PDA

View Full Version : Andrea Yates has been found not guilty.


Jeremy
07-26-2006, 01:53 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/26/national/main1837248.shtml

Amazing. Simply amazing.

ARKIESTEEL
07-26-2006, 02:11 PM
This b i t c h should die.


sorry but I am a parent and I would walk butt naked into hell and slap the devil for my little girl

Black@Gold Forever32
07-26-2006, 02:19 PM
Yates found not guilty just makes me sick. I bet if this would have been a man who did this to his kids, the jury would have found him guilty.

BlackNGold203
07-26-2006, 02:25 PM
Its not like she's walking free folks....she's gonna be in a mental hospital for the rest of her life...

I'm sorry...but anyone who could actually do something like this...is insane....

floodcitygirl
07-26-2006, 02:37 PM
Its not like she's walking free folks....she's gonna be in a mental hospital for the rest of her life...

I'm sorry...but anyone who could actually do something like this...is insane....I understand what you're saying here but she murdered her own children!!! As long as she's alive there's always going to be some potential of her going free by some "technicality".....don't want her for my neighbor!

Mosca
07-26-2006, 02:39 PM
I agree, the woman is flat out bonkers. She thought she was helping them in the name of god; that if they died before they were old enough to know sin they would go straight to heaven. Tell me that she wasn't nuts.

Tom

83-Steelers-43
07-26-2006, 02:39 PM
I bet if this would have been a man who did this to his kids, the jury would have found him guilty.

Yep.

Jeremy
07-26-2006, 02:40 PM
The docs can declare her "cured" and she's out on the streets in 2 years.

SteelerzGirl
07-26-2006, 05:24 PM
Its not like she's walking free folks....she's gonna be in a mental hospital for the rest of her life...

I'm sorry...but anyone who could actually do something like this...is insane....

I agree w/you BNG203. I can't even begin to imagine killing my nieces and nephews in such a manner, or any manner for that matter, let alone if they were my own children. She has to be insane to do such a thing. I highly doubt she will ever be released from the mental hospital, as well it should be.

3 to be 4
07-26-2006, 11:26 PM
if you did it to someone elses kids she wouldve got the chair. buit do it to your own and you get away with it. sickening

Hawk Believer
07-26-2006, 11:44 PM
I agree w/you BNG203. I can't even begin to imagine killing my nieces and nephews in such a manner, or any manner for that matter, let alone if they were my own children. She has to be insane to do such a thing. I highly doubt she will ever be released from the mental hospital, as well it should be.
Thing is, if she truly had post pardum depression, the psychosis should not be chronic and would have cleared by this point. No more pregnancy, no more insanity. I could see her getting out.

I don't know what to think about this case. I know very reasonable people who have gone through some post pardum depression and on some level had sympathy for this woman's insanity plea. But to think of collecting each of your children, pulling them into the tub, and holding them underwater till you killed them. 5 times. Its so incomprehensible. It would be a dilema for me if I was on the jury. I don't know how her state defines insanity but I could see some reasonable doubt if people provided evidence that she truly was psychotic. Quite a dilema.

Hopefully she doesn't try to profit off all this now with book and movie rights.

HometownGal
07-27-2006, 10:42 AM
I didn't see this thread until I had already posted in SteelShooter's thread, so I just copied and pasted my thoughts on this matter here.

It doesn't take much when you look at Andrea Yates to see that she is a burger shy of a happy meal, but I can't say I'm happy with the verdict. People who commit such henous and heartless crimes against children (especially their own flesh and blood) should just be put out of their misery - period, imo. Every time I think of those poor little angels' last vision - that of seeing the person they trusted most in this world....their mother....drowning their brothers and sisters, not understanding why (does anyone really understand why?) and the sheer terror they must have felt knowing they were next - it tears me up inside. :crying01:

Hawk Believer
07-27-2006, 11:06 AM
I heard an interesting observation about the jury this AM. Ththe death penalty was off the table this go around because the previous jury did not go for capital punishment. So in the previous trial, each jury member had to be screened for being pro-death penalty. This time around, the prosecution was not able to use that as a factor when selecting jury members.

