 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Andrea Yates Verdict
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Jul 06 - 01:10 PM Not guilty by reason of insanity. Committed. IMO there WERE no "right" answers on this one. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Rapparee Date: 26 Jul 06 - 01:14 PM I quite agree. I think the verdict is proper. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Jul 06 - 01:18 PM In my Anglican tradtion, we talk more about "tragic choices" than "right" and "wrong," because life just never seems to be as simple as we all long to think. In this one, it's all tragedy, the more deeply one looks into it. All the parties have been demonized, and I think that's just not quite REAL. IMO the defense failed to use the biggest point they could have used in her defense-- about the question, did she know it was wrong? Unless I missed it, they failed to point out that in her psychosis, she did NOT realize it was wrong according to GOD. The whole rationale under which she was operating seemed to be that God wanted her to do it..... that's failing to know what's wrong, right there. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: dianavan Date: 26 Jul 06 - 01:38 PM She had a history of psychiatric hospitalizations and suicide attempts. I think this woman was insane. I also think someone should have been questioning her ability to care for her children long before she killed them. I'm sure her psychiatrists are asking why they didn't see this coming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: GUEST Date: 26 Jul 06 - 01:39 PM Only in the US court system could this happen. This ranks right up there with OJ and Michael. She killed her kids...she should pay for it. End of discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Jul 06 - 01:43 PM ...someone should have been questioning her ability to care for her children long before she killed them... Actually, her husband (one of those demonized) DID question her abilities, and had arranged for her not to be home alone with them all day. He also advocated strongly with her shrinks to get her back on the same meds that had helped her before-- to no avail. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: 282RA Date: 26 Jul 06 - 04:41 PM I think she's guilty by reason of insanity. How can she not be guilty of murder when she is the one who did it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Sorcha Date: 26 Jul 06 - 04:48 PM I agree, Susan. I wish I spoke to Guests, but if I did, I would tell IT that she IS paying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Jul 06 - 04:59 PM 282RA, I certainly agree that the language and structure of the law in this regard needs to change. I think she's guilty of not getting help, and maybe lots of other things too, but I can't help thinking about the vast numbers of Mudcatters who have written about their mental and medication problems over the years-- should they have been stripped of their children at the time? Hindsight, in the Yates case, tells us what foresight could not. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 26 Jul 06 - 05:08 PM Guilty = Life in prison with no chance of parole Not Guilty = Commitment to a mental institution with no possibility of release What's the big difference? Anybody think state-operated mental institutions are summer camps? Go visit one sometime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: emjay Date: 26 Jul 06 - 06:26 PM A tragedy she will have with her for as long she lives. I have always thought of myself as marginally sane - I guess I shouldn't qualify sane. You are or you aren't, so I'm not sure where that leaves me, but in the years when I had five small children running around, I was probably pretty close to the edge. Mine all survived, but if I had been home-schooling all of them, no time away from them, and if I hadn't had other mothers with children like mine, it would have been tough. I would never want to judge Andrea Yates and I wouldn't have wanted to serve on a jury attempting to make decisions about her. From the time I first heard about this, I have felt so sorry for her and her children and her husband. I do think that in most cases a person confined to a mental institution after having been found not guilty by reason of insanity can later be released from that institution if found to be sane. MJ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: kendall Date: 26 Jul 06 - 06:30 PM Under our system of laws, if you are insane, you can not be guilty simply because you don't know right from wrong. As far as I can see, you must be insane to kill your kids. No one in his right mind could do such a thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Becca72 Date: 26 Jul 06 - 06:31 PM I'm sorry MJ but she killed her children! I don't care if they were the worst brats on the planet and bothered her day and night. That's no reason to drown them one by one in the bathtub. She SHOULD have to live with it for the rest of her life. Rather than saying "gee, God is telling me to kill my kids and that's odd, so maybe I should get some help" she went ahead and acted on it. I am going to judge her and I'm going to judge her husband for not taking