# Andrea Yates - Guilty **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 13, 2002, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963 "2002-03-13T01:24:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/61 "2002-03-14T02:30:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fenris \* > \*\* > > Just so we’re clear, the “Save my kids from Satan” bullshit didn’t start being spewed until _after_ she’d been jailed (and, IIRC spoken to her lawyer). > > Fenris \*\* As long as we’re being clear, let’s remember she didn’t talk about ANY of it until after she was jailed, since she was arrested right after she did it! And she wasn’t very talkative at any point in the proceedings. And I patiently await a single attempt to explain what her motives actually were, if indeed her psychosis was “bullshit”. And some support for the proffered motive would be helpful, since every single shred of evidence we have supports her being a loving and devoted mother who went insane. Really. I’m waiting. Any takers? Anyone? stoid ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/62 "2002-03-14T02:35:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by red\_dragon60 \* > \*\*It seems that one of Andrea’s murders was premeditated, becuase she chased the kid down when he ran. \*\* Once more, with feeling: premediation has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with determining legal sanity. Zero. Zip. Nada. It has been clearly established, and no one has argued differently, that she was planning this for \* two years. \* So? She was nuts for two years. It wouldn’t matter if she had meditated upon her act for ten or twenty years in terms of finding her legally sane or insane. Again (8th time’s the charm?) “Temporary” does not mean “momentary”. It means “not permanent”. She wasn’t always that way and she wouldn’t necessarily stay that way, she was that way for awhile. ---
**Author:** ![Largo62](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@Largo62](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Largo62)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/63 "2002-03-14T02:53:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Ryan \* > \*\* > > DesertGeezer > > From [law.com](http://law.com): > > murder > the killing of a human being by a **sane** person, with intent, **malice** aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. > > (My bolding) > So apparently both sanity and malice is required for it to be considered murder. > > malice > a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred or **total disregard** for the other’s well-being. > > (Again, my bolding) > Kevorkian’s prosecutor probably argued that his giving poisons to patients he knew wished to die constituted a total disregard for their lives. > Your example only shows that the law does not consider thoughts **alone**. \*\* How do you account for murder convictions where the motive is not even known? I was responding to **Stoid’s** comment that Andrea Yates’ killing of her children was not murder. Your [law.com](http://law.com) definition nothwithstanding, the jury, which included two people with degrees in psychology, found her sane and guilty of _murder._ So, at least in Texas, it is you who are wrong. Tell it to the judge. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/64 "2002-03-14T03:11:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > \*\* > And I patiently await a single attempt to explain what her motives actually were, if indeed her psychosis was “bullshit”. And some support for the proffered motive would be helpful, since every single shred of evidence we have supports her being a loving and devoted mother who went insane. > > Really. I’m waiting. Any takers? Anyone? > > stoid \*\* Sure. She’s insane. That’s for sure. No question there. In this case, it doesn’t excuse it. You see, she had a history of severe mental illness. When she chose to have children she had the responsibility to assure those children a safe environment. Presumably she made that decision with her husband while she was in a state of sanity. If she was a good and devoted mother as has been suggested she needed to take steps to protect her children from her instability. She didn’t do that. Her motive was self-interest. She put her desire to have children and raise them herself in spite of her known psychosis, ahead of the safety of those children. One might also presume that the transition from sane to psychotic was not an instantaneous one, and her failure to take steps to ensure the children’s physical and emotional well-being in the face of her growing instability rests solely on her shoulders. To see what I’m talking about, consider for a second that instead of suffering from mental illness, she suffered from lycanthropy. Every full moon she turns into a werewolf, is no longer herself and no longer responsible for her actions. At these times she is a potential serious danger to all those around her. As the wolf she is not responsible for her actions. As a person with knowledge of her disease she must recognize the danger she presents to others when she’s a wolf. She must take precautions at the time of the full moon, or when she feels a change coming over her to ensure the safety of those she is responsible for. If she fails to do so she is responsible for what happens. Two examples: 1. At the time of the full moon she locks herself into a cage. Later the cage is struck by lightning and the wolf escapes and causes damage. She is not responsible because she took reasonable and appropriate precautions. 2. At the time of the full moon she goes to a nursery school to pick up her child, turns into a wolf and kills several children. In this instance she failed to take reasonable precautions, and is responsible for the actions of her sane, human self. Silly and extreme examples like this are nonetheless useful as they help to focus the issue. While sane, did this woman take reasonable precautions in light of the knowledge of her psychosis? If not, there are a couple of possible motives: 1. Pride. She was unwilling to ask for help out of her own sense of self-interested pride which insisted she do it herself. 2. Neglect. She was unwilling to take reasonable precautions because they were too much trouble, she didn’t care, or she underestimated the power of her psychosis. But, I really don’t believe what I just wrote. Her actions fall under the category of being so extreme and terrible they cannot be mitigated or excused under any circumstances. I think commiting such acts invalidates one’s humanity irredemably. The answser is the same as with a mad dog. Something has gone terribly and horribly wrong with it, and there’s no other rational or merciful answer than to destroy it quickly and painlessly. This is as much for its own good as anyone else’s. ---
**Author:** ![Jurhael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@Jurhael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jurhael)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/65 "2002-03-14T03:17:59Z")
I think putting her to death would be doing her a great favor. ---