The speculation is that a jury full of people who are comfortable with death penalty would have been more likely to convict for murder rather than deliver an insanity verdict.

LambertIsGod58
07-27-2006, 12:20 PM
I blame her husband as well....If my wife showed me ANY signs of mental illness, in a manner that would endanger my son....You better believe I'd leave her. Yates had a some history of mental illness. Never received enough treatment I guess....I hope she burns in hell with Susan Smith.

Hawk Believer
07-27-2006, 01:14 PM
There was a really tragic case out here recently where a wife of a sailor went into a massive depression episode when her husband was out at sea. She jsut tuned out and stopped taking care of her two little kids. The toddle died after a few weeks of neglect.

People of course were pissed of at the Mom. But a neighbor had an interesting perspective as well. She the community as bearing some of the responsibility as well. She thought that no community should allow a newly transferred mom to be allowed to go for 3 weeks with out taking care of her kids and to be so isolated that no social network recognized the problem.

I suppose one lesson is that we should all be helping out our friends and neighbors who are new parents as much as possible because it must be quite a burden to shoulder on your own.

tony hipchest
07-27-2006, 01:23 PM
There was a really tragic case out here recently where a wife of a sailor went into a massive depression episode when her husband was out at sea. She jsut tuned out and stopped taking care of her two little kids. The toddle died after a few weeks of neglect.

People of course were pissed of at the Mom. But a neighbor had an interesting perspective as well. She the community as bearing some of the responsibility as well. She thought that no community should allow a newly transferred mom to be allowed to go for 3 weeks with out taking care of her kids and to be so isolated that no social network recognized the problem.

I suppose one lesson is that we should all be helping out our friends and neighbors who are new parents as much as possible because it must be quite a burden to shoulder on your own.


lol. your begging for an argument with this one. i will sit back and patiently wait for all the hillary clinton "it takes a villiage" slams. :rolleyes:

Hawk Believer
07-27-2006, 01:51 PM
lol. your begging for an argument with this one. i will sit back and patiently wait for all the hillary clinton "it takes a villiage" slams. :rolleyes:
No, I won't try to say that ultimately the responisbility is on the parents. I can't speak to the details of Yates' case. But in the example of the sailor's kid I provided, i do think that could have been prevented if, say, there was a sailor's wives club that checked in once a week or so with newly transfered wives when the husbands where out at sea.

And heck yeah, when I hopefully have rugrats of my own, I fully plan on utilizing my "village." I will take any opportunity to let my parents, inlaws, or trusted friends be involved with my kids and help out looking after them. Otherwise I am afraid I won't be hiking or kayaking for a decade.

Jeremy
07-27-2006, 02:10 PM
The military is a different animal and her husband's chain of command does bear some responsibilty for what happened.

augustashark
07-27-2006, 06:25 PM
Thing is, if she truly had post pardum depression, the psychosis should not be chronic and would have cleared by this point. No more pregnancy, no more insanity. I could see her getting out.

I don't know what to think about this case. I know very reasonable people who have gone through some post pardum depression and on some level had sympathy for this woman's insanity plea.




holding them underwater till you killed them. 5 times. Its so incomprehensible. It would be a dilema for me if I was on the jury.



You can not use the word REASONABLE and this story in the same post!!!! Bad point!



DILEMA!!!!!! Are you Fu**ing kidding me!!!!! Do you have children? My kids will always come before my wife.....I would have put this B I T C H in the Mother Fu**ing OVEN!!!!!!





Horrible post!

Stlrs4Life
07-27-2006, 06:34 PM
I agree w/you BNG203. I can't even begin to imagine killing my nieces and nephews in such a manner, or any manner for that matter, let alone if they were my own children. She has to be insane to do such a thing. I highly doubt she will ever be released from the mental hospital, as well it should be.

Same here. She will stay mentally ill in that hospital.

