Andrea Yates; a debate on mental health issues.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:26 am

My wife and I disagree very VERY much on the case of Andrea Yates.

Personally I feel the woman deserves death, whether its via the law, and the death penalty or via some yahoo like me with a gun. I do not feel mental health problems absolve you of responsibility for your actions.

My wife disagrees, and this is me trying to fairly paraphrase her side (As it were.)-she feels that mental health problems are not only a serious problem in society (To which I accede, they are an issue, I just don't necassarily agree on the scope, but I will say that it is significant.) She says that the system and her husband is in part responsible here, for not helping her, or recognizing her problems and working to fix them. She thinks that Andrea Yates deserves some punishment (She didn't elaborate as to how much, so I won't put too many words in her mouth.)

I vehemenetly disagree.

Meri · Post by **Meri** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 1:00 am

I don't think the systems responsibilty was just to her, and more importantly to her children.

As well I feel her husband failed her, by going to work that day and leaving her with her five kids, by not taking any steps to help resolve her mental health issues, or helping her appropriately. Postpartum Depression is a serious issue, and Paul isn't sensitive towards people with mental health issues.

Society places a stigma on mental issues, and postpartum for Paul is just something you can get over.

I disagree.

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:29 am

I'm sensitive towards mental health issues. I know they can be very serious. But the woman killed /5/ children. Her /own/ children. Personally, and I know this will probaby cause some sort of controversy, and people here to dress me down for the stance. But I don't think she should be breathing right now. I don't care how insane she is....she killed 5 children.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:33 am

I disagree.

In one of my class lectures, the professor stated that Mental Health is the 3rd most costly health issue facing America today. Now, I'm not at all sure how they derived those numbers, but that's a heck of a lot of cost.

I agree that Andrea Yates should be put away for a very long time. However, killing her for something she had no control over isn't justice, it's retribution. If you gave someone the flu, and they died as a result, should you be punished for it?

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:35 am

Giving someone the flu isn't a choice. She chose, no matter the reasoning behind (or lack thereof) She drowned them, deliberately.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:34 am

I'm all about retribution.

I'll make a more serious reply after I have had some time to mull this over, and heard other opinions.

Kai · Post by **Kai** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 2:54 pm

I honestly don't know. I'm quite sure she wasn't in her right mind when she killed them, didn't wake up going 'gee, I think I'll drown my kids today' but there still something that says that was a little far, that to snap that much, she had to be somewhat contimplating hurting them before.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:15 pm

Bishop/Paul: Some mental illnesses (I'm thinking schizophrenia, in particular) can damage areas of the brain that control your ability to self-scrutinize. In other words, you are unable to evaluate your own actions as illogical. With this in mind, some individuals really /can't/ control their actions because they are both physically and mentally incapable of judging them as wrong.

Such individuals can be extremely dangerous. While medications can treat some illnesses, many patients (I don't have the numbers handy, but I'm remembering it being a large minority at least) stop taking them after symptoms have ceased, not realizing you need to stay on them to maintain the effects.

Like Bishop said earlier, she killed five children. While I pity her for being incredibly ill, I also strongly believe that she needs to be kept away from society because of that illness. She needs to be treated, and she needs to be closely monitored because she is dangerous. But she does not need to be executed.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:27 pm

If she's insane, put her somewhere FAR away from other prisoners, with no possibility of release and treat her. Why treat her if she'll never enter society again? So she can at least be a fully functioning human being until her last day. It's the humane thing to do.

Now if she had killed those kids out of malice or just plain fucking evil, then she should be slowly roasted on a spit over a fire pit.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:01 pm

Gunny and Szech pretty much made my points for me. Even though I believe she wasn't at fault for her actions, that should not mean she should get off scot-free! We need to take this woman, and put her someplace very safe, until we can be absolutely certain that she'll never harm people again.

Killing her, though-- it'd be akin to killing someone because they had a bad dream. That's about as much "control" as someone with postpartum psychosis would have over their own actions. A psychosis typically involves a great deal of delusion, over which she would have had no control.

Subversive Agent · Post by **Subversive Agent** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:25 pm

Serious Paul wrote:My wife and I disagree very VERY much on the case of Andrea Yates.

Personally I feel the woman deserves death, whether its via the law, and the death penalty or via some yahoo like me with a gun. I do not feel mental health problems absolve you of responsibility for your actions.

