Uh Elvis, I think you got whooshed there. I think PunditLisa said that as a reading of Russel Yates attitude toword his wife. I don’t think she really believes that AY is “a nice person befor this murder thing”.
Apparently there is a special meaning to the term “anyone” of which I was not aware.
Which I am sure is a disappointment for the bloodthirsty.
Elvis, I was sarcastically assuming Yates’ attitude towards his wife. He knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was ill; indeed she had attempted suicide twice, she had severe postpartum psychosis after baby #4, yet Yates continued to knock her up AND leave those kids in her care. His reaction when she called him at work was, “What have you done?”
As if he expected something to happen.
If Yates wasn’t surprised that she snapped, then dammit, he’s as guilty, perhaps more so, than his wife in the deaths of those children. 5 kids are enough to drive a mentally balanced person over the wall. Then to put them in a home with a mentally unbalanced person…and they were home-schooled so the woman never got a break.
It just boggles the mind how Yates can defend his wife, (“She was a good person. She was just really sick.”) UNLESS he feels guilty. But I think he is defending her because he knows he is partly at fault. He could have prevented it. Jesus, he could have worn a condom once in a freaking while. But he didn’t.
I can’t even imagine how my husband would have acted had I methodically killed our kids in a bathtub. But let’s be real clear on one thing. He wouldn’t be defending me to the world. Because any notion he formerly had of me being a “good person” would be grossly overshadowed by the fact that I KILLED HIS KIDS.
Someone else said something like this and I agree. I don’t really agree with the death penalty, because sometimes the person may be innocent (rare… but could happen). But mainly I don’t agree, because death is an easy way out for these people who commit crazy crimes. They get a chance to repent, and be born again, and leave this “hell” on earth. I would rather they sit in prison and think about what “hell” they caused, rather than escape it.
Just my $.02
Jenny*
Anyone hear excerpts from Russell’s post sentencing press conference? He blames the state for not stopping his wife from killing their kids. :rolleyes:
Absolutely everything, El Elvis.
Simply wanting children is not the problem here.
Forcing your wife to stop taking antidepressant medicine so she can get pregnant is the problem here. Andrea even told her psychiatrist that she did not want to be taken off the medication. The psychiatrist did not want her to be taken off the medication. But her husband wanted her off it, so she was taken off it. Once taken off the medication, her symptoms inevitably get worse.
I’m not saying in any way that the husband is at fault here - he wasn’t the one that drowned his five children. But I do feel that he at least plays a part in setting up a situation so horrible that a mother was led to murder her children.
Let’s get one thing straight. I do not deny the fact that the husband is an asshole and has made some really stupid mistakes. But, placing blame on him and taking it away from her for the murder is what is really getting me. I’m amazed too that everyone I know who seems to protest her guilty sentence is a woman (if you’ve expressed your displeasure here and you’re a male, I appologize, it’s just sometimes these names make it hard to distinguish). I figured if anyone would be upset over the death of five innocent children, it would be women.
Anyway, yes, he’s a dipshit who let his views of having a huge family overun his common sense in keeping his wife off of anti-depresants and made a terrible decision to keep them homeschooled. But it was not him that drowned the children. It really bothers me that everyone defending her keeps talking about “Poor Andrea, she had problems,” but none of them seem to think “poor children, they are dead.” What about her family, huh? How come her parents never stepped in and told her husband to fuck off? How come nobody’s jumped on their asses? If he’s to blame, then so are they. And so are their friends and nieghbors, because they all knew what kind of problems she had and what he was doing.
I agree with her verdict, and I agree with her sentence. Given her past and problems, I don’t believe she deserves the death penalty. But given her actions, anyone who says she isn’t guilty just seems heartless to me. Sorry if you feel I’m heartless and bloodthirsty for thinking about the children in this senario, but to me, they’re the victims here, not Andrea.
You are making the assumption that we who are upset about Andrea’s sentence are NOT distressed by the death of the children, when it does not follow.
The greatest pain and suffering of death is for the living who remain behind. The children’s last minutes were horrible, and it is a terribly sad thing that their lives were cut short. But it is a fact that they are dead, and they are not experiencing any sorrow or regret over their shortened lives. They are not suffering, they are not tortured; they are simply not anything at all. Or, if you believe, they are actually in a far better place. So why would we currently be caught up in their fates? Their fate is complete.
And how, exactly, is it heartless to not wish to see more suffering arise from this terrible situation? We could burn Andrea alive, slowly, and chop her into little pieces; it wouldn’t improve things for those children one tiny bit. It wouldn’t make them feel better, either. It would not elevate or improve our society, in fact, I can’t think of a single good coming from it, unless one includes the sense of satisfaction those who wish to see her suffer would get, and I consider that a net bad, not a net good.
stoid
:rolleyes:
I think Andrea Yates’ sentence is as just as it could be. Truly there is NO sentence that would fit the crime. I don’t have a problem with a life sentence but I would have been troubled by a death sentence. Because clearly she was fucked up.
