Sickend by Andrea Yates verdict

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:53 am

Hell's: Exactly. To kill your own kids in the way she did is INSANE, don't you think?

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:16 am

Hell's Bells wrote:cant call someone like her human. only in the wild does anything eat their young, and usually its the male of the species if it occurs at all. making sure your loved ones are alive, especially children, is a instinct we all have.

The "inhuman" argument is one that always seemed more like a defense mechanism to me. As far as anyone knows, she does have 46 chromosomes, two arms, two legs, etc. Technically, she is human, agreed?

This is a terrible analogy, but arguing that someone "isn't human" because they did something like this kind of reminds me of Griz (or Cat) fans who claim that the more "obnoxious" fans of their team aren't "real" fans (because the "real" fans of their team wouldn't act like that, right?). How many times have you seen a drunk Griz (or Cat) fan at a bar after a game, picking a fight with a fan of the opposing team, and then you hear one of the "classier" fans of his team say something like "nevermind him, he's not a real fan anyway; he's just a drunk kid." Except, as we all know, the drunk obnoxious fans are actually fans...and Andrea Yates is actually human, as unpleasant as that may be.

If telling yourself that she is not human makes it easier for you to not care what happens to her, that's fine, but the fact is that she (and others like her) are a part of our society, and we have to deal with them somehow. We can talk about where the sane/insane line should be drawn, or about whether insanity should be a defense at all, but to just say "well, she's not human anyway, so who cares?" is a bit of a cop-out, imo.

BobcatBlood · Post by **BobcatBlood** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:22 am

I can't believe I'm responding to this thread, but here's my two cents - as a mom. If I went through a horrible psychotic incident following the birth of my child and the result was killing all of my kids, I would, upon treatment and realizing what I had done, promptly take my own life. I couldn't live with that. The death penalty couldn't be imposed soon enough, and "society" wouldn't have to do it.

I love life and suicide is just wrong, but so is this. How is it possible that she would WANT to live? Definitely insane and should never see the outside of a hospital again.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:35 pm

it does not matter, what is going on here is that there is some people here that is making excuses for a serial killer. I dont care how sane you are, if you are sane enough to kill somebody on impulse you are sane enough to face a gas chamber.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:53 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:it does not matter, what is going on here is that there is some people here that is making excuses for a serial killer. I dont care how sane you are, if you are sane enough to kill somebody on impulse you are sane enough to face a gas chamber.

Just for the sake of a good Kumbaya vibe ... please don't suggest that anybody is "making excuses" for this awful event. Trying to understand why something happened in no way excuses it ... but it will give us an opportunity to prevent it in the future.

So hell's, if you have kids and your wife tries to kill herself a couple times, is severely depressed for years and years, and then starts talking to God and demons or whatever the hell happens when somebody goes psychotic, get the kids away from her. Because even though you know that the woman is not an "animal," as you know her as the person she was before she went psycho, there is now a good chance that she might do harm to the children.

This is what we all should have learned from this horrible situation.

Screaming "kill her!" might placate our primal urges, but it doesn't get us any closer to preventing this sort of thing from happening again (which seems to me to be the most important concern we should have). Only understanding her sickness can do that.

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:23 pm

contrary to what some post here there are no black and white answers to any tragedy of this magnatude...

folks who post an eye for an eye or other drivel are of the same intolerant ilk as the taliban or the christian right...or any extremist organization...right or left...some goofy emoticon here....

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:42 am

We got a free USA Today in our hotel room, so I read the few articles in there on the aquital. It was somewhat comforting. They pointed out that Hinckley is still locked up after his insanity decision.

She will be in a maximum security mental institution.

And many of the jurors commented after they wanted to find her "guilty but insane." I think that's the best way to put it. She is in no way "Not guilty".

Billings_Griz · Post by **Billings_Griz** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:18 am

Hell's Bells wrote:it does not matter, what is going on here is that there is some people here that is making excuses for a serial killer. I dont care how sane you are, if you are sane enough to kill somebody on impulse you are sane enough to face a gas chamber.

FINALLY, hb's and I agree on something on BN.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:46 am

ChiOCat wrote:We got a free USA Today in our hotel room, so I read the few articles in there on the aquital. It was somewhat comforting. They pointed out that Hinckley is still locked up after his insanity decision.