more serious steps to make her get help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: GUEST Date: 26 Jul 06 - 06:40 PM well Becca I think you need to read a lot of books and do a lot of studying to understand insanity. It's simply because they DON'T say maybe I should get some help that proves they are beyond our understanding and also beyond their own. History is full of public persecution of those who are different through no fault of their own. You can't be more different than this woman. Know any sane woman who's killed her kids knowing she'd be caught? A mental institution for life is where she belongs in a civilised society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Jul 06 - 06:48 PM She WAS getting help, is the problem-- the wrong help, it turned out. It's great to be able to judge accurately without the facts! ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Becca72 Date: 26 Jul 06 - 07:06 PM I never said she didn't deserve to be in an institution (as opposed to jail). I've no doubt that she is insane. I would actually hope she was because to think a rational person would do that is disgusting. But I am still blaming her for her actions as well as her husband for his inaction or slow action. The victims in this whole thing are 5 little kids who did nothing wrong. The victim is NOT their crazy mother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Big Mick Date: 26 Jul 06 - 07:09 PM Becca, do you realize how idiotic you sound? And do you also realize that you called her crazy and yet have a problem with her being found insane. One day you will realize that you don't have all the answers. It comes with maturity. You have none. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Becca72 Date: 26 Jul 06 - 07:16 PM I never said I had a problem with her being found insane. That said, I think that she should have to live with her actions, sane or not, for the rest of her life because her children didn't deserve what they got. The problem I had was in MJ's post where it was almost rationalized because of the stress of having 5 home-schooled children. I am not claiming to have all the answers, Mick but I am claiming to have a right to my own opinion. You have no idea my level of maturity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Jeri Date: 26 Jul 06 - 07:18 PM Once you get to Mick's age, you apparently WILL have all the answers, just like him. I have a hard time with people who see things, based on 2nd-hand reports, in black and white, and are so eager to condemn. I have even more of a hard time with people who prop their own egos up by insulting people they don't really know. Then again, it's the most popular way to treat folks around here these days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Sorcha Date: 26 Jul 06 - 07:28 PM Get HELP when you are that far down and messed up??? Trust me, it will never ever happen. Wise up sister Becca. Or walk that road by yourself. I have, even tho I never killed anything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Big Mick Date: 26 Jul 06 - 07:31 PM You condemn yourself, Becca. Go back and read your posts. They show an absolute lack of any comprehension of the problem. Maturity is not a function of age. It is, however, found through paying attention to your experiences in life. I have met many older people with very little maturity. And when you talk about folks making judgements based on second hand reports, what do you call what you have been doing with regard to this case? You are so arrogant that you act as though you know better than a jury of men and women who have been intimately exposed to the facts of the case. It is a sign of intellectual weakness, Becca when the best you can come up with is a shot at my age. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: GUEST Date: 26 Jul 06 - 07:34 PM He's forgotten you are Kendall's daughter. Once he realiazes that he'll retract his insult. But hey, the clones are turning on each other. Divide and conquer I always say! lol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Becca72 Date: 26 Jul 06 - 07:36 PM I've been down that road Sorcha, trust me. I've never killed anyone, either. My own mother was severely depressed for year so I know what that's like, too. My sisters and I made it out. You'll notice I keep mentioning the husband, yes? He knew she was troubled and getting worse, yes? Obviously so if he really did bring in someone so she wasn't home alone with the kids all day. It is my opinion that the ones being overlooked in this discussion are the children...the only ones who did nothing wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Becca72 Date: 26 Jul 06 - 07:41 PM I have stated the facts of the case. She drowned her children. Period. I gave my opinion on the subject. She should have to live with it. Period. And Mick, I've made no mention of your age, darling. Perhaps it is you who needs to re-read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Sorcha Date: 26 Jul 06 - 07:46 PM Mick, I'm giving up on Kendalldottir...I suggest you do the same. I guess we shall agree to disagree, but IMO...Ms Yates IS paying for the rest of her life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Jeri Date: 26 Jul 