt that she did. But what I, and most of those who share my position, say, is that she was far removed from being in a position to be responsible for it. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" exists because we live in an enlightened time when we realize that someone with an improperly managed mental illness may not be able to bear responsibility for their actions. In this case, we have someone with a lengthy history of mental disorders that were made worse by the actions - and inactions - of someone said person believed she must obey, left unattended with defenseless chidren. Was Andrea responsible for being left in a position where she could harm her children? I do not believe so, and neither, apparently, did the jury. I am absolutely sure that if Rusty had not left someone who should have been under medical treatment alone with small children, those children would be alive today.
As near as I can tell, the only crime Andrea Yates committed was having the sort of personality that made her susceptible to belief in whacked religions.
There are many crimes that went on here. The most critical one was leaving someone without full possession of their faculties alone in a house full of small children, and Rusty is 100% guilty of that.
These two sentences are absolute rubbish!
Its unfathomable that you would say the only crime for her is that her personality was wacky...and then say Rusty has the most critical crime of all.
I dont even know what to say to your words...but to perhaps say they are: a joke? A mess? Ones that dont even perceive the reality of the situation?
Somehow...youve managed to forget about the CHILDREN!!!!! You know, the dead ones! The ones SHE murdered!
The MURDER of these children, my friend, is the most critical crime of all!!!
Unbeliveable!
Hell, I give up...open up the cages and let them all leave. The rest of us will serve their time for them because...somehow, the criminals will find a way to put all the blame on everyone else but themselves...and no offense, but its people like you that will allow them to walk away while you tell the rest of us we are guilty.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Phalaris said this in post #16 : I can blame Andrea for physically drowning the children. There's no doubt that she did. But what I, and most of those who share my position, say, is that she was far removed from being in a position to be responsible for it. "Not guilty by reason of insanity" exists because we live in an enlightened time when we realize that someone with an improperly managed mental illness may not be able to bear responsibility for their actions.
One must fit the definition of legal insanity...if one defines it correctly, and then one looks at the facts of this crime...one should have never found her insane.
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.
She planned it...she waited...and she killed. In my book, that knowing its wrong and premeditated murder.
Son of Sam killed because a dog told him to do it....if you ask me, he belongs in jail....if one asks you, we should let Berkowitz go and put the damn dog behind bars.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
07-26-2006 08:20 PM