She will be in a maximum security mental institution.

And many of the jurors commented after they wanted to find her "guilty but insane." I think that's the best way to put it. She is in no way "Not guilty".

My understanding of this is that right after Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity, a law was passed that stated if found not guilty by insanity you can not be let out of the institution in a shorter time then you would have if found guilty. (Not sure if they go my minimum or maximum time). Hinckley could get out based on his parole time but was denied. So insane or not Yates is in an institute for a long damn time and (forgive the bleeding heart statement) an institute that might help her if she is in fact insane.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:46 pm

i like to read what the men have to say, especially since NONE obviously have ever been pregnant or birthed children. I would like this woman locked up for life, but hell she was a breeder. you do feel isolated, and chronically depressed when you birth kids out like that. she is SICK!!! I believe somewhat evil as well, but more sick needing to be in a mental asylum her entire life. she'll burn in hell soon enough

tetoncat · Post by **tetoncat** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:53 pm

A philosophical question. Why do they call it not-guilty by reason of insanity. They are not saying that the person did not do the crime, they just say they had a reason and need treatment rather than prison time. Should we not call it GUILTY by reason of insanity and still put it on their record so it shows up later in life after released. Why is insanity any different that an addiction to drugs or alcohol. They also make people commit crimes that they may not have intended. These people get locked up and in many instances do not receive treatment. Which has a better chance to benefit society.

4everacatfan · Post by **4everacatfan** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:29 pm

Ponycat wrote:
ChiOCat wrote:We got a free USA Today in our hotel room, so I read the few articles in there on the aquital. It was somewhat comforting. They pointed out that Hinckley is still locked up after his insanity decision.

She will be in a maximum security mental institution.

And many of the jurors commented after they wanted to find her "guilty but insane." I think that's the best way to put it. She is in no way "Not guilty".
My understanding of this is that right after Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity, a law was passed that stated if found not guilty by insanity you can not be let out of the institution in a shorter time then you would have if found guilty. (Not sure if they go my minimum or maximum time). Hinckley could get out based on his parole time but was denied. So insane or not Yates is in an institute for a long damn time and (forgive the bleeding heart statement) an institute that might help her if she is in fact insane.

Hinckley has had unsupervised visits with his family the past two years which to me is crazy and he was denied parole when he came up last as well. I hope like many that this institution can help Yates but I do not want her to ever be able to be around any children or god forbid have anymore kids herself if that means she stays locked up in a hospital so be it. I just am concerned this insanity pleas is going to be overused again.

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:00 pm

Billings_Griz wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:I don't know ... I think a messed up woman who kills her own kids because her view of reality is so distorted she thinks she's doing it out of love (which is often how these people see things) is a little less deserving of the death penalty than a person who murders people for the thrill of it.
I'm not going to get into an internet pissing match w/ you, and believe it or not, respect your opinion. But she killed 5 kids-HER OWN KIDS. Crazy or not, she deserves to die.

Jeffery Dahmer met his fate, too bad this dumb biotch won't.

Agreed.

BAC was talking about the economics of prison time. I still think the cheapest way to excecute someone (convicted murderers, rapists, et. al.) is a bullet to the head via firing squad (one live round, 9 blanks). Excuse my crudeness or lack of humanity, but it works and costs next to nothing...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sun Jul 30, 2006 10:24 pm

If one has perfect judgment, then that indeed is an efficient and effective means of delivering justice.

1BadBobcat · Post by **1BadBobcat** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:00 pm

My 2 cents worth:

1) Don't think by putting this woman away in a mental institution versus a prison is saving the taxpayers any more money. I have personal experience with a family member who does budgeting and accounting for the system, and it's all taxpayer funded and and highly costly. No more cost effective than locking a prisoner up for life.

2) If we have no plans on ever letting this woman out of a correctional facility (mental health hospital), why are we worried about trying to rehabilitate her? Waste of time and money. Besides, studies show that people who commit violent crimes towards children have a tremendously low success rate of being rehabilitated.

