Andrea Yates - Guilty

[Stoid]

Originally posted by Anthracite *
**
Why can’t you use this argument for any crime?*

Pretty much because it doesn’t apply to every crime.

** Isn’t a murderer going to be tormented with the enormity of their crime all their life? Weren’t Nazi war criminals tormented with the enormity of their crimes once they saw it laid out in the trials?**

Uh, no.

** Isn’t any rapist or pedophile going to be tormented in their own mind over the enormity of their crime, far more than the State could do so by giving them life without parole? They don’t need punishment - they need ‘help’, and a nice halfway house somewhere…yeah.**

Uh, no.

** And one trotting out the argument of “anyone who commits an atrocity must be insane” is really sad, and more worthy of an Oprah episode than actual constructive discourse. One can by extension say that anyone who commits a heinous crime is therefore insane, and thus should be “helped”, not punished.**

How is knockin’ down those strawmen workin’ for ya, A? Feelin better already?

** Bullshit. As a member of the same society in which Yates was once a member, I demand punishment, and I want vengeance.**

And your demand for vengeance has special weight because…?

** I don’t want her to “recover from this”, nor care if she claims to be "healed by the Power of Jesus[sup]TM[/sup] whilst in prison. She is a person who dehumanized herself by her own actions. She is no longer worthy of being in society in any context whatsoever. The “poor woman” is going through more Hell, huh? Oh yeah…she’s the victim here. Society, her husband, Satan, too much sugar, TV, video games, etc. - they are all the murderers, not her.**

Follow closely, it’s actually a simple idea: there are times when human beings are driven to do things by factors outside their control. There is a concept that has long been established in American law that people can be * insane, *and therefore actually are NOT responsible for what they have done. “Psychosis” is a form of insanity. This woman had an extremely well documented case of it, for which she had been treated for quite some time. This was not a permanent condition, this is not who she was the majority of the time. Her mind was twisted and broken, and her acts arose out of this fact.

We do not not look at the level of horribleness of the crime to determine whether it was committed by someone who was temporarily (or permanently) insane. We look at intent, and whether they knew that what they were doing was wrong. So however offended we are by what she did, that is not the yardstick for determining her guilt. And remember: being the one who acted upon the children does not make her “guilty”, although this jury evidently felt so, and that would be the nature of the argument and OP.

**
This case was not Scopes Monkey Trial for fuck’s sake. It was pretty cut and dried. **

I agree, except we seem to disagree about what the cut and dried result should have been.

[Apricot]

Forgive me if I have this a little screwed up, I can’t find the article I read.
Andrea and Rusty have 4 kids. She is a full time homemaker. Andrea is also in charge of caring for her husband’s father, who has late stage dementia, and requires diapering. They are living in a winnebago in her sister-in-law’s yard, without running water (what? these people don’t know how to run a hose??)
She is taking Haldol for psycosis. Rusty confers with her psychaitrist, and although Andrea has expressed a desire to the doctor to remain on the medication Rusty tells the doc that they’ve decided to take her off so she can get pregnant again. Note this comes from Rusty during a phone call. Andrea never sees this doctor again. Then, his father dies, her father dies, she is preggers again, birth, new house, depression, psycosis, Haldol, the phone call from her husband to the new doctor stating that they had decided to take her off medication again, although she had expressed to the doctor a desire never to be off of it again (as well as saying things that contradict this).
Is she guilty? You bet. Does she need to be locked away for the rest of her life because of her actions. Oh yeah. I don’t care where she goes, hospital or prison, because both places will both give her mental health care and lock her up.
In the end though, I think her husband is one cold unfeeling asshole. 4 kids and an incontinent adult in a winnebago without running water! I can’t think that a new baby is going to make that situation better.
Apricot

[John_Corrado]

Follow closely, it’s actually a simple idea: there are times when human beings are driven to do things by factors outside their control. There is a concept that has long been established in American law that people can be insane, and therefore actually are NOT responsible for what they have done.