My wife disagrees, and this is me trying to fairly paraphrase her side (As it were.)-she feels that mental health problems are not only a serious problem in society (To which I accede, they are an issue, I just don't necassarily agree on the scope, but I will say that it is significant.) She says that the system and her husband is in part responsible here, for not helping her, or recognizing her problems and working to fix them. She thinks that Andrea Yates deserves some punishment (She didn't elaborate as to how much, so I won't put too many words in her mouth.)

I vehemenetly disagree.

I think there are enough people in the world to warrant taking out the fucky fucky in the head ones. As long as we're sure they did it.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:38 pm

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she think she was ultimately /saving/ her children by drowning them? Like, didn't she think if she didn't kill them, they were going to be damned to hell or something? And being a mega-fundie Christian, isn't that pretty much the worst thing someone could threaten her children with?

And frankly, whatever punishment you think should be meted out to her, should go double for that fuckwad of a husband she had.

Andrea Yates' mental illness did not happen in a fucking vacuum. That man, when he married her, agreed to accept some level of responsibility for her health and well-being, as well as that of any children they may have had. It was abundantly clear that she was not doing well, and he had no sympathy for her, he couldn't be bothered to spend the time and energy necessary to make sure his wife was okay. Nor did he care about leaving his children home, alone, with a woman who was quite clearly unwell.

If he had deliberately left his children alone with someone mentally ill who was not his wife and was not the childrens' mother, y'all would be stringing his ass up from the rafters. But because she was the childrens' mother, you let him completely off the hook and crucify her instead.

That's such unbelievable bullshit. That man lived in that house too. He had ample opportunity to not only see what was going on, but to do something about it. But is anyone holding his ass responsible? Oh no, instead people act like he had no clue, had no ability to change the course of events. At the very least, he should be charged with negligent homicide or whatever the technical charge is. Instead, people are throwing him fucking pity parties because of his "loss". If that man had given half a shit about his children, or about his wife, none of this would have happened.

What happened to Andrea Yates and her children is a tragedy. And sure, we should do something to help her/punish her/whatever you want. But honestly, there's not a damn thing any of us can do that's going to be worse than what she must go through every night as she stares into the darkness trying to go to sleep.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:54 pm

But the thing is, wasn't Ms. Yates found sane in a court of law? If she was, then I believe she is, despite what my sympathy may be brought for any ailment I've learned the woman had, via my "learned-by-TV-and-Google-News" knowledge on the matter. If the court found her okay, she should be punished to the full extent of the law. If not, then treat her otherwise. I share the same opinion about the Scott Peterson trial, or any other celebrated case that I have only learned of by what the media has told me. Whatever the court finds doing is right, I agree with. While the system is not flawless, it's a hell of a lot more accurate than me wishing my own views would be enforced.

Thorn · Post by **Thorn** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:01 pm

Okay, I take your point, Teja, but I find myself wondering if the jury, in this case, wasn't swayed by the horribleness of the act. I realize it's just Monday-morning quarterbacking, but still... I can't imagine this woman killed her five children out of any sort of sane thinking. Like you say, maybe I'm projecting here, but... I don't know. If she were really that level of evil, wouldn't /someone/ have seen it elsewhere? I mean, it doesn't even sound like the woman spent her youth torturing puppies or anything, so where else might this have come from?

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:11 pm

Because I don't know what happened in that house, I can't say either way about what her husband did or didn't know about his wife. But, I can offer a suggestion that people are very good at hiding things when they want to. People are also good at hiding things when they don't believe they're doing anything wrong. Same goes for the possibility that it was, in her mind, obvious to her husband of what she was doing and because he never said anything (my assumption) then he was essentially telling her it was "okay".

[The above commentary is complete speculation on my part.]

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:53 pm

Yeah, absolutely there is an almost definite liklihood that the jury was swayed by the horribleness of the crime. I can't imagine being called on jury duty for such a case and have it affect me otherwise, but they were also given all the evidence from both sides and allowed the opportunity to deliberate and collectively find her sane and guilty. The only way they can convict her is if they are sure beyond even a reasonable doubt. A group of several people, who sat through all the arguments defending her actions and providing testimonials affirming her mental instability, still found her criminal. They did not find that her mental problems were bad enough for her to not be completely and fully responsible for her actions.