3) I don't buy into the arguement of post-partum depression, or depression of raising my kids. While I am a man and have no concept of the trials of childbirth, I am the exception as I am the parent who stayed home to raise kids. For seven years I changed diapers, got puked on, stayed up all night with sick kids, etc. Yeah, it was tough - and all my guy friends couldn't understand it; lost respect from other males because they thought I wasn't a "man", etc. But I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. And while I was tired, and sometimes frustrated, I never thought it would be easier if I just killed my kids. For someone to think like that, they have no place in this world, insane or not. She deserves to die.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 11:06 pm

1BadBobcat wrote:My 2 cents worth:

3) I don't buy into the arguement of post-partum depression, or depression of raising my kids. While I am a man and have no concept of the trials of childbirth, I am the exception as I am the parent who stayed home to raise kids. For seven years I changed diapers, got puked on, stayed up all night with sick kids, etc. Yeah, it was tough - and all my guy friends couldn't understand it; lost respect from other males because they thought I wasn't a "man", etc. But I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. And while I was tired, and sometimes frustrated, I never thought it would be easier if I just killed my kids. For someone to think like that, they have no place in this world, insane or not. She deserves to die.

my point exactly! my big question now is why are we worried about sending a murderer to a mental instatution? I could care less now if she was lacking the mental faculties to go on, or was depressed....ect. sorry to have to state what is on my mind but my give a damn busted with her right when i read the headlines that she killed all 5 of her kids.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 11:04 am

1BadBobcat wrote:My 2 cents worth:

1) Don't think by putting this woman away in a mental institution versus a prison is saving the taxpayers any more money. I have personal experience with a family member who does budgeting and accounting for the system, and it's all taxpayer funded and and highly costly. No more cost effective than locking a prisoner up for life.

2) If we have no plans on ever letting this woman out of a correctional facility (mental health hospital), why are we worried about trying to rehabilitate her? Waste of time and money. Besides, studies show that people who commit violent crimes towards children have a tremendously low success rate of being rehabilitated.

3) I don't buy into the arguement of post-partum depression, or depression of raising my kids. While I am a man and have no concept of the trials of childbirth, I am the exception as I am the parent who stayed home to raise kids. For seven years I changed diapers, got puked on, stayed up all night with sick kids, etc. Yeah, it was tough - and all my guy friends couldn't understand it; lost respect from other males because they thought I wasn't a "man", etc. But I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. And while I was tired, and sometimes frustrated, I never thought it would be easier if I just killed my kids. For someone to think like that, they have no place in this world, insane or not. She deserves to die.

I'm certainly no expert on this particular topic, but just to clarify, post-partum depression isn't about the stress of raising children, it is a chemical/hormonal issue relating to the female body. As such, we as men will never experience anything similar.

Kudos for raising your kids. That is indeed a very noble and cool thing to do ... and sounds very rewarding.

1BadBobcat · Post by **1BadBobcat** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:43 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
1BadBobcat wrote:My 2 cents worth:

1) Don't think by putting this woman away in a mental institution versus a prison is saving the taxpayers any more money. I have personal experience with a family member who does budgeting and accounting for the system, and it's all taxpayer funded and and highly costly. No more cost effective than locking a prisoner up for life.

2) If we have no plans on ever letting this woman out of a correctional facility (mental health hospital), why are we worried about trying to rehabilitate her? Waste of time and money. Besides, studies show that people who commit violent crimes towards children have a tremendously low success rate of being rehabilitated.

3) I don't buy into the arguement of post-partum depression, or depression of raising my kids. While I am a man and have no concept of the trials of childbirth, I am the exception as I am the parent who stayed home to raise kids. For seven years I changed diapers, got puked on, stayed up all night with sick kids, etc. Yeah, it was tough - and all my guy friends couldn't understand it; lost respect from other males because they thought I wasn't a "man", etc. But I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. And while I was tired, and sometimes frustrated, I never thought it would be easier if I just killed my kids. For someone to think like that, they have no place in this world, insane or not. She deserves to die.
I'm certainly no expert on this particular topic, but just to clarify, post-partum depression isn't about the stress of raising children, it is a chemical/hormonal issue relating to the female body. As such, we as men will never experience anything similar.

Kudos for raising your kids. That is indeed a very noble and cool thing to do ... and sounds very rewarding.