Yes. However, said insanity is defined as not being able to understand the difference between right and wrong. I defy you to show any state that has a different legal definition of such.
Andrea Yates told the police at the time of her arrest (shortly after murdering her children) and later told the jail psychiatrist that she knew that what she had done was wrong and that she expected to be executed for it.

It fell to the defense to prove that Yates could not tell the difference between right and wrong. In the end, they could not. Remember also that the jury contained two women with degrees in psychology- these were not people who just consider insanity some sort of myth or anything.
Yates chose to kill her children. She planned in advance to do it and carried it out, knowing that she was breaking the law and committing a sin. She was not legally insane when she killed her children.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by Anthracite *

And one trotting out the argument of “anyone who commits an atrocity must be insane” is really sad, and more worthy of an Oprah episode than actual constructive discourse. One can by extension say that anyone who commits a heinous crime is therefore insane, and thus should be “helped”, not punished.

This argument is the same one used by capital punishment opponents again and again. Welcome to Liberal America, where no one need be punished, because you can always punish yourself. In your mind.

Actually no. Most CP opponents (include me in that bunch) oppose the death penalty because of (1) a distrust in the judicial system or (2) belied that it does not act as a deterrent or (3) belief that society should not be in the business of killing people (with some self defense, military exceptions ). I certainly don’t believe that offenders need to be “helped” not “punished”. In this case, from my minimal knowledge of the specifics of the case, I tend to agree with John Corrado and the jury in the guilt phase of the trial (Obviously I would not be CP qualified for the penalty phase)

Bullshit. As a member of the same society in which Yates was once a member, I demand punishment, and I want vengeance.

It’s a Criminal “Justice” system, not Criminal “Vengeance”

[Revedge]

Two things,

As I understand it, she was the one who reported the crime. To me that means she knew what she had done was not right.
Secondly, this whole thing about the “devil told her to do it.” As I understand it, a true christian would refuse to do the devils bidding. (David Berkowitz at least thought that “God” was the one telling hom to kill.) If she “knew” it was the devil, then she shouldn’t have killed the children.

[Bad_News_Baboon]

as I understand the outcome:

Yates was found guilty of two counts of capital murder (She was not on trial for the drownings of Luke, 3, and Paul, 2.)

Next is the decision (taken from CNN): death penalty or life imprisonment.

it has NOT been decided that she will receive the death penalty. Should jurors vote for life in prison, Yates would be sent to a facility chosen by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Most likely it would be the Skyview-Hodge unit in Rusk, Texas, where she could receive in-patient care.

Under Texas law, if jurors believed Yates knew right from wrong at the time of the killings, they could not have found her legally insane.

If the jury gets hung during sentence deliberations, Yates would automatically be sentenced to life in prison and would be eligible for parole in 40 years.
IMO, the jury was correct: she DID kill her kids. I can say I would have voted in the same manner.

Now they have to decide her punishment and THAT, to me, is where the insanity should come into consideration.

my question is (and I ask this sincerely and not trolling) what is the point of keeping her alive? What can we learn from her (as some people I know have suggested) that we don’t already know?

Her doctor said Yates is now taking a cocktail of four medications: the powerful anti-psychotic medication Haldol; Cogentin, to counter the side-effects of Haldol; and the anti-depressants Effexor and Wellbutrin.

Does this mean that she will have to be a daze the rest of her life?

Couldn’t one argue that keeping her alive is really the cruel thing to do? I really don’t have an answer.

The whole situation is sad and there are no winners in this case.
and just for the record, here are the list of jurors:

Juror 1 – A married woman with a 3-year-old daughter. She works at a state-funded private foundation that places foster children. She has a degree in psychology.

· Juror 2 – A married woman with no children. She also has a psychology degree but works as an office administrator at a Houston law firm.

