As I type this the jury has just returned verdicts of guilty of two counts of capital murder. Tomorrow the same jury begins deliberations of whether he should receive the death penalty.
Dan Abrams of MSNBC says Yates husband should have shared “blame” for deaths of the children.
From the sounds of the details, if anyone deserved a “not guilty by reason of insanity”, it was Yates.
Her husband, on the other hand, …
Then Dan Abrams is, well, I don’t use such language.
Seriously, her husband did not drown the children. Nor did he push her to do it.
Granted, he may or may not be the greatest husband. Granted, he probably should have seen that his wife was having trouble and taken more action to help her. But to him guilty for murder? :rolleyes:
Zev Steinhardt
I meant to say "But to hold him guilty for murder? :rolleyes:
Zev Steinhardt
Well, no of course not. He only left his children home alone with an unstable women suffering from post-partum psychosis, who was, at his insistance, I believe, not taking her meds, hearing voices and having hallucinations.
I believe at the very least he should be charged with criminal neglect?
Only if he believed there was a clear and real danger of her harming the kids. I know that there were days when I left for work in the morning and my little “devils” were already hard at work at turning my wife’s hair gray. However, despite whatever happens, I don’t expect any harm to come to the kids and I certainly wouldn’t want to be charged with anything criminal just because I misjudged my wife’s mental state.
Zev Steinhardt
I found it interesting that two of the women on the jury had psychology degrees. So it’s not like we’re talking about a Texas jury that don’t buy that new-fangled head shrinkin’.
Let’s turn it around:
The wife went away to shop, work, visit, whatever. The husband had been on medication. The husband killed the children. Would dthe wife be responsible?
Here’s another thing: some folks have been saying that the husband took the wife off her medication. The wife is an adult. The husband may have demanded, encouraged, or just stated his opinion of the medicine. The fact remains the adult wife chose to not follow the doctor’s prescription.
Has anyone read the history of the case?
The husband was extremely controlling. He “allowed” her three hours a week away from home. He was told by several doctors that Andrea should NOT have any more children-that it could put her over the edge. He said, the doctors only discouraged it, they didn’t forbid it.
This is a man that had his family living in a converted greyhound bus to keep them away from the world. And this woman was not at all there.
zev-your wife has never been diagnosed with a severe mental illness.
Note-I’m NOT excusing or defending Yates. Of course she should be guilty-but not for the death penalty. This woman needs to be in a sanitarium or whatever they have now.
For crying out loud, people!
But not really surprised. It’s Texas, after all.
Not only that, I’ve been completely frustrated at the enormous number of presumably educated people on television, radio and in print who have harped on the fact that she planned this as evidence of her sanity, when planning has zero to do with it. Too much TV, thinking “temporary” means “momentary”.
I hope they fight it all the way up the line. This is a travesty of justice.
stoid
Has a psychiatrist ever told you not to have any more children, as your wife is psychotic? And if so, did you have another? Has she had truly psychotic episodes, tried to commit suicide, been prescribe strong anti-psychotcs, and then been coerced into not taking them presumably to have another child? If the answer is yes to any or all of the above, perhaps you should reconsider leaving them home alone. If not, as it is in most cases (and yes, I know they can be two handfuls and then some), you have no basis to thinking you are misjudging your wife’s mental state.
I don’t think that Russell Yates did anything prosecutably wrong, but he certainly did nothing to help the mother or children.
Summaries of the case - including the arguments by both sides - can be found at the following media sites :
**
Granted, the guy shouldn’t be awarded “Husband of the Year” honors. I said as much earlier. However…
…an “extremely controlling” husband does not excuse matters. If he only “allowed” her x number of hours out of the house; then that’s a matter between themselves. He should either learn to back down or she should learn to stand up for herself. But that has nothing to do with murdering her kids.
As for the doctor’s recommendations, well, if she really did not want any more kids, that could have been worked out too. During her “outings” she could have surreptitiously taken birth control pills. She could have tried simply refusing her husband and pressing charges if he tried to force himself on her. In short, simply because she allowed herself to be walked all over by a @#)!% husband does not mean that he is criminially responsible for her killing the kids.