As far as Russell goes, there are different degrees of crimes. Take as an example the crack-addicted man who beats his girlfriend’s 4 year old daughter to death. Yes, HE is the most to blame for the child’s death. However, mom is not BLAMELESS. Because she knew her boyfriend was on crack and she knew that that presented a potentially dangerous situation for her child. But she let him watch her daughter anyway. She put her own interests ahead of the interests of her beloved child. She failed to PROTECT her child.
Russell Yates is in the same category. Except, of course, he was also the one supplying the crack.
Personally, I think Andrea Yates should be tortured. Not with thumb screws or daily floggings or anything like that. I feel she should be treated, cured of whatever brainwashing her husband and whatever religious beliefs she was fed, and she should be made to recognize the fact that this was all her own doing and she should be left to stew on that. I don’t believe she should be executed, but I sure as hell don’t believe she should be let off of such a horrible act. You say it won’t improve our society, well, I think getting her off the street should.
And the suffering isn’t over by far. There’s a popular statement made in many forms made famous by someone I don’t quite know, but it goes along the lines of a person lives on after death in the memories of others. These children’s last minutes of life are living on in the eyes and minds of this entire country, not to mention in the minds and hearts of thier friends and families. I dont see how any of them could want to see her walking around on the street knowing what she had done.
Nice.
how enlightened of you.
Yeah yeah yeah, I know, you and a horde of others want her to suffer the tortures of the damned: “Bitchmonster! SEE how childbirth destroyed your brain! SUFFER for your chemical imbalance!!”
And this does what, exactly?
I’m really asking, and I’m sincerely, deeply interested in your response. * Completely apart* from satisfying * anyone’s * desire or need to see her suffer a great deal because they are mortified by her act…how does torturing her help anyone or anything? Does it teach anyone? Does it even have the potential to teach anyone? Does it elevate us in anyway? Does it prevent anything? Really, where is the good in it, can you tell me? And can you do it without in any way referencing how great you think it would be and the enormous satisfaction your would get from it?
Getting her off the street and seeing her tortured are completely different things, aren’t they?
But as long as you brought it up, have you somehow managed to convince yourself that this woman is some kind of serial killer who kills children for kicks? In what way exactly does “getting her off the street” improve our society?
Again, we are back to people wanting to see her suffer. Are you making the claim that the whole country is “suffering” because of her killing her kids!!! And even if such a claim were remotely true :rolleyes:, making her suffer now helps how…? Improves life how? Improves society how? By satisfying the bloodlust of a “wounded nation”? Really? If that’s your position, can you expand upon it so that I can better understand it, because I don’t get it even a little right now.
How does letting her go as though nothing happened help achieve any of these things? Niether solution achieves either of these goals. But by punishing her, it means she will never be able to foget. It’s the whole concept of punishment. You do something wrong, you get punished for it. Sure, the severity of the crime determines the severity of the punishment. What’s the point of having a judicial system if everytime people commit a crime, they’re simply told “Poor baby, you were under a lot of stress, it’s okay.” Letting her go unpunished doesn’t help society, it doesn’t teach society anything, and there’s no good to come about from it, except for her. She gets to go on never having to recognize that what she did was wrong. “It wasn’t your fault,” is what everyone would tell her, and she’d accept that, and she’d move on.
That’s not right. Her children can’t move on, why should she? She was responsible for her actions, we all are, and I think she should be held accountable. I think she should never forget what she did, and I think people should stop telling her it wasn’t her fault. If it wasn’t her fault, who’s was it? “Her husband’s,” is the common answer, but that’s just another crock. It’s a common thing nowadays for people to blame all their problems on other outside circumstances and too many people get off for stupid shit. What does punishing her and bringing her to the realization that what she did and forcing her to deal with it do (this is the “torture” I spoke of earlier)? It makes sure she never forgets. What does letting her go do? It tells society that you can essentially do what you want and not have to suffer any consequences of your actions.
There, no mention of how great I think it would be or the satisfaction I would get from it, because honestly, I don’t get satisfaction from other’s suffering. But I get even less from the fact people can get away with murduring their innocent children.
Did I suggest that? Did anyone suggest that? Is that even what would have happened if she had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. The answers to these questions are: No, no, and I’m pretty sure no.
So why are you presenting it as though it is one or the other only?
Are you serious? Do you think there’s a chance she COULD?
Aha. Yes. And why? There are different reasons for punishment, just as there are different punishments. In the case of a sick, sick woman, what exactly is your GOAL in punishing her? Not why, (she killed her kids) Not how (make her remember forever, flog her daily, whatever) but why?
Anyone suggesting that around here? No? Another straw man we can stash.
Again, no one is suggesting we just send her back home now. But no, I don’t want to see her “punished” either.
And society would be immeasurably improved if we could find our compassion for the tormented souls of the world, rather than being totally reactive.
Well, this would be the core of the disagreement, now wouldn’t it. SHE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE AND NOT EVERYBODY IS. My god, is that so hard to believe? Have you the tiniest understanding of how completely mental illness can destroy one’s ability to make the right choices? What if some sick fuck put a gun to her oldest kid’s head and told her to drown the rest or he’d shoot, would she be responsible then? If not, can you appreciate that mental illness is like that, only all inside your head?
