Andrea Yates not guilty by insanity defense!

[Popeman38]

She should be made to only take a bath

with the pictures of her children on the bottom of the tub..

forever....

She is still alive, which is more than she deserves.

[Commander PK]

Dude, I agree that she is still guilty and should never see the light of day again, maybe even get death.

But reading how you said that, just made me think she IS insane.

Insane people will cut into their own skin for hours thinking something is under there. They will "sytematically" do it until they kill themselves. Does that make then rational? Or really lost in their own corrupted minds?

Oh, she is definately insane. No person who was sane could do what she did. What bothers people is why do we treat people like this woman any better than we would a rabid dog, or some other animal.

It's a moral question. Does she deserve to die, absolutely. She cannot be rehabilitated, and only a moron would ever trust her out in society again. Is she responsible for her own actions? The court has said she isn't, and that is unfortunate.

[81+83+84=Posse]

I was pissed when I read about this too.

If she gets to live, she should be held under water every day for the rest of her life until she "almost" drowns.

[81+83+84=Posse]

She cannot be rehabilitated, and only a moron would ever trust her out in society again. Is she responsible for her own actions? The court has said she isn't, and that is unfortunate.

In a similar story, this past week some nut job in Charlotte killed his girlfriend he was living with's 19 month old. Turns out he had killed his 10 month old years ago in Connecticut as well.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/15103301.htm

So why was this guy set free?

[PokerPacker]

Again, that would be considered "too cruel." Although it does make me ask the question, "What about those defenseless kids?"

I'll probably get blasted for this, but God will take care of her in due course.

it may be messy, but i guarentee she wouldn't feel a thing. the brain gets blow to bits, therefore there is no pain to process

[Commander PK]

In a similar story, this past week some nut job in Charlotte killed his girlfriend he was living with's 19 month old. Turns out he had killed his 10 month old years ago in Connecticut as well.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/15103301.htm

So why was this guy set free?

That's a very good question, and a hard one to answer. Somebody in his parole hearing must have thought he could be trusted again out in public. Clearly made a mistake, and a little girl was killed for that mistake. IMO, this man should never have been able to get out of prison, because of the nature of the crime. As far as sentences, don't even get me started. A lot of times there is no rhyme or reason to them. I can't figure out why people who are convicted of manslaughter only get a few years, but people who deal drugs get 20 and up. A lot of times, court decisions make no sense. The system is not perfect. Basically, it just depends on the judge and jury.

[Popeman38]

In a similar story, this past week some nut job in Charlotte killed his girlfriend he was living with's 19 month old. Turns out he had killed his 10 month old years ago in Connecticut as well.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/15103301.htm

So why was this guy set free?

For one simple reason: this nation has slowly strayed away from protecting the victim, and rather protecting the criminal...

[Popeman38]

And he was also convicted in Conn, and not in the south...

[SkinsNut73]

I read this on MSNBC and they quoted the (now) ex-husband. He was saying the jury reached the right verdict...they recognized her problem...etc. This guy confused me back when this first happened because he was on the talk shows defending his wife and her "condition"....and to see he still feels the same way baffles me.

If my wife ever did this to our 3 kids...prison would be the safest place for her.

[@DCGoldPants]

Hurting yourself is one thing. But to take 5 youg children and drown them in the bathtub you have to think about that first. You have to formulate a plan. You have to have reasons. Just because you are sick doesn't change the fact that you methodically took human life and the right to live away from these kids. PERIOD. Death is the only fitting punishment.

and because you do something in a methodical fashion, doesn't make you sane. Come on, you know this. She is full on crazy.

Oh, she is definately insane. No person who was sane could do what she did. What bothers people is why do we treat people like this woman any better than we would a rabid dog, or some other animal.

It's a moral question. Does she deserve to die, absolutely. She cannot be rehabilitated, and only a moron would ever trust her out in society again. Is she responsible for her own actions? The court has said she isn't, and that is unfortunate.

Now, YOU hit the nail on the head. What do we do with crazy people? If we kill them, is that really putting them out of their own misery? Or, is it murdering a mentally destroyed person? What if a extremely retarded person murders somebody. what do you do with them?

[Jumbo]

What do we do with a "mad" human being?... put it in a box and pay for a bunch of clowns to try and fix it at the public's expense

Mass, considering you were so rightfully honored with the ass-clown icon for a long time , and since you are often as guilty of as many clown-comments as any of us that have ever posted here , I do consider your judgment. There are some clowns working in those boxes, as there are anywhere.

But since I often work with a number of those guys, I can tell you that the majority of them are doing the hardest and most thankless kind of work for the least pay and the worst clientele that exists in their field. It is frustrating and taxing, and it's only commitment to the profession and professional ethics that make it worth bothering. And most hate the way the legal system works too in these matters. Most are very big on trying to make it clear that 90% of people with diagnosable mental disorders are and should be held accountable for what they do.

Most feel that a lot of this is money and time thrown down a drain in a majority of cases, other than for research benefits or appealing to some ideals of humane treament for prisoners. I'm hard-edged on that issue. The majority are among the biggest supporters for modifications of the legal system to restrict and better define these "insanity defenses." These issues that frustrate so many of us are more with the lawyers, the juries (laymen), the judges, the legislatures, and to a far lesser degree but still worth mentioning, a very small group who start to make much of their living off of trial testifying. The last is more personal on my part than the other stuff, which I submit is a fairly objective and accurate assessment.

[Popeman38]

and because you do something in a methodical fashion, doesn't make you sane. Come on, you know this. She is full on crazy.