It is, and thank you for the kind words. As for the post-partum thing, I too, am no expert. However, I find it interesting in this day and age of "sue everybody" and "it's not my fault" mentality that we now are discovering the horrors of post-partum depression. Is this something genetically new or have females experienced it from the beginning of time? It seems to me that mothers killing/abusing/abandoning their own kids is relatively new (last 20-30 years). I have no proof to back this up; I am just going on the belief that this is a relatively new phenomonom (sp?).

You can probably look at any crime and try to explain it off by something in the person's psyche or background. Eventually, we as a people need to quit making excuses for our actions and take some responsibility. You can play the "insane" card for anybody that commits an act of murder (other than self-defense). You can't be in your right mind to needlessly take another's life. But let the punishment fit the crime - just my opinion.

Hello Kitty · Post by **Hello Kitty** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 7:09 pm

1BadBobcat wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
1BadBobcat wrote:My 2 cents worth:

1) Don't think by putting this woman away in a mental institution versus a prison is saving the taxpayers any more money. I have personal experience with a family member who does budgeting and accounting for the system, and it's all taxpayer funded and and highly costly. No more cost effective than locking a prisoner up for life.

2) If we have no plans on ever letting this woman out of a correctional facility (mental health hospital), why are we worried about trying to rehabilitate her? Waste of time and money. Besides, studies show that people who commit violent crimes towards children have a tremendously low success rate of being rehabilitated.

3) I don't buy into the arguement of post-partum depression, or depression of raising my kids. While I am a man and have no concept of the trials of childbirth, I am the exception as I am the parent who stayed home to raise kids. For seven years I changed diapers, got puked on, stayed up all night with sick kids, etc. Yeah, it was tough - and all my guy friends couldn't understand it; lost respect from other males because they thought I wasn't a "man", etc. But I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. And while I was tired, and sometimes frustrated, I never thought it would be easier if I just killed my kids. For someone to think like that, they have no place in this world, insane or not. She deserves to die.
I'm certainly no expert on this particular topic, but just to clarify, post-partum depression isn't about the stress of raising children, it is a chemical/hormonal issue relating to the female body. As such, we as men will never experience anything similar.

Kudos for raising your kids. That is indeed a very noble and cool thing to do ... and sounds very rewarding.
It is, and thank you for the kind words. As for the post-partum thing, I too, am no expert. However, I find it interesting in this day and age of "sue everybody" and "it's not my fault" mentality that we now are discovering the horrors of post-partum depression. Is this something genetically new or have females experienced it from the beginning of time? It seems to me that mothers killing/abusing/abandoning their own kids is relatively new (last 20-30 years). I have no proof to back this up; I am just going on the belief that this is a relatively new phenomonom (sp?).

You can probably look at any crime and try to explain it off by something in the person's psyche or background. Eventually, we as a people need to quit making excuses for our actions and take some responsibility. You can play the "insane" card for anybody that commits an act of murder (other than self-defense). You can't be in your right mind to needlessly take another's life. But let the punishment fit the crime - just my opinion.

100 years ago they probably thought to be witches or possesed by the devil

Post pardum and mental illness is a real thing, not just psycho babble.

Andrea Yates thought the world was so bad, the only way the devil would not have her children was to kill them while they were innocent and send them to heaven. I watched a special about her life. She had children against her psychiatrist’s advice. She was suffering at times from psychosis. She also went off of her medication if I remember correctly.

couloir41 · Post by **couloir41** » Wed Aug 02, 2006 10:39 pm

the reason we attempt to rehab the criminally insane is because we have designated ourselves a civilized society...additionally...since we have chosen to be a civilized society we have the RESPONSIBILITY...or obligation to afford to those we incarcerate a certain quality of life...rehab is part of the quality of life of those we incarcerate...otherwise we could lock them up and let them sit in their feces and urine in a sweat box...

of course prisons and rehab for insane child murderers is a loosing proposition...it is a loosing proposition for everyone who is incarcerated for long periods of time...not just child murderers...i venture to guess that a miniscule percentage of those who have been incarcerated for extended periods ever paid enough taxes as a productive citizen to repay the system...think about it...so if we just consider the money aspect of your argument maybe we should just kill everybody so we can balance the books...what say...

by the way "one BAD bobcat" in item three you begin to sound like an emasculated whiner...little smarmy emoticon here...