I dunno. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be unsympathetic towards the women's mental condition or mental disorders in general, but in this particular case, she was tried in a court of law, given full due process, and still convicted. I think she should be treated as such, or else I don't see what good our system is doing. Like I said before, it's not fail-safe - as many times in the past have proven, but it is correct the majority of the time. Yet, it's the best we've got, and we've got to have faith in it or the whole system will go to shit. That's just personal opinion.

Johnny the Bull · Post by **Johnny the Bull** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:47 pm

Thorn wrote:Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she think she was ultimately /saving/ her children by drowning them? Like, didn't she think if she didn't kill them, they were going to be damned to hell or something? And being a mega-fundie Christian, isn't that pretty much the worst thing someone could threaten her children with?

And frankly, whatever punishment you think should be meted out to her, should go double for that fuckwad of a husband she had.

Andrea Yates' mental illness did not happen in a fucking vacuum. That man, when he married her, agreed to accept some level of responsibility for her health and well-being, as well as that of any children they may have had. It was abundantly clear that she was not doing well, and he had no sympathy for her, he couldn't be bothered to spend the time and energy necessary to make sure his wife was okay. Nor did he care about leaving his children home, alone, with a woman who was quite clearly unwell.

If he had deliberately left his children alone with someone mentally ill who was not his wife and was not the childrens' mother, y'all would be stringing his ass up from the rafters. But because she was the childrens' mother, you let him completely off the hook and crucify her instead.

That's such unbelievable bullshit. That man lived in that house too. He had ample opportunity to not only see what was going on, but to do something about it. But is anyone holding his ass responsible? Oh no, instead people act like he had no clue, had no ability to change the course of events. At the very least, he should be charged with negligent homicide or whatever the technical charge is. Instead, people are throwing him fucking pity parties because of his "loss". If that man had given half a shit about his children, or about his wife, none of this would have happened.

What happened to Andrea Yates and her children is a tragedy. And sure, we should do something to help her/punish her/whatever you want. But honestly, there's not a damn thing any of us can do that's going to be worse than what she must go through every night as she stares into the darkness trying to go to sleep.

Thats a pile of horseshit. While he may well have been found negligent - although he's the only one with title to sue so its a moot point - there is absolutely no fucking way in the world that he'd be found guilty of being an accessory to his kids murders. He can't be charged with negligent homocide because a) he didn't fukcing kill them through an act or omission, his wife drowned them and b) because no one in the right mind would creasonably contemplate that if he left his wife at home with the kids while he went to work that something akin to them being drowned would happen.

Just cause he's not the best husband doesn't make him a murderer or responsible for their deaths. Thats fucking ridiculous.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:50 pm

I can't help but hear the jury collectively say "Five kids? Let's see that fucker fry." on maybe the second day of the trial regardless of psychiatric evidence.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 1:38 am

But the thing is, wasn't Ms. Yates found sane in a court of law?

Yes. The problem is that the only expert witness who testified that she was sane lied on the stand, which is why the conviction was overturned.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 1:45 am

MissTeja wrote:But the thing is, wasn't Ms. Yates found sane in a court of law? If she was, then I believe she is, despite what my sympathy may be brought for any ailment I've learned the woman had, via my "learned-by-TV-and-Google-News" knowledge on the matter. If the court found her okay, she should be punished to the full extent of the law. If not, then treat her otherwise. I share the same opinion about the Scott Peterson trial, or any other celebrated case that I have only learned of by what the media has told me. Whatever the court finds doing is right, I agree with. While the system is not flawless, it's a hell of a lot more accurate than me wishing my own views would be enforced.

That's the point of all this. A judge just overturned her conviction, on the grounds that one of the experts who testified as to her sanity was clearly mistaken. She doesn't get off free, she just gets a new trial.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 1:52 am

The judges didn't rule that the expert was mistaken as to whether she was sane or not. Appeals courts aren't really finders of facts. It's that the expert gave false testimony which likely had a significant effect on the outcome of the trial.

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:04 am

My feeling on this is the same feeling I have for rabid animals. If she's so far gone as to kill her children, she isn't safe to be around anyone. Even if medication and counseling helped, what guarantee would there be from her being released and relapsing?

Sorry, but I think it would be kinder to put her out of her misery.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:28 am

Because there's a difference between the truly rabid animals (like Gary Ridgeway) and people who are simply sick. Would you kill someone who had a communciable disease?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:45 am

How high is the rate of mass-murder for those suffering from post-partum depression? I ask because it seems odd to ascribe someone's behavior to a condition which does not generally cause the behavior in question. It seems to me much like excusing someone who has urinated on your head because they have Tourette's.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 3:28 am

Thorn wrote:Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she think she was ultimately /saving/ her children by drowning them? Like, didn't she think if she didn't kill them, they were going to be damned to hell or something? And being a mega-fundie Christian, isn't that pretty much the worst thing someone could threaten her children with?