I don't care if she is crazy. That doesn't make her insane. If she is mentally ill, and I don't doubt that she is as post-partum depression is very real, that doesn't mean she can't pay the price for her actions. And that price should not be paid in a state mental facility. This was a cop out verdict because the jury felt bad that she had to live with the death of her children. But how do you serve justice to those 5 defenseless children. Their mother going to a mental hospital does not pay for the crime. The bottom line is you have to make the choice to kill someone. Drunk drivers are not "insane" because they are impaired when driving. They chose to drink and drive. She chose to drown her children. How can you defend that choice?

[@DCGoldPants]

I didn't defend anything.

I'm not arguing about a "Choice"

I'm saying that I believe she's insane.

Not "What do we do with the insane?"

that's the other topic in this thread.

[Guest sith lord]

I don't care if she is crazy. That doesn't make her insane. If she is mentally ill, and I don't doubt that she is as post-partum depression is very real, that doesn't mean she can't pay the price for her actions. And that price should not be paid in a state mental facility. This was a cop out verdict because the jury felt bad that she had to live with the death of her children. But how do you serve justice to those 5 defenseless children. Their mother going to a mental hospital does not pay for the crime. The bottom line is you have to make the choice to kill someone. Drunk drivers are not "insane" because they are impaired when driving. They chose to drink and drive. She chose to drown her children. How can you defend that choice?

This is a very good post. Honestly, you could make a case for anybody that goes out and kill somebody that they're crazy or insane. This woman got off easy.

[Popeman38]

I didn't defend anything.

I'm not arguing about a "Choice"

I'm saying that I believe she's insane.

Not "What do we do with the insane?"

that's the other topic in this thread.

Sorry, this is a very personal issue for me. Oh, I think she is a nutjob, loony...But that doesn't change the fact that she is responsible for her actions. There is too much of this in the world today. "It isn't my fault because....". You do it, you are responsible. She has admitted that she killed them because she thought they were going to go to hell. Well I think Joe Schmoe on the street is a sinner and is going to hell. Can I go kill him?

[@DCGoldPants]

Nobody is saying she didn't do it. Nobody is saying she isn't at fault.

She thought they were going to hell? That sounds Sane to you?

What do you do if a retarded person commits murder?

Lock her up forever. Debate putting her to death. I think everybody here agrees with that.

I just think that nothing you've said makes her look anything but more and more insane.

[Teller]

This reminds me of Art Monk's touchdown against the Bills in the SB. The official correctly ruled "touchdown" the first time. After review, the correct call was overturned.

Same thing here. The first jury got it right. The decision by this one is beyond my ability to comprehend. Few times in my life have I seen such a wanton travesty of justice.

Somebody pull up the stats of how many people in this country suffer from depression. I guess these people all have free reign to kill whoever the hell they want at this point. This has, afterall, set a precedent, has it not?

Seeing that worthless piece of human garbage smiling, almost laughing, after the verdict made me want to vomit.

It's OK, eventually she'll get hers. And on that day, the matre di in hell will shout, "Yates...party of one. Yates...party of one."

[Popeman38]

Somebody pull up the stats of how many people in this country suffer from depression. I guess these people all have free reign to kill whoever the hell they want at this point. This has, afterall, set a precedent, has it not?

That would be 18.8 million per year, or 9.5% of the population over the age of 18.

[Teller]

That would be 18.8 million per year, or 9.5% of the population over the age of 18.

Thanks for overcoming my laziness.

Hopefully the majority of them don't follow current events, or it won't be safe to go outside. :doh:

[philal0102]

that is one sick woman... i think she should be put to the death penalty. but thats just me. damn

[Larry]

Just one other fact for the people who know it all:

I've seen statistics that say that the average "not guilty by reason of insanity" person spends more time locked up than the average "guilty" person does.

(And yes, executing people costs more than locking them up.)

But don't let that information stop y'all from complaining about how she's getting off and costing you money.

[Popeman38]

Just one other fact for the people who know it all:

I've seen statistics that say that the average "not guilty by reason of insanity" person spends more time locked up than the average "guilty" person does.

(And yes, executing people costs more than locking them up.)

But don't let that information stop y'all from complaining about how she's getting off and costing you money.

Here is a fact for the fact quoter:

She had been convicted of capital murder charges. She would not have seen the outside of a prison until 2041 when she is to be 77. Now she is eligible to see the outside whenever a judge deems so.

And who the hell are you say what you said in the last paragraph? Have you ever buried a child? She is beyond getting off lightly......

[Cdowwe]

(And yes, executing people costs more than locking them up.)

But don't let that information stop y'all from complaining about how she's getting off and costing you money.

Executing people should not cost any money at all. Listen, if youre gonna be put to death, you most likely deserve it. Yet we spend ungodly amounts of money to make sure the death doesnt offend anyone. Its total BS. Hang the b**ch and get it over with. Thatll cost the govt one piece of rope. Hell, I'll supply it.

[cjcdaman]

Executing people should not cost any money at all. Listen, if youre gonna be put to death, you most likely deserve it. Yet we spend ungodly amounts of money to make sure the death doesnt offend anyone. Its total BS. Hang the b**ch and get it over with. Thatll cost the govt one piece of rope. Hell, I'll supply it.

Ummmmmm, wait a second. Wouldn't a bullet be cheaper?

I agree, make them suffer. I know that sounds harsh, but Susan Smith drove her kids in a lake and it was proven that they sufferred a horrible death.

[Mooka]

Executing people should not cost any money at all. Listen, if youre gonna be put to death, you most likely deserve it. Yet we spend ungodly amounts of money to make sure the death doesnt offend anyone. Its total BS. Hang the b**ch and get it over with. Thatll cost the govt one piece of rope. Hell, I'll supply it.

It's not just the execution process; death row inmates cost more money, death row cells cost more money, any murder trial has a another trial after conviction for the death penalty, and in pretty much every state anyone sentenced to death is guarenteed at least 1 appeal. (There's usually multiple appeals)

That's alotta bread...