· Juror 3 – A divorced mother of two adult children who works as a director of plant operations. Before her divorce, she and her husband underwent marriage counseling.

· Juror 4 – A 22-year-old woman who lives with her parents and younger brother. She works as a receptionist and attends classes on computer networking.

· Juror 5 – A male engineer who has been married 15 years and has no children. His wife has sought help from a psychotherapist for depression.

· Juror 6 – A 35-year-old woman who has been married 17 years and has two children, ages 10 and 13. She once worked as a legal secretary and is a native of South Carolina.

· Juror 7 – A 33-year-old salesman whose wife works for a law firm that handles foreclosures. He has no children and has spoken openly about being a recovering alcoholic.

· Juror 8 – A man who enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps on his 17th birthday and served four years. He is now a construction maintenance worker and has at least one grown child.

· Juror 9 – A sixth-grade math teacher at a junior high school in the Houston Independent School District. He has been married since 1988 and is the father of a 7-year-old daughter.

· Juror 10 – A woman who works as an air conditioning technician for the Fort Bend Independent School District. She has at least one child.

· Juror 11 – A married Clear Lake woman with two children, ages 15 and 18. She is a sixth-grade language arts teacher at a magnet school for gifted and talented children.

· Juror 12 – The married mother of an adult son. She has worked 16 years as a laboratory technician for a beer company and is an active union member.

I think it is important to note that there wasn’t a hung jury and the outcome was decided rather quickly.

[Largo62]

*Originally posted by beagledave *
**
It’s a Criminal “Justice” system, not Criminal “Vengeance” **

Just what country do you live in? “Justice” system? Between the prosecutors, whose sole interest is getting convictions, and defence attorneys, whose sole interest is getting the client off, it seems more reasonable to me to call it the criminal “legal” system. When “justice” happens in this system it’s pretty much an accident.

In any case, what’s wrong with vengeance? When you know the degfendant is guilty (Yeats confessed), the only thing that should be considered is punishment.

Was she crazy? What difference does it make. The laws that allow people to avoid responsibility for their actions are simply wrong. Did she hear voices? David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) heard voices. Was she “freaked out?” Jeffrey Dahmer ate people. How can you get more freaked out than that? Did the Devil make her do it? For Dan White all it took was a few Twinkees. They all were held responsible for their acts. Their thoughts don’t matter.

Susan Smith wasn’t crazy when she murdered her two little boys. She was just tired of being a wife and mother, and wanted to be free to be with her boyfriend. Andrea Yeats, for all anyone can prove, wanted to get away from her overbearing (to say the least) husband. For all anyone knows for sure, she did the same as Susan Smith, and counted on the insanity plea to get her off.

I hope she doesn’t get the death penalty, however, not because I oppose the death penalty (I don’t) but because it’s too easy for someone who could look into the terrified eyes of five children and take their lives from them. I hope she lives a long and guilt-ridden life. She made her choices, and she should live with their consequences.

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by John Corrado *
**

Yes. However, said insanity is defined as not being able to understand the difference between right and wrong. I defy you to show any state that has a different legal definition of such.**

I never claimed any other definition. I’m saying that she absolutely fit that definition.

**
Yates chose to kill her children. She planned in advance to do it and carried it out, knowing that she was breaking the law and committing a sin. She was not legally insane when she killed her children. **

Actually you are wrong about this. She knew she was breaking the law, she absolutely did NOT view what she was doing as sinful. Quite the contrary, she believed it was an act of mercy, right and proper.

See the following, particularly the last:

**
-she experienced visions and voices. She would hear commands: “Get a knife! Get a knife!” Then the image she first saw after Noah’s birth returned: a knife and a person being stabbed. But now in the image she saw the bloody results. The visions returned as many as 10 times over several days.

…

Her attempt to commit suicide, she explained to Thompson, was her way of heading off what the visions and voices were leading to. “I had a fear I would hurt somebody. I thought it better to end my own life and prevent it,” she said. What others saw as her silence and nervousness, she said, were her attempts to restrain herself from acting out and causing harm.