**
And thank heavens for that. But it doesn’t have to come to that. If I saw her screaming at the kids and throwing knives around the house and I left, then I would say that I am partly responsible. But, for all you know, she may have seemed perfectly reasonable that fateful morning and he would have had no reason to suspect that the kids would be OK as they were the day before and the day before that.
**
That may or may not be. It doesn’t really affect the husband’s status either way.
Zev Steinhardt
For some reason, I can’t seem to form a lasting opinion on this case. I have real empathy for Andrea Yates. I feel certain that she had to have been very, very sick to do something so sinister - as a mother, no other explantation could suffice. I just cannot conceive of a sane person struggling to hold her children under water, one by one, and lining them up methodically on the bed.
I am anti-death penalty, and that holds for me even in this most extreme case. I don’t know what should be done with her, though. If she ever recovers enough mentally to really comprehend what she did, and to feel any remorse, the magnitude of the situation would likely be too much to bear. So I begin to think, “Why waste the money, time, effort, and energy to try rehabilitating this woman into normalcy? If she ever reaches it, she’ll be so overcome with guilt that she’d be a total basketcase anyway”. I suppose I feel like she should be hospitalized forever, but what good does that do anyone?
Like I said, this is a tough call. I’ve debated it with myself many times. I have several feelings on it, but I don’t want to be the one to make an official decision on it.
Is it just me, or does it kind of seem like the jury made their minds up a little quickly here, too? For instance, before the deliberations started? Four hours doesn’t seem like enough time to actually discuss this thing thoroughly enough. Maybe I’m wrong though - as I wasn’t there and have admitted I don’t want to make the decision.
You mean, if the situation were the same-the husband is severely ill, showing signs of schizophrenia, hallucinations, voices, off the meds, told not to have more children, and the wife leaves a mentally ill husband alone with children, should she be held responsible, if she was advised that her husband needed treatment and discouraged it?
Absolutely.
Zev,
You do realize you’re expecting the above from an already mentally ill woman?
IANAL , and I don’t know anything about Texas law, but in NY a case could conceivably be made against the husband for criminally negligent homicide ( criminal negligence is when a person fails to perceive a substantial risk,and that failure is a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe in that situation). I think leaving 5 small children alone with a woman who (according to a 1999 psych assessment ) had attempted suicide twice, did not take her anti-psychotics,who appeared to be self-destructive, who had auditory and visual hallucinations involving knives, and who was diagnosed with post-partum depression w/psychosis (afer the 4th child’s birth) is at least failing to perceive a substantial risk. Add in that the husband reportedly said that while doctors told the couple not to have more children, they didn’t forbid it , and it might go from failing to perceive a risk to ignoring a risk that is perceived.
Doreen
Can anyone tell me why she was convicted on two counts instead of five? What about the charges on the other three kids?
They only charged her with two of the murders so that, if she were acquitted somehow, they could charge her with the other three and try to get a better result.
She was charged with the murders of three of her kids. Two came under one count, and the other came under the other. The DA chose to reserve the other two children on the chance that she would be found not guilty; he’d still be able to prosecute her at least one more time and get another shot at a guilty verdict. To me, that’s a slimy tactic, but then, it’s just strategy.
Robin
Well. How 'bout that? A liberal, supposedly representative of the party upholding the virtues of tolerance, inclusion and diversity of viewpoint, condescendingly denigrating masses of people because they have an opinion that differs from hers.
Gee, there’s something you never see on the SDMB.
:rolleyes:
**
Why does planning have zero to do with it, again? Perhaps the jurors were additionally swayed by the police officers who testified that, on the day of Yates’ arrest, they heard her say she knew what she was doing and knew that it was wrong.
Maybe a lot of evidence, taken in totality, that didn’t come out of Salon or The Nation, might lead reasonable people to a different conclusion than yours.
Then again, they are just lowly Texans. I betcha most of 'em own guns and voted for Bush, even.
Are you aware that it’s possible for a person to have a mental defect and still be responsible for their actions? Are you aware that criminal responsibility has a very specific definition, and isn’t necessarily precluded by particular psychological problems?
As a member of the party that supposedly “stands up for” empowering the disadvantaged, you sure as hell don’t seem able to give them much credit.