Maidenarcher
07-27-2006, 07:47 PM
I definitely disagree with the verdict. Of course, I feel sorry for the whole family, but I am very sorry for her too. I know when a horrible crime is committed people are so shocked and automatically start judging or wanting to throw the book at them (so to speak). However, in this case this person is a very troubled and a truly ill individual and everyone of us would do good to remember that. If she ever recovers from her mental illness she will have to live the rest of her life in pain for what she has done.
I know most if not all of you will disagree. I mean I do believe in an eye for an eye, but I also believe in God, compassion, and forgiveness. No matter what the verdict, she will be paying for the rest of her life.....

Hawk Believer
07-27-2006, 09:14 PM
You can not use the word REASONABLE and this story in the same post!!!! Bad point!



DILEMA!!!!!! Are you Fu**ing kidding me!!!!! Do you have children? My kids will always come before my wife.....I would have put this B I T C H in the Mother Fu**ing OVEN!!!!!!





Horrible post!
The dilema would be trying to follow what that law says versus what seemed like more appropriate justice for what was done to those poor kids. But our laws do say that people aren't guilty of committing crimes if they don't know it was wrong. I have had experience working with people who are psychotic and know that people really do get flipped out and have no control over their behavior at times. I also appreciate that its hard for many people to think about mental illness akin to other diseases like say, influenza because the symptoms manifest themselves in the form of behavior instead of elevated temperature and tell tale lab results.

So if I'm on the jury, and the defense has provided a strong case that Yates was psychotic and did not know right from wrong (I make no claims to know anything about the strength of the evidence presented in this case), whats my next move? Do I follow the law and declare her innocent by reason of insanity or do I do what honestly feels more appropriate but would be counter to our Constituition? Therein lies the dilema AS.

MasterOfPuppets
07-27-2006, 09:53 PM
The dilema would be trying to follow what that law says versus what seemed like more appropriate justice for what was done to those poor kids. But our laws do say that people aren't guilty of committing crimes if they don't know it was wrong. I have had experience working with people who are psychotic and know that people really do get flipped out and have no control over their behavior at times. I also appreciate that its hard for many people to think about mental illness akin to other diseases like say, influenza because the symptoms manifest themselves in the form of behavior instead of elevated temperature and tell tale lab results.

So if I'm on the jury, and the defense has provided a strong case that Yates was psychotic and did not know right from wrong (I make no claims to know anything about the strength of the evidence presented in this case), whats my next move? Do I follow the law and declare her innocent by reason of insanity or do I do what honestly feels more appropriate but would be counter to our Constituition? Therein lies the dilema AS.
then i guess arab terrorist are innocent?? i mean by this definition of insanity then they don't deserve to die, because they believe their doing gods will, just as this nut claims.

Hawk Believer
07-27-2006, 10:07 PM
then i guess arab terrorist are innocent?? i mean by this definition of insanity then they don't deserve to die, because they believe their doing gods will, just as this nut claims.
I don't write the laws, but yeah, thats pretty much what most states say. Perhaps a better way of stating it is that a person isn't capable of understanding right from wrong. That might negate the terrorist example.

MasterOfPuppets
07-27-2006, 11:22 PM
here's an example of the flaw in that law... several years ago in hagerstown md. a man raped and killed a child. he spent a few years in prison then his legal team got him realeased on the grounds that he was mentally incompetent to stand trail. they said he had the mental capacity of a 6 yr old. ( basically he was retarded) i'm sure they made the whole "he doesn't know right from wrong argument" . he was out of confinement for one week ,and raped and killed another child.

Hawk Believer
07-28-2006, 12:46 AM
here's an example of the flaw in that law... several years ago in hagerstown md. a man raped and killed a child. he spent a few years in prison then his legal team got him realeased on the grounds that he was mentally incompetent to stand trail. they said he had the mental capacity of a 6 yr old. ( basically he was retarded) i'm sure they made the whole "he doesn't know right from wrong argument" . he was out of confinement for one week ,and raped and killed another child.
I agree, thats obviously messed up. Its a tricky balance preserving our freedoms and protecting ourselves from whackos. Pedophilia presents similar issues. There are people who have served their sentences but are high risk to re-offend. In my state, they are holding some of these people in a special facility on an island. While its the right thing to do to protect our community, it does seem to cross a line that the government shouldn't be crossing. That is, I am uncomfortable with the government being able to essentially extend a sentence after it has been served. With these pederasts, its fine. But does that set a precedent that a more oppressive government could employ on other types of offenders in the future?

