i don’t see how some as clearly as psychotic as this woman could have any moral culpability for her actions. If you can’t comprehend reality you can’t be expected to interact with it rationally. The way I see it, Yates and her children were all victims of a natural disaster which is nobody’s fault. If the inasanity defense is ever valid at all, it’s valid in this case. It’s not her fault her messed up brain chemistry made her do this.
Funny, that was my reaction to the original verdict.
I am inclined to feel more sympathy for Andrea Yeats now than I did when this horrible incident first occurred. But I still hold that guilt or innocense should not have anything to do with mental state. I don’t think a person can be “not guilty” by reason of insanity. One either did the crime or one did not. If one did the crime one is guilty. Period. I would, however, accept a verdict of guilty, but insane. This would allow for some mitigation of any penalty, while recognizing that the person is guilty of the act.
If Andrea Yeats could be restored to a sound mental state, that’s the way we should go. And if it could be shown with reasonable certainty that she would not repeat the crime she should be returned to society to live out her life.
Sadly for her, whether she is imprisoned or hospitalized, she will never be free of the images of her children’s faces as she drowned them.
Justice in this case will always be imperfect. For one thing, Yeats’ former husband can’t be held to account under any existing law because he didn’t actually harm the children himself. There is no doubt in my mind that he is morally at least as responsible for their deaths as his former wife. Now he is married again, and no doubt will insist on his new wife’s popping out babies regardless of her mental condition. If she’s mentally sound now it’s anybody’s guess how long that condition will last if she’s married to that asshole.
What do you perceive as the diffence, given this:
I see no difference.
The same could be said for Jeffrey Dahmer.
Again, the same can be said about any murderer. All are victims of some combination of biology and environment. However, under the principle of “we don’t hang horse thieves for stealing horses, we hang them so that horses will not be stolen,” I think we should lock her up and throw away the key, though execution’s not a bad idea either. As far as societal behaviors that should be discouraged, drowning your children should be up near the top. Or to put it another way, I don’t think the insanity defense is ever valid.
Dahmer was not psychotic as far as I know. There is a difference between psychotic and psychopathic. A psychopath does not have trouble perceiving reality. Most serial killers do not suffer from psychosis. They know what they’re doing.
They both have screws loose, or they would not have done what they did. Perceptions of reality are a matter of degree and often opinion. Andrea perceived reality well enough to fill up her real bathtub with real water, chase down her real kids and hold them under water until she was sure they were really dead. What you, or rather what the jury did, was say “hey if you ever get caught doing something real bad pretend you couldn’t perceive reality.”
So killing insane people will stop people from being insane?
Do you know anything about psychosis, chad?
I don’t recall ever saying we should kill insane people. However, insane people who kill others should not get any special treatment. Killing an insane person who has very violent tendencies (I think drowning your children qualifies) will get them out of the gene pool, as will life imprisonment. Both also send the societal message that killing others without a society determined good reason is unacceptable. It also sends the message that, forgetting to take ones pills does not ok murder.
Not personally, but I have read about it.
I’ve long thought that we need to hold a major national convention of judges and lawyers, for the specific purpose of discussing the concept of being “legally insane.” It’s based on Victorian notions of insanity that we now know are completely off-base. If you ask 10 different psychologists what it means to be “unable to know that what you’re doing is wrong,” you’ll get 11 different answers. The whole concept of insanity, as it relates to the law, needs to be completely rethought at its most basic levels. Starting with the issue of whether it should exist at all.
As for cases like Andrea Yates, I’m inclined to agree with DesertGeezer. We should allow insanity as a mitigating factor, not a defense.
Andrea Yates murdered her kids to save them from Satan. She didn’t care what happened to herself so long as she “protected” her kids. There is no such thing as deterrence when someone is that screwed up in the head.
and
What’s that Rusty? It’s the psychiatrist’s fault that you removed your wife from psychiatrict care against their advice? It’s the psychiatrist’s fault that you and Andrea had more children after you were told Andrea should never have more children? It’s the psychiatrist’s fault that your mentally unstable wife became more mentally unstable while living in cramped conditions with five children that she was never allowed to have a break from? You make me sick, Rusty Yates, and you share the responsibility of your children’s deaths with your wife. At least she has the excuse of mental illness, but you were just a control freak who was utterly indifferent to the state of your wife’s mental health and her ability to care for those five poor children. Russell Yates created the monster that took his children when he assumed responsibility as the supreme head of the family and then denied his wife the psychiatric care she needed.
Wow, what a bad mom.
So what.
Congratulations on a job well done, from her perspective, now lock her up.
Again the same could be said for Dahmer and probably every other murderer. Who are deterred are the ones who are almost that screwed up in the head but because they can foresee severe repercussions decide against their respective crime. What the insanity defense does is lower that deterrent bar just a little bit, making society a little less safe. Less safe especially, when said insane people are eventually released back into public.
Was Dahmer psychotic? Do you have any evidence that killing someone like Yates will have any bearing on someone else’s psychosis?
Do you have any evidence to suggest that killing people who killed during a psychotic episode has any bearing on the actions of others?
So will treating their illness, especially if they had been denied treatment before. It might even create a productive member of society! But what has the gene pool to do with it? Are you suggesting that postpartum psychosis is somehow genetic?
No one’s talking about letting her go. We can recognize that while someone may not be criminally responsible for her actions, she is still dangerous enough to be restrained in a controlled environment for the rest of her life without making that environment penal in nature.
There was never a question of Yates going free, only a question of where and under what circumstances she’ll be confined.
I couldn’t say. Was he normal? I really doubt it.
I don’t think it at all unreasonable to say that some people are really crazy and some people are just kind of crazy and that it is problematic to sort out who is who. It is also quite probable that those who are only kind of crazy will claim and act like they are a really crazy after they get caught doing something heinous, so long as being found really crazy will allow you to get away with murder. I also don’t think it unreasonable to take people who are both really crazy and really dangerous off the streets.
I think this relates directly to my reply above. I don’t have a big opinion for or against the death penalty, so lock her up for good if that makes you feel any better, just don’t ever let her loose.
I didn’t think of that. Someone of her skills could probably get a good job in daycare, perhaps as a nanny or a teacher. Perhaps you could hire her. I hear there really is a shortage of good help out there. Particularly of people have haven’t drowned their children.
[/quote]
But what has the gene pool to do with it? Are you suggesting that postpartum psychosis is somehow genetic?
[/QUOTE]
Well, a history of depression is thought to be a contributing factor…
…and depression is largely heritable:
That’s better but I think deterrence is best served if her restraint is not all that comfortable. She did a real crime, I think she should do real time.
From the quote above it seems her husband hopes she’ll go free:
“…is she going to spend time in a hospital and get good medical treatment and have hope of a possibly somewhat normal life later?"
And lets not forget Ruken’s comment:
“So will treating their illness, especially if they had been denied treatment before. It might even create a productive member of society!”
:rolleyes:
Nobody is letting Andrea Yates go, badchad. She’ll likely be in a mental facility for the rest of her life.
You obviously don’t know anything about psychosis-at least, no more than you do about religion.