---

Dr. Starbranch had warned that if Andrea’s illness returned, it could be more severe.

---

leading her attending psychiatrist Mohammed Saeed and the staff to prepare letters asking a Texas judge to confine her to the Austin State Hospital because, they said, her condition was dangerous.

---

Andrea told homicide sergeant Eric Mehl what she had done and why. She did not hate the children. Nor was she mad at them. “They weren’t developing correctly,” she said. The soft-spoken sergeant asked how long she had considered murder. Two years, she said. “Since I realized I have not been a good mother to them.”

---

Later she told jail doctors that nothing could mute the patter that said she was a lousy mother. The death of her children, she said, was her punishment, not theirs. It was, she explained, a mother’s final act of mercy. Did not the Bible say it would be better for a person to be flung into the sea with a stone tied to his neck than cause little ones to stumble? And she had failed her children. Only her execution would rescue her from the evil inside her–a state-sanctioned exorcism in which George W. Bush, the former Governor and now President, would come to save her from the clutches of Satan. Had not Scripture taught that the government is a minister of God, “an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil?” She told the doctors she wanted her hair shaved so she could see the number 666–the mark of the Antichrist–on her scalp. She also wanted her hair cropped in the shape of a crown, perhaps the kind the Bible says Jesus will give to those who have won salvation.

---

Since then, Andrea has been put back on Haldol and other drugs. Though she has a distorted recall of June 20, other memories are coming back. “It’s like a fog being lifted,”**

Given the above facts, I would be interested to hear from someone who thinks her conviction was a good thing, what they feel her motive was? Because it seems clear as a bell to me that she believed utterly that what she was doing was the ** right ** thing to do. Understanding that others may not see it that way is a separate issue entirely. She believed she had to do it to ** save them ** and to punish herself. When she talks about how evil she is, she is referring to herself BEFORE SHE KILLED THE CHILDREN. She killed the children to save them, and to save herself from what she believed was Satan inside her.

Does that sound like someone who has a really good grasp on what is really right and what is truly wrong?

And if you think that’s bull, what evidence do you have that her motive was something else entirely? Something completely selfish and evil, something in keeping with the idea that this woman is a bad human being who sanely and clearly decided to kill her children for nefarious reasons? Because all reports are that she was a deeply devoted mother. That while Rusty was controlling and a jerk and clueless, etc, she made the choices she made to be at home and devote her life to her kids. He suggested nannys, part time work for him, all kinds of things. She would have none of it. So tell me…why would this woman make those choices if she hated her children so much she had to kill them?

I haven’t yet heard or read any theories about what her real motive and beliefs supposedly must have been in order for us to accept that she was sane when these acts were committed.

stoid

PS: The above quotes were from a 9 page article found here

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by DesertGeezer *
**
Was she crazy? What difference does it make. The laws that allow people to avoid responsibility for their actions are simply wrong. Did she hear voices? David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) heard voices. Was she “freaked out?” Jeffrey Dahmer ate people. How can you get more freaked out than that? Did the Devil make her do it? For Dan White all it took was a few Twinkees. They all were held responsible for their acts. Their thoughts don’t matter.

**

You are mistaken. Our laws provide specifically for what our thoughts are when we act.

Andrea killed her children. However, that is not a crime. What is a crime is murdering her children, and I do not believe that she did so. The definition of murder is “unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought”. I don’t think she had a molecule of malice in her act. See my previous post.

stoid

[c_goat]

*Originally posted by Stoid *
Andrea killed her children. However, that is not a crime. What is a crime is murdering her children, and I do not believe that she did so. The definition of murder is “unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought”. I don’t think she had a molecule of malice in her act. See my previous post.

I’m confused. You’re saying here that it’s ok to kill someone if there’s no malice?