06 - 07:57 PM She's going to live with it. I think what bothers me most is the way people who aren't even personally involved seem to want blood. Jerry Springer Show audience members, loose in society, thinking this is a normal way to behave? Try telling someone who's depressed to 'snap out of it'. Mentally ill people may be as incapable of recognizing unreality or helping themselves as someone who's unconsious and has two broken legs is of getting out of a burning building. Where did we ever get the idea that someone HAS to pay, and it's likely going to be the one the lynch mob of public opinion hates most, whether it's justice or just a virtual public execution. Bring the kids and buy the popcorn. There's nobody involved in this who ISN'T a victim in some way. There's also nothing that can be done that will bring the kids back and make everything alright. I think the cost of this is going to be paid in karma, and I only hope the angry haters in the mob get what's coming to them. It's not something I personally want to care about. It was I who made the crack about age, but Mick was first. I was a bit surprised that he dropped argument about the subject and went after Becca personally. I forgot where I was though, thinking it's possible to have a rational discussion here. My bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: GUEST Date: 26 Jul 06 - 08:21 PM Becca ignore mick. Most of us do, and the odd few who sychophant after him are equally laughable. He espouses equality and tolerance as though he invented them, then spoils the show by acting like a school yard bully at the first whiff of someone who holds an opposing viewpoint. And being a newbie unfortunately makes you ripe pickings. He will huff and puff but his days of blowing down are long time gone. Humor him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Amos Date: 26 Jul 06 - 08:31 PM Jeeze, guys -- first of all, no-one offered any justification. Second of all, no-one disagreed it was an insane thing to do, done in an insane state, and not rationalizable. Smooth yore feathers out some. She will live with it all right, just by the nature of things. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Jul 06 - 08:43 PM It is actually possible to have compassion for the mother as well as for the children. ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Midchuck Date: 26 Jul 06 - 08:52 PM If a man had done the same thing, everyone would be screaming "Guilty!" and all those who didn't oppose it in principal, and some who did, would be demanding the death penalty. It doesn't really matter. As was pointed out above, she's like to be locked up in fairly unpleasant circumstances for life, sane or insane. But I still have trouble with the concept that "She's obviously insane because no sane person would do that!" Whoever feels that way hasn't read history. Hell, they haven't checked the current news from the Middle East. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: NH Dave Date: 26 Jul 06 - 09:04 PM There are several situations working here, and perhaps few working for her. The US has fifty incorporated states and other states of confusion, each of which has its own laws governing among other things murder, and insanity. Going hand in hand with this, since we are a country that filled up with immigrants from the word go, each area of the country is slightly or quite a bit different from an adjoining or not so closely associated other state. Along with these physical and social differences we also have vast religious differences between, say, NH where I was raised, and south east Texas where this whole sorry tragedy occurred. The south eastern part of the US tends to sway towards pentecostal and evangelical religions where worshiping with poisonous snakes isn't considered a bit odd, while the north east tends to be a lot more conservative, and look down on that sort of behavior. Some of the more conservative up here note in passing that they don't have any really cold weather to cull out the real wackos. Some of us also say uncharitable things about California too, but that isn't germane to the issue here. Many of these folks sincerely believe that God made Abraham go out with the intent of sacrificing Isaac, his son, whose life was only spared when Abraham found a sheep with which to do the honors. Belief like this makes any attempt to judge these people by the standards of Boston or New York City laughable. There simply isn't any comparison. Mrs. Yates could know that it was wrong to kill her children under normal circumstances, and apparently did, judging from some of her words after the fact, but still believe that God told her that the children had to die, so she had to do it. Add in post partum depression, about which I admittedly know little, and she was a fireworks stand with a lit match in one hand. Why she wasn't institutionalized earlier is probably a result of the vast differences in psychiatric intervention for people unable to live by society's rules, from state to state. I think the problem was resolved in the only manner it could have been done, in fairness to her and her mental condition. Anyone who believes that he or she must kill their children is more than a few