I don't know. But I do know that I don't think freedom of religion extends to murder, and I am quite sure you share that opinion. I get what you're aiming at, I'm just not sure if I can-well in fact i know I can't speak towards how much she actually believed it.

And frankly, whatever punishment you think should be meted out to her, should go double for that fuckwad of a husband she had.

I vorciferously disagree. Not that I don't agree he holds some blame, but does anyone here know that he was negligent? I mean is there any indication that he was anything other than a nice guy?

Andrea Yates' mental illness did not happen in a fucking vacuum. That man, when he married her, agreed to accept some level of responsibility for her health and well-being, as well as that of any children they may have had.

Sure, I'll agree he holds some responsibility but I think we'll differ as to the degree. I think it's my duty to love and honor my spouse, not because we're married but because its right. (And this is all just my view, its not meant to say its oppositte of your own.) Its my duty to offer her help, and support her when and where I can. Its her duty not to fuckign kill my kids.

I don't buy the post partum depression made me kill. Sorry. My wife has felt so stressed at times she says she has thought about it. I am sure every woman has. But howmany actually kill their kids?

Its also not always easy for me to know whats going on inside her head. And that's where mental illness is right? I am no psych, and while I have the ability to spot weird stuff I just might easily miss some subtle sign of real mental distress.

But the fact remains unchanged for me. She killed them.

It was abundantly clear that she was not doing well, and he had no sympathy for her, he couldn't be bothered to spend the time and energy necessary to make sure his wife was okay. Nor did he care about leaving his children home, alone, with a woman who was quite clearly unwell.

Do you have something specific that I could read for this? Its not that I don't believe you but I just haven't read or seen much indicating anything about prior to this.

If he had deliberately left his children alone with someone mentally ill who was not his wife and was not the childrens' mother, y'all would be stringing his ass up from the rafters. But because she was the childrens' mother, you let him completely off the hook and crucify her instead.

It's a big if either way.

That's such unbelievable bullshit.

That's a moral judgement. I certainly won't contest that.

That man lived in that house too. He had ample opportunity to not only see what was going on, but to do something about it. But is anyone holding his ass responsible? Oh no, instead people act like he had no clue, had no ability to change the course of events. At the very least, he should be charged with negligent homicide or whatever the technical charge is. Instead, people are throwing him fucking pity parties because of his "loss". If that man had given half a shit about his children, or about his wife, none of this would have happened.

Pretty harsh-I'llw ait until i know more before I agree.

What happened to Andrea Yates and her children is a tragedy. And sure, we should do something to help her/punish her/whatever you want. But honestly, there's not a damn thing any of us can do that's going to be worse than what she must go through every night as she stares into the darkness trying to go to sleep.

Yeah maybe, but that's not what i am worried about personally. In my book kill kids=die.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:47 am

3278 wrote:How high is the rate of mass-murder for those suffering from post-partum depression? I ask because it seems odd to ascribe someone's behavior to a condition which does not generally cause the behavior in question. It seems to me much like excusing someone who has urinated on your head because they have Tourette's.

But she didn't have postpartum depression. IIRC, she had postpartum psychosis, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Postpartum psychosis is fairly rare, and does have a high degree of danger for the children born to such mothers.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:51 am

Cain wrote:Because there's a difference between the truly rabid animals (like Gary Ridgeway) and people who are simply sick. Would you kill someone who had a communciable disease?

If they killed children yes. If they were murdering people-yes. if they were endangering society, maybe.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:00 am

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Would you kill somebody simply because they posed a risk to you, due to a disease they have?

Let's try it this way. You're sick with the flu, and you decide to go to the store to buy some cold medicine. However, you're so sick, you start to vomit all over yourself while driving ont h e freeway. You lose control over your car, and smash into someone else, killing her and her child. Should you be executed for this?

The severely mentally ill do pose risks, if they lose control. But there's no predetermination about it. I feel the death penalty is best reserved for monsters like Ridgeway, and not for the sick and confused.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:08 am

Cain wrote:Sorry, I should have been clearer.

i admit to purposefully being a little dense on my part, so no worries brother man.