[Largo62]

Originally posted by Stoid *
**
You are mistaken. Our laws provide specifically for what our thoughts are when we act.*

I didn’t say the laws don’t provide for thoughts. I said they shouldn’t. Actually I said they were wrong.

**Andrea killed her children. However, that is not a crime. What is a crime is murdering her children, and I do not believe that she did so. The definition of murder is “unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought”. I don’t think she had a molecule of malice in her act. See my previous post.
stoid **

Andrea Yates (Yeats?) took each of her five children and drowned them in a bathtub. How is that not murder? In what way could that be “lawful?” She didn’t kill them accidentally. No malice? Since when does malice have to be present for a murder to occur?

If there are any leagle eagles out there, please give us a definition of murder. I just can’t believe Stoid is correct.

If malice is necessary for a “murder” to have occurred, what is Dr. Kevorkian doing in prison? And he didn’t even kill anyone himself. Cases are cropping up in California lately of people being convicted of second degree murder for killing someone while driving drunk. I agree with that, but the element of malice is certainly missing from those cases.

Our laws simply hold people responsible for their acts, not their motives. Most of us have probably felt malice toward another at some time, but we are only responsible in law if we act on that feeling.

Let’s stop picking nits. Andrea killed her kids. She confessed (actually reported) that she killed them. She was found guilty of doing that while legally sane. That’s that. You will never know what was going on in her mind, and neither will I. The jury found that she was cognizant of the difference between right and wrong when she killed them. That’s the test. I’ve already stated that there shouldn’t even be a test. She killed them…she pays for it.

[monster]

There is a HUGE difference between being a jackass of a husband and drowning your children in a bathtub.

That said, not only does Andrea Yates deserve to die for murdering her (and her husband’s) five children, she should be chased around her house, begging for her life, not knowing if she will live or die, and then be drowned in the same bathtub her children were murdered in.

Even then, that may be too humane. <yes, I am using hyperbole, but the sentiment is still the same>

Now, I am going to go take deep breaths and then hug my son.

[Monster104]

I believe that she was COMPLETELY guilty, and I further believe she should be sentenced to death. Why? Because from what I’ve read, there was ample evidence showing that the murders were premeditated, and that she had made recorded statements SAYING that she knew what she did was wrong, but still necessary in order to save her children from Satan, or some such bullshit.

Guilty. Put her to death.

Russel Yates may have been a bad father and husband, but that doesn’t mean any of the (legal) guilt should be placed on his shoulders.

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by c_goat *
**
I’m confused. You’re saying here that it’s ok to kill someone if there’s no malice? **

I never said or implied that it was “ok to kill someone” at all.

However, there are a wide variety of circumstances under which one person might cause the death of another, both deliberately and accidentally, and the law recognizes this, as well it should. Not all killing is murder. I don’t think Andrea Yates murdered her children. I don’t think she was acting from selfishness, anger, hate, vengeance, greed, or anything else which might have made her act a murderous one.

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?

I surely hope no one will pounce on this and waste our time with rants about the difference between cats and kids, or accusations that I somehow agree with Yates’ act. I am merely illustrating for those who seem to have troubel with the idea: killing is not automatically murder. State of mind and intention have EVERYTHING to do with determining what is and is not murder. In Andrea Yates’ mind, she was doing the right thing.

[Du_Hast]

My 0.02:

Kill her, castrate him.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Revedge *
As I understand it, she was the one who reported the crime. To me that means she knew what she had done was not right.

To me, it means that she was insane. I’m willing to accept that a sane person might kill their own children. But who in their right mind would kill their own children and then call the police to report it?!?

Secondly, this whole thing about the “devil told her to do it.” As I understand it, a true christian would refuse to do the devils bidding. (David Berkowitz at least thought that “God” was the one telling hom to kill.) If she “knew” it was the devil, then she shouldn’t have killed the children.