bricks short of a full hod. Some states allow people judged innocent by reason of insanity to be committed to a psychiatric institution until such time as they are no longer a danger to themselves and society, others just commit them and throw away the key. From the articles I have read about her future, she is currently locked away out of harm at a mental institution, and can either be allowed to remain there, remain there until she achieves some form of a sound mind, or possibly retried, using new evidence that was not presented at the first trail. As she regains a sound mental outlook the death of her children will weigh more heavily on her, so there is no way she will escape from this horror scott free. She just won't be put to death, or possibly confined for the rest of her life. I don't see how she could possibly gain enough control of herself that she could be released into society again, but I don't know what avenues of therapy and other psychiatric care are available to her. She sounds schizoid to me, with my few years of studies in psychology and psychiatry, and that is one of the most difficult mental illnesses to treat successfully, or was, if some wonder combination of drugs and therapy has come along that works with these people. There probably was no right solution to this case, but what we have here seems about the best of a lot of bad choices. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: GUEST Date: 26 Jul 06 - 09:06 PM My question is what was she doing homeschooling the kids when she was this far gone? I think her husband needs some of the guilt in this matter...perhaps alot of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Jul 06 - 09:14 PM Well, now, here we have one of those juxtapositions of modern life. Why was she homeschooling? Because she had been, and because when the husband asked her if she wanted to cut back post-partum and let him work part time, she said NO. She wanted to continue trying to do what she thought was her right as a parent. There's a pick-up stick on the pile. So in today's times we respect the rights of patients to make decisions... there's another pick-up stick. She had already gone through one severe post-partum depression (maybe the full psychosis, I am not sure) with a previous birth and come out of it just fine with certain meds. What went wrong here was that this time, the docs took her off those meds that had been working and refused to follow her husband's desperate pleas to reinstate them. There's another stick.... See, the wife was fully compliant with all med regimes. She took everything she was asked to take. But the docs thought the husband was a real pain in the ass. Ironic, huh? Easier to blame the family, sure-- but when you're under a doctor's care, and vulnerable, whaddayagonna do???? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Sorcha Date: 26 Jul 06 - 10:20 PM Susan...thanks! And now, Ma'm, could you actually go on a vacation for YOU and your MR??? (smile.....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Bert Date: 26 Jul 06 - 10:40 PM Aw Shit. It's such a terrible tragedy. It's a pity that she didn't have any one of you Mudcatters to help her. We are all available for each other, even though we sometimes disagree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: emjay Date: 26 Jul 06 - 10:50 PM Why are we so eager to make the woman suffer? Yes, she did kill her children, and that is so horrible most of us can't even imagine how a mother could do that. That probably is the key to this whole thing -- Our inability to imagine the torment she already suffered. There has been enough written about her and her realization of what she did and the new torments she suffers now for all of us to understand she will never be unpunished for this horror. We may be so willing to point fingers at her and at those around her who didn't see what was happening because we want to assure ourselves that we would never do what she has done. We need to get past all that and try to learn more about the causes, prevention if there is any, and help for mental illness and the mentally ill. I believe no one would willingly follow her path. Emjay |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Peace Date: 26 Jul 06 - 11:58 PM The Shadow-Board When the young man with the rapt face of a saint came to do Pottery I was his teacher, barely a stage ahead and two years younger. 'He's schiz and a bit depressed.' said my Senior. 'Make sure of the tools and chain your scissors.' 'You must wedge the clay on the plaster slab.' I told him. Shoulder to shoulder we stood not talking because of his voices his arms white as a girl's but muscular. He did it again and again, blank-faced, without a question. 'Your uniform's splashed. Where are your cuffs?' said my senior. Then I took him beyond in case he lost interest folded his hands round the heavy kneaded ball of clay and threw it hard down on the spinning centre. We coned it up to the rise and fall of a phallus. 'Now,' I said, 'put your thumbs down. Open the clay like a flower with both your hands.' 'He won't be coming.' she said, right by my elbow. I was making a vase and it went off-centre. 