I'd prefer that they got around it by giving convicted sex offenders life sentences. They could be paroled if they were one of the rare ones that seemed unlikely to offend again.

Livinginthe past
07-28-2006, 05:49 AM
I think there are some crimes that it is justifiable to send people to prison for in order to prevent other people from committing the same offense.

These crimes would be fraud, common assault - things that a relatively large percentage of the population might consider doing at some stage and would be deterred by the thought of a custodial sentence.

Then there are crimes where there is an intention to remove a threat to society - crimes such as serial rape and paedophilia - where the thought of committing these crimes simply does not occur to but a few mentally unbalanced individuals.

In these cases, the thought of a jail sentence does not act as a deterrent, simply because the urge to commit these crimes is so strong to the offender and so alien to the majority of people.

I wouldnt presume to guess why, in a scientific sense, these people commit crimes against defenceless children for example - all I know is that these thoughts do not even occur to a overwhelming majority of people.

I cannot see how a paedophile can be rehabilitated in jail - the only solution appears to be to remove them from society all together - and on a permanent basis.

I dont believe in getting angry at these people, I do believe that society should be protected from them.

The only solution I could see would be a painless injection to effectively 'put them down'.

NM

HometownGal
07-28-2006, 11:23 AM
I think there are some crimes that it is justifiable to send people to prison for in order to prevent other people from committing the same offense.

These crimes would be fraud, common assault - things that a relatively large percentage of the population might consider doing at some stage and would be deterred by the thought of a custodial sentence.

Then there are crimes where there is an intention to remove a threat to society - crimes such as serial rape and paedophilia - where the thought of committing these crimes simply does not occur to but a few mentally unbalanced individuals.

In these cases, the thought of a jail sentence does not act as a deterrent, simply because the urge to commit these crimes is so strong to the offender and so alien to the majority of people.

I wouldnt presume to guess why, in a scientific sense, these people commit crimes against defenceless children for example - all I know is that these thoughts do not even occur to a overwhelming majority of people.

I cannot see how a paedophile can be rehabilitated in jail - the only solution appears to be to remove them from society all together - and on a permanent basis.

I dont believe in getting angry at these people, I do believe that society should be protected from them.

The only solution I could see would be a painless injection to effectively 'put them down'.

NM

Very good post, LITP. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, especially your last sentence. I don't advocate killing innocent people, but I don't believe in this case this woman is innocent, as she had the brain cells necessary to pick up the phone and call 911 after she drowned her children, then called her husband. If she had been sentenced to life in prison or life in a mental hospital, I could live with those verdicts, but there is a possibility she could be released one day - that I'm not happy or comfortable with in the least. I suppose it doesn't matter at this point because the verdict has been handed down and it is what it is, but the only comfort I take away from this is knowing that when she has to face the ultimate Judge and Jury on her final judgment day, it ain't gonna be pretty.

Hawk Believer
07-29-2006, 11:29 PM
I wouldnt presume to guess why, in a scientific sense, these people commit crimes against defenceless children for example - all I know is that these thoughts do not even occur to a overwhelming majority of people.

NM


The really tragic part is that a great number of pedofiles were abused as kids. So many of the kids we sypathize with so much when they are abused become the monsters we despise. But from what I know there is very little success with "rehab."

Thats why I like the idea of locking them up for life so we don't have to worry about releasing someon who know for near certainty is going to try to reoffend.

LambertIsGod58
07-30-2006, 08:37 AM
The b*tch not only escaped prison.....she escaped what she really should have gotten...EXECUTION!! If what she said was true, she did it to save her kids from Satan, then why didn't she kill herself to be with them. From the Medical Examiners reports, these kids died a very slow death. I wish I could kill the B*tch myself. And believe me, I would. I'd drown her almost to the point of death, only to revive her and do it all over again.