Would you kill somebody simply because they posed a risk to you, due to a disease they have?

Barring imminent, clear and present danger obviously the answer would, should be no.

Let's try it this way. You're sick with the flu, and you decide to go to the store to buy some cold medicine. However, you're so sick, you start to vomit all over yourself while driving on th e freeway. You lose control over your car, and smash into someone else, killing her and her child. Should you be executed for this?

I'm divided. On the one hand being sick is something you know you have, so therefore should take precautions with. on the other I get we're missing intent here.

We're also comparing some pretty clearly different examples here. Losing control of your car because you have the flu, and drowning your kids one by one because you claim you have postpartum depression is another.

The severely mentally ill do pose risks, if they lose control. But there's no predetermination about it. I feel the death penalty is best reserved for monsters like Ridgeway, and not for the sick and confused.

I feel Yates premeditated what she did, why? I can't answer that. But my guts don't buy "Post Partum whatever" made me do it. osrry. Maybe you lash out, smack a child in anger. Maybe even harder than you expected.

But drown them one by one?

I, for one, don't buy it.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:14 am

Serious Paul wrote: We're also comparing some pretty clearly different examples here. Losing control of your car because you have the flu, and drowning your kids one by one because you claim you have postpartum depression is another.

Unless she'd taken the time to read up on this stuff, I don't think she'd be able to fake a post-partum condition. I'm afraid I don't know what literature is available with regards to the subject, but the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (manual used to document the attributes of the 400+ disorders out there) is a /big/ book, and the criteria for many disorders isn't nearly as simple as people believe.

[Edit: This will teach me to read more thoroughly.]

Also, post-partum depression isn't the same thing as just lashing out at a kid. Like most forms of depression, it involves a long-term imbalance.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:19 am

I am not saying she faked the depression-I am saying I do not feel it was all that was at play here.

[Edited] because I am a moron. No really I am. :cool

Fortune · Post by **Fortune** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:45 am

Plain and simple, I say fry the bitch!

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 7:46 am

I'm divided. On the one hand being sick is something you know you have, so therefore should take precautions with. on the other I get we're missing intent here.

We're also comparing some pretty clearly different examples here. Losing control of your car because you have the flu, and drowning your kids one by one because you claim you have postpartum depression is another.

It's actually astounding how pervasive delusions can be. But at any event, both examples are the result of being sick. The point is to show that you could easily cause a lot of damage just by having a mild illness-- something as pervasive as postpartum psychosis would be that much more dangerous.

[quiote]I feel Yates premeditated what she did, why? I can't answer that. But my guts don't buy "Post Partum whatever" made me do it. osrry. Maybe you lash out, smack a child in anger. Maybe even harder than you expected.

But drown them one by one?

I, for one, don't buy it.[/quote]
I'm not going to be able to change your mind on this one, so I'll go with Teja's answer-- it should be up to a court to decide. And the courts have decided that she gets a second trial, because one of the experts assessing her was clearly mistaken. We're just going to have to wait and see what the results of that second trial are, to decide if she's mentally ill or not.

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:00 pm

Cain wrote:Would you kill somebody simply because they posed a risk to you, due to a disease they have?

If the disease was severe enough, and the option of quarantine was not available, then yes, I may well kill to prevent its spread. You can call me cold; I call it practical and realistic.

Now, in the Yates situation, I'm inclined to agree with Gunny, Szech and Cain that she should be put in a high security psych ward, possibly for the rest of her days. But Thorn and Reika also make an important point: her life is going to be pretty fucking terrible even if we keep her alive in a ward. It's nice to talk about the humanitarian solution to problems like this, but even the most humane solution we can think of will be pretty shit.

I actually spent a few days in a (low security) psych ward when some medication I was on backfired, and none of the people I met who were there long term had a life that I would call worthwhile. The staff there all seemed to do a great job, and the place had all the government funding it required, but it didn't change the fact that these people spent their entire lives in the one building, with a tiny garden, and knew that they were probably going to spend the majority of their life like this, not actually achieving anything with their existence. Add to this, in Yates's case, the knowledge that she killed her own children, and I don't see anything about her life particularly worth maintaining.

If I were Yates - and it's a moot point, because I'm a very different person to her - but if I were in her position, I wouldn't be too keen on dying, but I wouldn't object to being executed, either.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:08 pm

Cain wrote:But she didn't have postpartum depression. IIRC, she had postpartum psychosis, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Postpartum psychosis is fairly rare, and does have a high degree of danger for the children born to such mothers.

