A Texas jury gave this waste of carbon who systematically murdered her FIVE children life?
A TEXAS JURY??!?!?!?!
LIFE???
They should take her out in the back alley and put a bullet through her head.
End of story.
What, it wasn’t enough that we convict the mentally ill, we have to execute them as well?
World Eater, I don’t know what you’ve heard, but Texas juries are notoriously soft on female criminals.
d&r
This woman should not be sent to prison, but to a hospital. Insanity pleas are legally defined, not medically. This woman is sick.
At the risk of sounding civil…
I heard on a radio show that a consideration in sentencing (death vs life in prison) is the threat of danger she poses to society. I guess the jury figured she wasn’t a threat to the community if paroled.
In order to sentence her to death, Texas law requires that two questions be answered unanimously:
- Is she a threat to society in the future? (Not likely)
- Did she know what she was doing was wrong? (Damn straight)
The jury found that, as she was about to spend the rest of her life in the clink, she wasn’t likely to have any more children, and therefore wouldn’t be killing any more children.
Works for me.
Well, thank god they showed some shred of compassion in the sentencing.
And to ** World Eater ** and all those who are of like mind, I can only say, and say sincerely: it must be nice for life to be so simple.
stoid
I’m impressed by your compassion.
:rolleyes:
Apparently they are living up to their reputation.
To be honest, Stoid, I don’t think “Compassion” had much to do with it, but rather the structure of Texas’ sentencing requirements. Even I, horrified as I am by her actions, have no trouble understanding the decision:
If she were to be released, she cuold have children again, or stop taking her meds, and become a threat again, therefore: No Parole.
Her sickness is brought on by untreated meantal disease and post partum depression. She’s in jail, wher they can force her to take meds, and where she can’t have children, therefore: No risk to society in the future, therfore: Life Without Parole.
Actually, it’s a very clear decision tree, and no matter what my personal feelings, it’s the Law, and I can understand how thw decision was made.
Life? That’s fine. I can live with that.
Death would have been too good for her.
Gah. Preview, dammit, preview…!
From an emotional standpoint, I’m all for a slow, painful death for anyone who commits such an abhorent crime. From a practical and legal standpoint, I think this sentence is probably the best thing that could happen. Alot less messy (figuratively speaking). Plus, I am all for letting her sit in a cell for the rest of her life and think about what she did. From what I’ve heard, many of the criminals in prison hate and target people who harm children. One only can hope…
And Stoid, this situation is only complex if you make it so. Many people are victims of their environment, upbringing, situation, etc., but none of this should excuse an individual’s actions. She knew what she was doing was wrong when she was doing it.
Another thing: why are women’s groups rallying around this maniac as a poster child?
And it seems that in my rush to get in here, I missed and item or two:
-
She’s eligible for parole in 40 years… at age 77. I think we can safely declare that as a little old lady, she’ll be low-risk.
-
The second guideline for death penalty is “Were there any factors mitigating against execution”. This question never even came up, as the answer to the first questio was already found to be “No”.
Macro Man, by this article, it looks like Andrea Yates will be spending most of her time in what amounts to solitary, maybe for years.
She’s highly unlikely to get the ‘Dahlmer’ treatment.
Yeah, upon reading about the two question requirement, I can see why she’d get life.
As it is, she’s somewhere where she’ll be sure to take her medication. Life or death, her life ended when she killed her children.
Fantasy wishWhat I’d love to see happen (not that I’m holding my breath) would be to see an investigation of the Mr. Yate’s involement in the killings, if any. I’m not saying he was there helping to hold the children down or anything, just that I think his treatment of Andrea might have been a factor, and if so he should be punished as well. Of course, he’s got a much better chance of getting a kickass book deal than ever winding up on the stand.
Why must so many people insist that Mr. Yates be pilloried? Can you explain this? What do you expect an “investigation” into his “involvement” in the muders is going to reveal that Andrea Yates’ defense team failed to find?
Sure, I find him repugnant, but not to the point of a wish for witchhunts.
I absolutely agree. And I’ll second every word of it.
My 2 cents on the husband matter, he should be charged with criminal negligence. I don’t have to review the facts, but I think that charge most adequately describes his roll.
And how do you dertermine this without reviewing the facts…?
What!! Didn’t all of you hear???
The second she reaches her final destination, some maximum security prison in east bumble-fuck Texas the prison guards are going to post pictures of her children all over her cell and let her stare at them until she bites her wrists raw and pulls all her hair out in the name of Satan.
Not a bad sentence for that worthless waste of carbon.