What part of psychosis do you not understand? Psychotic people do not act logically. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

As for those saying that the claim of psychosis was made up, it was diagnosed long before the murders.

DesertGeezer

If malice is necessary for a “murder” to have occurred, what is Dr. Kevorkian doing in prison?

From 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.

Our laws simply hold people responsible for their acts, not their motives. Most of us have probably felt malice toward another at some time, but we are only responsible in law if we act on that feeling.

Your example only shows that the law does not consider thoughts alone.

[beagledave]

*Originally posted by DesertGeezer *
Just what country do you live in? “Justice” system? Between the prosecutors, whose sole interest is getting convictions, and defence attorneys, whose sole interest is getting the client off, it seems more reasonable to me to call it the criminal “legal” system. When “justice” happens in this system it’s pretty much an accident.

Whether we should have an adversarial system of justice in the U.S is a topic for a different thread…feel free to start one. In the meantime, take your insult and cram it. I did not suggest that the existing system of courts and laws is perfect or without a multitude of problems. I DID suggest that it is designed to be a system of justice and not vengeance, and that there IS a significant difference between the two notions

In any case, what’s wrong with vengeance? When you know the degfendant is guilty (Yeats confessed), the only thing that should be considered is punishment.

**

The notion of vengeance, as applied historically and contemporarily usually means “an eye for an eye”. But our system of legal justice in this country does not abide that. I’m not allowed, legally, to take a baseball bat and, go to a jail and beat the crap out of someone who had previously mugged me. Lynch mobs tend to be frowned upon as well.

Whether the death penalty is justice or vengeance, is a topic worthy of another debate. I have NEVER heard of a prosecutor or judge calling for “vengeance” in a criminal case…have you? If you have…please cite for me.

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by DesertGeezer *
**

Our laws simply hold people responsible for their acts, not their motives. Most of us have probably felt malice toward another at some time, but we are only responsible in law if we act on that feeling.

**

Again, you are WRONG. Our laws hold people responsible for our acts AND our motives.

If I kill you because I reasonably believe you are about to kill me, the law does not punish my ACT. The law looks at WHY I did what I did and determines that my motive was acceptable, even if it is eventually proven that you were not trying to kill me! If my believing so is reasonble, that’s all that is necessary.

ANDREA YATES DID NOT BELIEVE SHE WAS DOING ANYTHING WRONG. SHE BELIEVED SHE WAS SAVING HER CHILDREN.

The fact that WE don’t GET that is only PROOF that is the product of a SICK mind. And under the LAW, a person who is so SICK that they believe that KILLING THEIR CHILDREN IS A MERCIFUL ACT are not considered GUILTY of murder! I believe the jury deliberately ignored the truth of this because they were so mortified by the act. Which is understandable, but still not acceptable.

God… I know people are offended by her act, it was horrific. But MOTIVES FUCKING COUNT!

Sorry…I’m just getting frustrated at all this “off with her head” bullshit. I hope for all your sakes you never have to deal with mental illness. Jesus.

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by Monster104 *
**I believe that she was COMPLETELY guilty, and I further believe she should be sentenced to death. Why? Because from what I’ve read, there was ample evidence showing that the murders were premeditated, and that she had made recorded statements SAYING that she knew what she did was wrong, but still necessary in order to save her children from Satan, or some such bullshit.
**

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

[red_dragon60]

Who is guilty? Everyone involved. It seems that Andrea is the only one being punished now. Do I think punishment is in order? Yes. In Texas, she’s gonna be having a hard time. She should be locked away in an asylum. But saying that she was not guilty of murder is kinda loopy. What she did was kill. Five times. Innocent children. She was suffering from psychosis. I accept that. But if she were to go to an asylum instead of a prison, wouldn’t we have to look at other trials?

(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.

Feel free to tear this apart. I only offered it up as comparison between to obviously demented people and their punishments.

Andrea is locked away from society. Good. Have we gotten to the root of it? No.