Does anyone have more specific information about this? I know nothing about this case, having not been exposed to it through the media, and so am basing my reactions solely on the information provided in this thread. If that information is incorrect or incomplete, I am unable to make a sound judgement based on it.

Of course, I am dodging the greater question of Paul's thread, which is in regards to the efficacy and logic of punishment for the mentally ill. In my perception, if someone is truly mentally ill and has insufficient control over his or her actions, we should lock that person away to protect them and society, just as we would quarantine who has a communicable disease; in a similar vein, if their illness is deemed curable, we should try to cure it, and if it is not, we should simply make them safe and comfortable until they die.*

If their actions were performed knowingly, they should be punished. If their actions were done knowingly and are of a sort we deem impossible to prevent in the future, we should kill them.

*This is the moralistic view. I have another, less generous, more idealistic view that says taxpayers should not be forced to pay for a lifetime of care simply because someone is too crazy to get by. I do not have a firm decision as to which is best.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 2:33 pm

Even if the jury believes that Andrea Yates, she will only get away with the insanity defense if she can convince a second jury of her peers that not only is she mentally ill, but that she didn't know that what she was doing was wrong. Yet, in interviews, she has admitted that what she did was wrong in the eyes of society, the eyes of God, and that it was illegal. She admits she knew it was illegal and did it anyways. She confessed to police and psychiatrists that she planned in advance to kill the children.

Her first time 'round in Texas, I thought she did pretty decent by getting a life sentence for knowingly and methodically, drowning all of her children one by one. They have other ways of dealing with people like her down there.

Szechuan · Post by **Szechuan** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 5:05 pm

MissTeja wrote: She admits she knew it was illegal and did it anyways. She confessed to police and psychiatrists that she planned in advance to kill the children.

Well, then. All of my points have leaped screaming from the observation deck.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 8:52 pm

You're forgetting the control issue. Did she have control over her actions at the time? Now, I don't know one way or the other; but I do know that in many cases the mentally ill are aware on some level of what's happening to them, they just lack the ability to control their actions.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:30 pm

Legally, that would fall under the aegis of "irresistable impulse," the notion that while someone knew what they were doing was wrong, they were unable to control their actions at the time. If she understood what she did was immoral and/or illegal, she would not qualify for the insanity defense - ie would not be not guilty by reason of insanity - because her actions would not fall under the McNaghten rules, specifically, that the person in question "is not guilty of a crime if, at the time of the crime, they either didn't know what they were doing, or didn't know that what they were doing was wrong." Similarly, she could not plead diminished capacity or diminished responsibility.

Texas, to my knowledge, does not recognize irresistable impulse, diminished capacity, or diminished responsibility, but only McNaghten insanity and "guilty but insane/mentally ill." Since she has made it very clear that she knew what she was doing was illegal and immoral - a "sin," in her words - she does not qualify under the McNaghten rules.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 9:41 pm

Thorn wrote:And frankly, whatever punishment you think should be meted out to her, should go double for that fuckwad of a husband she had.

Andrea Yates' mental illness did not happen in a fucking vacuum. That man, when he married her, agreed to accept some level of responsibility for her health and well-being, as well as that of any children they may have had. It was abundantly clear that she was not doing well, and he had no sympathy for her, he couldn't be bothered to spend the time and energy necessary to make sure his wife was okay. Nor did he care about leaving his children home, alone, with a woman who was quite clearly unwell.

I think this is a ridiculously kneejerk and ignorant response to the facts of the case, which omits the incredible number of things he /did/ do for her, including repeated efforts to get her counselling, bringing others into his home to assist her, obtaining other doctors for her, and so on. I don't think he is "blameless" in this case, but to characterize him as a "fuckwad" when she had been determined for months to kill her children as soon as he wasn't there is needless. It seems to me that the information you possess on the behavior of the husband is incomplete; certainly, the facts of his actions run contrary to your assertion that he had no sympathy for her and "couldn't be bothered" to spend the time necessary to make certain she didn't kill their children. It seems to me you hate the husband with all the logic Paul uses to hate the French.

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:17 pm

But...they're frogs!

Andrea Yates; a debate on mental health issues.

Andrea Yates; a debate on mental health issues.

Re: Andrea Yates; a debate on mental health issues.