'He went down the railway line early this morning. That's when they do it. Don't blame yourself, there's a long history.' I hung the tools on the shadow-board and locked the cupboard. Jill Bamber |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Big Mick Date: 27 Jul 06 - 12:33 AM OK, I did forget that Becca is my friend's daughter. But it has nothing to do with my comments. I am sitting here feeling as though justice has finally made sense in this case. I have felt from the beginning that a Parent who has, by all accounts, been a good and loving parent, and suddenly kills her children must be ill. When one throws in the post partum depression, the homeschooling, the fundamentalist religous aspects, and all the other factors that have been mentioned, it is apparent we have an ill person, not in control of herself. I am sick and goddamned tired of a legal system, and goofy conservatives, not recognizing the type of pressure we put women under. When one cracks, we have to listen to simplistic bullshit, like Becca put out. Comments like "I don't care what, she killed her kids", or "We are forgetting that the kids are the victims". I got a news flash for you. No one is forgetting the kids, we are mourning them. We all know she killed her kids. We are all the losers in this tragic crime. That whole family, cousins, Grandparents, brothers, sisters, ...... they are all the victims. Anyone who thinks that Andrea Yates is not in a hell right now isn't paying attention. I don't care who makes the flip comment, it was poorly thought out and needed to be challenged. I do owe Becca an apology. I thought she made the "age" comment. That was my error, and I apologize for it. As to my age old nameless antagonist, you only wish that you had credibility. It bothers you when anyone else has some. I may have reacted harshly, but it pisses me off to hear folks make such rash comments about a tragic situation, and about a woman who so obviously needed help and this f***ing society let her and her kids down. The fact that it is Kendall's daughter only means to me that I know she has been raised to think things through better than that. But Becca is her own person, and if she makes comments here then I am sure she is capable of taking the heat and defending her positions. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: GUEST,Remaining nameless Date: 27 Jul 06 - 01:17 AM When he was fourteen I began to notice changes in him. He had been a loving child: thoughtful, kind, concerned and caring. He read books and argued philosophy; got tears in his eyes when he saw animals hurt; got angry when he saw people hurt others. He eventually became a carpenter and also got a BA with a heavy emphasis on English literature. We seldom saw each other because our lives took different paths. When I visited, I noticed the changes, and they were dramatic. I took him for a drive and we spent hours talking. He told me about the voices that spoke to him, and to him they were real. He deciphered the 'true' meaning of The Bible, and The Koran, and what Nietzsche had really meant to say. And we talked. I took him to a hospital and the doctors kept him for a month, and then a bit longer. They found some medications that stopped the voices. And he once again became that loving child from decades earlier. And he learned to live alone after the deaths of his father and mother. A public health nurse would stop by each week (he lived in a rural area) and ensure he was OK, which he was when he took his medication. But he began to neglect his medication. And for a two week period the public health nurse didn't come. She was on vacation and there was no one to replace her. And he stopped taking his medication altogether. And I guess the voices came back and told him to keep neglecting the medications, and I guess he did. And I guess he fought with the voices, but they were many and he was one. And I guess the voices told him to go visit his parents. And at the age of 44 my brother finally got rid of the voices for good. When I received the call telling me of his death, I was not surprised. I was saddened, and remain so to this day, because I knew him when there were no voices in his head, a loving child: thoughtful, kind, concerned and caring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: GUEST,Marion Date: 27 Jul 06 - 01:49 AM Just wanted to give an FYI regarding: "Not Guilty = Commitment to a mental institution with no possibility of release" I've spent a little time in a mental hospital (as a nursing student, not a patient) and had some exposure to review hearings and forensic units (where patients found unfit for trial or not guilty due to insanity are housed). This is what I can tell you about the system in Ontario - I expect that the process is similar in other jurisdictions. Anyway, every forensic client has a review board hearing at least once a year, which is not unlike the parole hearings you see in movies. There are lawyers representing the client and the crown, witnesses such as the client's psychiatrist, and a committee composed of lawyers/judges, psychiatrists, and members of the public. The purpose is to determine whether the conditions of the client's committal will be maintained, made more lenient, or made more restrictive. For example, if the