**Author:** ![BiblioCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ed8c4c/32.png) [@BiblioCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BiblioCat)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/66 "2002-03-14T03:19:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*How many months until Mr. Yates tries again with another woman? > > Good god, it almost makes one support manditory sterilization. \*\* In a recent issue of _People_ magazine (the one with Andrea Yates on the cover), Russell Yates is talking about how he always envisioned a houseful of kids and then grandkids. A quote by him said, “I may never be called ‘Daddy’ again”. Not “I **won’t** ever be called Daddy”, but “I **may** never be called Daddy”. As if he’s thinking if she gets out, they may try to have another kid. Or if she’s put to death (you know how quick Texas is about that), he may remarry and have more. Sick, sick, sick. I hope she gets the help she needs and that someone castrates him. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/67 "2002-03-14T03:27:23Z")
With another woman? Hell, when do you think he’s going to have a go at it with HER again? IIRC, Texas does allow conjugal visits. And if she’s pregnant, I doubt very seriously Texas will execute her. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/68 "2002-03-14T03:31:07Z")
Gotta agree with you **Kinsey**. Imagine the selfishness of the statement. His thoughts are for himself and how this affects him. That’s the big part of the problem. I don’t think either of these people’s motivation was p[rimarily for the welfare of their children, but rather for themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/69 "2002-03-14T04:26:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > \*\* > > As long as we’re being clear, let’s remember she didn’t talk about ANY of it until after she was jailed, since she was arrested right after she did it! And she wasn’t very talkative at any point in the proceedings. > \*\* Except in the 911 tapes where she confessed, and when she talked to the police. She didn’t mention the Satan stuff at all, she just talked about how she murdered her kids. \*\* > [@](#): > > And I patiently await a single attempt to explain what her motives actually were, if indeed her psychosis was “bullshit”. And some support for the proffered motive would be helpful, since every single shred of evidence we have supports her being a loving and devoted mother who went insane. > > Really. I’m waiting. Any takers? Anyone? > > stoid \*\* Nope. I have no desire to speculate upon her motives, nor is it incumbent on me to do so. She wasn’t legally insane (via a jury of her peers) though she may well have been mentally ill. She also may have been mentally ill and told by her lawyer to use the Satan story, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. As far as I’m concerned, she was just a murderer. I have no wish to try to guess why she committed such atrocities, I don’t care about her motives, I care about her actions and I’m content knowing that justice was served and she’s either going to go to jail for multiple life sentences or be executed for her crimes. But you and I have had a similar discussion on a similar topic [before](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=77030) and didn’t resolve anything and simply annoyed the heck out of each other, so I’m gonna bow out at this point. Fenris ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/70 "2002-03-14T05:06:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fenris \* > \*\*She wasn’t legally insane (via a jury of her peers) \*\* Yeah, well, a jury said that OJ wasn’t guilty of murder, too. Juries are clearly fallible, and I think they failed miserably both times. stoid ---
**Author:** ![MysterEcks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@MysterEcks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysterEcks)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/71 "2002-03-14T05:11:05Z")
**Stoid** said: > [@](#): > > I think it was, to her, at that time with her mind in that particular condition, just what she said it was: a loving act. > > Look at it this way, I’m currently facing the pain and suffering of my cat who has cancer. I’m definitely going to have my cat killed before he can die naturally and painfully on his own. Am I murdering my cat, or acting mercifully and lovingly towards him? Congratulations. This is the new reigning champion of stupid analogies. The jury said Yates did not meet the applicable standard for legal insanity, and I’m going to have to assume that they were in a better position to know than anybody in this thread. I realize this concept offends the hell out of wannabe-psychiatrists who think they can divine the truth (which just happens to support their political opinions–fancy that!) from news reports, but them’s the breaks. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/72 "2002-03-14T07:26:42Z")
Feel better now? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/73 "2002-03-14T07:56:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\* > > She’s insane. That’s for sure. No question there. In this case, it doesn’t excuse it. > > You see, she had a history of severe mental illness. When she chose to have children she had the responsibility to assure those children a safe environment. . \*\* You expect her to chose responsibly while suffering from a mental illness??? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/74 "2002-03-14T08:09:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by red\_dragon60 \* > \*\* > (slippery slope argument ahead) > > Charlie Manson is crazy. He didn’t kill people himself. He heard voices. Surely he was guilty of a lesser crime, because he did not actually kill others himself. But why is he denied every time he comes up for parole? Why is he in prison? If Chuck gets to rot, by all rights it seems to me that Andrea should be host to the same. That’s my opinion though. It seems that one of Andrea’s murders was premeditated, becuase she chased the kid down when he ran. That seems like what Chuck did by planning. I know there is a vast difference between the two in scope of premeditation, but it was still there in part. > > . \*\* But, it’s a bad and obvious lie. Manson isn’t crazy. He’s a con man. Has he been diagnosed with a mental illness? Surely you can come with a better example. Once again, I remind you that Yates was diagnosed with postpartum psychosis _well before_ her 5th pregnancy. I think what this boils down to is that many of you simply do not believe in postpartum psychosis. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 8:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/75 "2002-03-14T08:54:20Z")
It doesn’t matter if she had post-partem psychosis or not. All that matters is whether she could determine right from wrong. From recorded statements she made (reported on many newssites, I could dig up links if it’s necessary), she said she knew it was wrong. She’s guilty. Psychological and mental problems and all, she’s guilty, and I hope she is executed, and kinda hope there’s a hell for her to burn in. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/76 "2002-03-14T09:01:53Z")
Oh what the hell, just so people don’t bitch and moan I’ll provide some preemptive linkage. [Here’s](http://cnn.looksmart.com/r_search?l&izch&qc=&col=cnni&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&rf=1&venue=all&keyword=&qp=&search=0&key=andrea+yates) a start…lots of CNN articles to pick from. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/77 "2002-03-14T09:16:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monster104 \* > \*\* It doesn’t matter if she had post-partem psychosis or not. All that matters is whether she could determine right from wrong. > > From recorded statements she made (reported on many newssites, I could dig up links if it’s necessary), she said she knew it was wrong. > \*\* Really? I haven’t seen that anywhere. What I HAVE seen is that she knew what she was doing was illegal. There is a big difference. From your own sources: > [@](#): > > * * * > > But Resnick testified that although there was evidence she knew that killing her children was illegal, she felt that what she had done was in their best interest. > > Resnick said Yates faced “a cruel dilemma which turned upside down her sense of right and wrong.” She believed that, by killing her children, she not only sent them to heaven, but saved them from an eternity in the fires of hell, he said. > \*\* so let’s see…you are a parent. You are deeply religious. For whatever reason, you believe, at the bottom of your soul, that your children are going to burn in hell for eternity unless you kill them. You know that the law doesn’t understand that, but that’s just something you’ll have to cope with later. Because \* like any good parent, your concern for your children’s welfare outweighs all other concerns, period \* . Seems to be that she did NOT know herself to be doing wrong. She knew herself to be doing something illegal in the pursuit of something very right. Bingo, insanity. What is it about this that you people do not understand? Why do you keep ignoring it? Is it that if you acknowledge it you might have to review and reassess your revenge desires? Not really… you can acknowledge that under the law she was insane and that you don’t approve of the insanity defense. I disagree, but you have a right to that opinion of the matter. What is irritating me is the misstatements of the situation to fit what you believe. And still no one has even tried to explain what the evil was the woman supposedly suffered from that would explain her acts as undertaken by a sane woman. Wonder why. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/78 "2002-03-14T11:27:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Monster104 \* > \*\*It doesn’t matter if she had post-partem psychosis or not. All that matters is whether she could determine right from wrong. > > \*\* Really? [http://www.bcrmh.com/disorders/psychosis.htm](http://www.bcrmh.com/disorders/psychosis.htm) > [@](#): > > During a psychotic episode, the woman losses touch with reality. The woman may be: > > hallucinating e.g. hearing voices when nobody is around or may be > delusional - having ideas that she believes despite all proof that they are false, e.g. convinced that someone is trying to harm her, or that her baby is the devil. > thought disordered-her thought process may be illogical or chaotic. > It can be a very frightening condition and needs immediate treatment So you are saying that a woman who may be hallucinating, delusional and thought disordered can truly appreciate the consequences of actions and know right from wrong? So no one can be legally insane… I disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/79 "2002-03-14T14:25:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spooje \* > \*\*You expect her to chose responsibly while suffering from a mental illness??? \*\* Of course. You seem to think mental illness is a blanket term or condition that absolves one of all responsibility for one’s actions. There are degrees of insanity. The fact that she was sane enough to have and raise children and operate in society for most of the last decade, makes the idea that she was completely irresponsible during that period an inherent contradiction. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2002, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963/80 "2002-03-14T14:30:39Z")
It’s very simple: By her own admission this is something she thought about and resisted doing for at least two years despite a growing compulsion. She could not have been sane enough to resist for two years without the awareness that killing her children would be wrong. If she was aware of the compulsion and knew that it was wrong for the preceding two years than it follows that she was aware she represented a danger to her children. With foreknowledge she failed to protect them from the danger of herself. Which is why I wrote the Werewolf analogy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrea-yates-guilty/97963.md?page=5)