Why are you so obsessed with blaming someone and finding fault? Does there always have to be blame? Why? So someone can be punished? So society can get some kind of psychological relief in making someone else suffer?
Bullshit. Again with the “let her go” thing. What does putting her in a mental hospital tell society, in your opinion, since that is what would REALLY happen?
But you failed utterly in what I asked of you: " helps how…? Improves life how? Improves society how?"
You failed to list a single positive benefit of any kind, you just found a different way of saying she oughta suffer. We got that part.
What you seem unwilling to accept is that not everyone agrees with your claim that she was so mentally ill as to not be responsible for her actions. Believe it or not, saying it in capital letters won’t convince anyone. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that some of the folks who intelligence you are questioning don’t believe her belated claims of Satanic influence and don’t believe the spin the defense put on her history of mental illness. Perhaps they are wrong and you are right, but perhaps you are wrong and they are right. There is evidence both ways.
A great many people believe, based on the evidence, that she was of sufficiently sound mind to be held legally responsible for her actions. Many of these people are intelligent, honest, decent individuals, including, I might add, twelve jurors who know more about the case than you or me. They are not all evil Republicans or Texan rednecks.
Here’s a positive aspect to jailing her; because there is a tremendous positive effect in upholding the rule of law. The law says that murderers are supposed to go to prison. A jury found her guilty, so she should go to prison. It does a disservice to the justice system and the rule of law to set aside the law just because you don’t like the results of the trial. That’s what appeals are for, and I am sure she will be granted to chance to file one.
What are you talking about? Just doing a little kneejerk projecting of your idea of what I must be thinking?
Please just stick with what I have actually said, m’kay? I don’t know your heart and mind, and you for sure don’t have a clue about mine.
That’s essentially what I was getting at in my post. So, Stoid, you like to rip apart every aspect of what I have to say, RickJay here managed to put it a bit more eloquently, why not do the same here? I noticed you just seemed to skip over everything.
Like he noted, I don’t believe she was so far gone she didn’t know what she was doing. She admited she knew what she was doing was illegal and was willing to accept the legal concequences of her actions. Why aren’t you?
Do you mean like when you said this?
If you don’t want people commenting on it, maybe you shouldn’t say it, m’kay?
You can cry all you want about how disgusting it all is, but your assumption all along here has been that everyone else is either stupid to not know Yates is insane, or knows she’s insane but is bad for wanting her convicted, with a healthy dose of “You don’t know how hard mental illness can be.” (I guess we all live in caves except for you.)
You can’t seem to exactly explain WHY she’s insane except to say “Well, I heard it, and anyway I can’t think of any other reason why you’d do what she did.” You know, some perfectly intelligent people will disagree with reasoning that flighty and illogical.
I am neither Texan nor stupid, and I have dealt with people with mental illness before and know perfectly well how hard it can be, and I think your reasoning is stupid bullshit. “She loved her children before so she must have been crazy when she did it” proves nothing. You don’t, or didn’t 60 posts ago, understand what “malice” means in the context of criminal law. So far I am singularly unimpressed by your arguments, which, it should be noted, have been little supported by evidence except for your little flights of dismayed condescension and `don’t you understand?’ jabs you throw around. Yet, strangely, I am not from Dallas and harbor no revenge fantasies. I do like my argument about the rule of law, though.
Here’s a little pointer: what we don’t understand is YOU, because you aren’t making any damned sense. People who seriously compare drowning five children with having an old cat euthanized are hard to understand. M’kay?
Wow! I said I wasn’t surprised that she got convicted in Texas! And as everybody knows, of COURSE that means: “All Texans are stupid, everyone who wanted her convicted is an evil Republican Redneck and a bad person, and clueless to boot”.
What pentrating insight into me you have! :rolleyes:
And yet…strangely enough…
You freely admit (and then demonstrate) that you don’t understand me.
So apparently, on the one hand, you understand me so completely, so thoroughly, with such depth and clarity, that I don’t even have to say anything for you to know what I mean. But on the other, when I spend many paragraphs explaining a particular concept in several different ways, you ignore everything but the one little piece you think you can seize on, twist it around a little and then tell me you can make neither head nor tail of it. Hmm.
Ya know what, Rickjay, I know full well that you don’t understand me… hate (extreme dislike, distaste, call it corned beef hash if you like) can distort one’s perceptions. How about we accept that you just don’t get me, and leave it at that. Your negative feelings toward me make it impossible for us to communicate with each other, since I am not going to spend time explaining and re-explaining what people who do NOT hate me have no problem understanding perfectly well when I explained it the first time (which is my measure of whether it’s me or you), and I’m REALLY not going to spend five seconds defending myself against things I have never said just because you happen to believe they are things I think…that is so not my problem, y’know?
As for anything else having to do with this thread, I’m done. I’ve said all I want to say. I did end up putting my good cat to sleep yesterday and I’m still feeling pretty raw about it…arguing with people takes more energy than I’ve got right now.
Have a nice day,
stoid