client is an inpatient, it needs to be decided what off-ward privileges he will have 쳌Eranging from going out only in handcuffs with police escort, to going out in a group or one-on-one with a nurse, to going out by himself with a time limit. Sometimes a forensic client is an outpatient, but might have restrictions such as having to live in a group home supervised by "house parents쳌E or having to go to the hospital daily to have staff witness his medication. In principle, these decisions are entirely based on the client's mental status, as evaluated by the psych staff, and his demonstrated willingness/ability to comply with his plan of care. It's possible for a client to eventually be unconditionally discharged from the forensic system, but it's not possible to be permanently committed to the hospital or a certain set of restrictions: there must always be an annual review. In short, there's no such thing as "commitment to a mental institution with no possibility of release쳌E It may turn out that Yates does spend the rest of her life there, if the committal is renewed every year, but she can't be sentenced to do so. Marion |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Sorcha Date: 27 Jul 06 - 01:54 AM One more time,I wish I talked to Guests..but I I think I know where you are coming from, Nameless One......it's just so hard, ain't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Becca72 Date: 27 Jul 06 - 09:01 AM I'll make one final comment on the subject and then I'm done with it. If you read back I NEVER said I disagreed with the verdict. I NEVER said I thought she was sane and deserved jail/death penalty/etc. I expressed my opinion that no matter what the reason she should have to live with her actions for the rest of her life. I did NOT say she should be punished for them over and over and over. My meaning was that she should never forget it. Not guilty by reason of insanity is not the same as innocent. After expressing my opinion I was called, in a nutshell, an uneducated idiot. Just because my opinion doesn't match yours (Mick) doesn't mean I'm stupid or unfeeling. You have NO idea what my experiences have been in life and are jumping all over me for making a snap judgement on this woman and by doing so you are making a snap judgement about me. Hello, kettle? This is pot...you're black. I made no derogatory remarks about fellow posters on this thread and was personally attacked for my trouble. When Clinton shows up and makes his comments the people yelling the loudest here are the first to respond to tell him to stop attacking people. Practice what you preach, Mick. Who my father is has nothing to do with it. He taught me to form my own opinion and stick to what I believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Big Mick Date: 27 Jul 06 - 09:41 AM Becca, do you realize how idiotic you sound? and It comes with maturity. You have none. My comments were unkind, and I shouldn't have couched them in these terms. I apologize for the tone of them. To be honest, I mistook the poster for another person who uses conservative and simplistic arguments all the time and it bothered me. There was also a statement by a GUEST that set me off. But it doesn't matter whether the poster was the person I thought it was, or Becca. I shouldn't have been so nasty in presenting my arguments, and I regret that and apologize for it. My arguments on the issue stand. Comments by Becca such as: I'm sorry MJ but she killed her children! I don't care if they were the worst brats on the planet and bothered her day and night. That's no reason to drown them one by one in the bathtub. and I am going to judge her and I'm going to judge her husband for not taking more serious steps to make her get help. and The victims in this whole thing are 5 little kids who did nothing wrong. The victim is NOT their crazy mother. seem to me to be judgemental and made with a complete lack of understanding, and worse, a lack of desire to understand. It is something I see from far too many people these days. The issue isn't that simple, and I am very distressed by a lack of desire in this society to see things in realistic terms. Sorry if that upsets you but that is how I see it. If you reread my last post you will see that I agree that the only bearing your Dad has on this is that I know, being raised by him, that you are very capable of defending your views. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Becca72 Date: 27 Jul 06 - 09:58 AM From emjay's post: "but in the years when I had five small children running around, I was probably pretty close to the edge. Mine all survived, but if I had been home-schooling all of them, no time away from them, and if I hadn't had other mothers with children like mine, it would have been tough." This is what prompted my first comment. It infuriated me to think that her actions were being justified because she was stuck in the house all day with 5 kids. As I said earlier, not guilty by reason of insanity is not the same as innocent. I am judging her by my standards just as you are judging me by yours. And you're right, Mick, a big part of me doesn't want to understand how a woman could do that to her children. So I guess the above comment was inaccurate...the previous post was not my final word on the subject. My bad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Midchuck Date: 27 Jul 06 - 10:07 AM Big Mick, quoting Becca and replying: "I'm sorry MJ but she killed her children! I don't care if they were the worst brats on the planet and bothered her day and night. That's no reason to drown them one by one in the bathtub. and I am going to judge her and I'm going to judge her husband for not taking more serious steps to make her get help. and The victims in this whole thing are 5 little kids who did nothing wrong. The victim is NOT their crazy mother. seem to me to be judgemental and made with a complete lack of understanding, and worse, a lack of desire to understand. Sorry if that upsets you but that is how I see it." Mick, you, on the other hand, seem to be saying: "If you're insane, it's perfectly all right to kill your little kids, and anyone who complains about your doing so should be ashamed of themselves." I know that isn't what you meant, but it's the first impression I got. You appear to be trying to avoid judging Ms. Yates, but to be perfectly willing to judge anyone who does judge her. In my own opinion, our criminal justice system sets up two categories, "sane" and "insane," for what is in actuality an infinite range of specific mental conditions. But I have a sense, way below any rational level, that a mother who kills her children is an monster, if there's any such thing as a monster at all. Whether she's a sane monster or an insane one, in the context of an action like that, is almost beside the point. She needs to be shut up forever, where she can never harm anyone again. It's true, she may recover to a state where she's no longer a danger to be at large. But is it fair to the remainder of the public to take the risk that her recovery is real and permanent? I think we need the possibility of a judgment of "Guilty but Insane," rather than "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity." IIRC, the Brits have that concept in their criminal law. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Big Mick Date: 27 Jul 06 - 10:28 AM Fair enough, Peter. I have admitted an error in approach and apologized for it. The problem with your system is that it says that there is no understanding of mental illness. As Kendall says above, in our system one can't be held to be responsible for acts for which they couldn't control themselves due to mental illness, or more specifically, insanity. It seems to me that is the correct approach. I see the fundamentalists with an absolute need for retribution. It is based in the old "eye for an eye..." thing. The system, as it stands, requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant was in control of his/her actions, and did it with malice aforethought. That just isn't the case here. How can we find a person who is not in control of herself, hearing voices from "God", guilty of a premeditated act? Why do we need to punish a sick person? To give you another example, there is a wonderful Mudcatter whose Mom suffered from Alzheimers. The illness sometimes caused her to act out in violent ways, and sometimes with sharp instruments. This person, as I understand it, actually attacked and injured her spouse. Should we try this person and punish them? Should we find them guilty of some crime? Or should we simply remove her from contact and place her in the hands of folks that can watch over her? The fact that Andrea Yates is a Mom who killed her kids makes many jump to judgement in a way that completely ignores all the surrounding facts. It is one more attack on understanding that post partum depression, biblical roles for wives and Mothers that make them servants, giving them no break from the kids including homeschool, lack of recognition of the signs of mental illness ...... it all adds up to blaming her for her illness. Correctly, the system got it right. It recognizes all this and takes her out of the mainstream and puts her in a hospital setting. A progressive society has no need to constantly find blame, but rather deals with these things based on the facts. If the facts support premeditation, malice aforethought, and material gain, then render judgement and take the pound of flesh. If the facts show illness, abetted by conditions in the home, then we need to take the kinds of steps the jury and system took in this case. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: mrdux Date: 27 Jul 06 - 10:44 AM Peter -- How a case like this plays out varies widely depending on where it happens. For whatever it may be worth, Oregon and a number of other jurisdictions also couch such a judgment in terms of "guilty except for insanity." Insanity in this context -- actually the term used is "mental disease or defect" -- specifically excludes "an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct." As to what happens as a result of a "guilty but insane" judgment in a murder case, again, in Oregon, the defendant could be committed to up to a lifetime of supervision by the psych authorities -- called, ominously, the Psychiatric Security Review Board. The determine how long the person spends inside the institution, if and when the person is discharged, and, if the person ultimately is released from institutional confinement, what level of supervision is required on the outside. . . but they don't let go until theend of the committment, which, in a muder case, could be for life. And as a practical matter, the release decision is usually more correctionally and politically based than it is therapeutically based, which results in people spending every bit as much time in confinement as they would have had they been found guilty. While the conditions are somewhat of an improvement over prison, as was aptly pointed out, the state hospital is no summer camp. michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: katlaughing Date: 27 Jul 06 - 11:20 AM The way I read emjay's posting was that she had an inkling of what it might have been like for Mrs. Yates, day-in-and-day-out, i.e. as she had "walked a mile in her shoes" so to speak. The other part of her posting, which seems to have been ignored, is that she, emjay, HAD societal help when she was at home with her five children...other mothers, etc. IMO, it harms none of us, Christain/Buddhist/Pagan/Atheist/Etc. to try to understand and express a degree of empathy for all involved, including Mrs. Yates. The whole case is sad. I don't believe any of us, unless we were in that courtroom, has enough information, or the right, to judge any of the parties involved. Yes, she killed them and it is a heinous, unfathomable crime. It is right that she be kept apart from society; I hope for the rest of her life. That will not keep me from giving thanks for a healing for all involved, including the children. I think Jeri was right in that the laws of karma will be upon Mrs. Yates and all involved, imo. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Ebbie Date: 27 Jul 06 - 12:20 PM In life, even an ordinary life, regret and remorse is a real thing. The fact remains that one cannot go back and do things differently- unless we become really good at denial we have no choice but to live with it. Andrea Yates, if and when she becomes mentally healthy, will suffer more than she does while she is mentally ill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Amos Date: 27 Jul 06 - 12:31 PM My impression is that she has done nothing but suffer from well before this gruesome dramatization, and nothing has occurred to lessen that suffering. Her children suffered more, if more briefly. I think it would be a fine thing, theoretically, if all this concatenated suffering were somehow addressed at its root causes, and those attacked with a small part of the energy that is instead invested in generating thoughts and attitudes about the symptoms and sequelae of it. Where does the deep pain in such a owman's mind come from, if it is not being caused in the present circumstances? What is up with the "carrying-forward" of past experience such that it brings out such intense melodramatic re-enactment? And more importantly, how would one go about healing it? Remedies appear when the genuine source of a problem is named. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Andrea Yates Verdict From: Scoville Date: 27 Jul 06 - 01:20 PM "but in the years when I had five small children running around, I was probably pretty close to the edge. Mine all survived, but if I had been home-schooling all of them, no time away from them, and if I hadn't had other mothers with children like mine, it would have been tough." This is what prompted my first comment. It infuriated me to think that her actions were being justified because she was stuck in the house all day with 5 kids. As I said earlier, not guilty by reason of insanity is not the same as innocent. I am judging her by my standards just as you are judging me by yours. And you're right, Mick, a big part of me doesn't want to understand how a woman could do that to her children. That's the point--if she were sane, she wouldn't have been able to do it. She didn't do it for money or because she had a boyfriend on the side who didn't want kids, and from her history it appears that this was much more than a case of doing it "just to get a break". Seems like there were all kinds of failures here--failure to protect the kids, failure of her family to fully recognize how badly off she was, failure of whatever medical treatment she was getting either to recognize or to impress upon her and her husband how much help she needed. They were told not to have any more kids after the fourth one because she couldn't handle it--what were they thinking?? Maybe she thought she wanted more, but it was his responsibility, too, to look out for the family as a whole. Putting her on trial forces things into a simplified framework and, while I think she is immediately responsible for the deaths of the children, I don't think she is solely responsible. I'm not saying I disagree with the verdict, only that what we, the public, see doesn't convey the complexity of it. Trust me, she's living with it. I had a distant relative (a schizophrenic) who killed his son during a psychotic episode. He was found NGI and committed to a mental hospital but when he was stabilized, he realized what he had done and committed suicide. "Not guilty" doesn't wipe the slate clean. |
