Andrea Yates-Not guilty due to insanity

[aquinas]

Where are you singled out in this quote?

My point was that you singled out one person with your remark about insanity. IMO, that was rude and uncalled for. This is suppose to be a discussion of an obviously hot topic that will generate a variety of opinions, why does it need to denigrate into name calling.

Thats rich. True I wasnt singled out but to say that I share in the reponsibility of these children's deaths is not only a nonsensical thing to say but an ignorant and offensive thing as well. I was giving the poster the benefit of the doubt and thought that through her/his anger they made this statement. Thus, temporary insanity. We all lose it when we get angry and logic and reason often flies out the door.

Why did it denigrate to her calling me a co-conspirator, that I am to blame, in essence because I think the right verdict was applied? Why dont you ask him/her why they painted us all that agree with the verdict with a wide brush and said we shared the blame for these kids deaths? Not only that, according to inaminute, we that agree with this verdict are making it easier for future people who commit crimes. Just because we believe that Andrea Yates has a mental illness.

 

[declansdad]

Here is an exerpt of what the poster wrote.

You know who I blame? Every single person who thinks it's acceptable for a monster to claim "insanity" when they commit a heinous crime. Every time we make excuses and accept their crime, we make it easier for others to commit the same crime and use the same excuse until it's so common we don't even notice it any more.

It doesn't say anything about a person getting away with a crime. It is a comment on what this person disagrees with about the justice system. It also doesn't call anyone in particular insane for what they believe to be true.

 

[chobie]

Here is an exerpt of what the poster wrote.

You know who I blame? Every single person who thinks it's acceptable for a monster to claim "insanity" when they commit a heinous crime. Every time we make excuses and accept their crime, we make it easier for others to commit the same crime and use the same excuse until it's so common we don't even notice it any more.

It doesn't say anything about a person getting away with a crime. It is a comment on what this person disagrees with about the justice system. It also doesn't call anyone in particular insane for what they believe to be true.

I see your point. And since I have not heard one person here, on the news, in RIL or anywhere say that its acceptable for a monster to "claim" insanity then it really is just an inane comment. What people have said is that in a civilized society we do not punish people who are verifably mentally sick.

 

[goofygirl]

I do think that she should be held at least partially accountable, for the following reason:

From 1999 onwards she was given, on numerous occasions, ant-psychotic drugs. She continually refused to take them (throwing them away, flushing them down the toilet, etc.) as she wanted to conceive/breastfeed. Surely if she had followed doctors orders then this whole tragedy wouldn't have occured. Not taking the drugs is something that she was responsible for, and probably contributed to her worsening mental state.

However, I really believe that the preacher and his wife should also be held partially responsible (the continual letters calling her 'evil' and a 'daughter of Eve' contributed, IMO, to the end result) as well as Rusty (who knew that more children and leaving her alone were the complete opposite of what he should have been doing).

I agree with this 100 percent.

 

[crz4mm2]

There is a HUGE difference between post partum depression and post partum PSYCHOSIS.
Andrea Yates was suffering from post partum PSYCHOSIS. Of course she was insane. No one that is sane would drown their children. Unless you have taken care of a woman with post partum psychosis, you can really have no idea how these woman act and react.

Rusty Yates should definately (in my not so humble opinion) be held responsible.

I hope that Andrea can be treated for her mental illness now.

 

[yeartolate]

I do think that she should be held at least partially accountable, for the following reason:

From 1999 onwards she was given, on numerous occasions, ant-psychotic drugs. She continually refused to take them (throwing them away, flushing them down the toilet, etc.) as she wanted to conceive/breastfeed. Surely if she had followed doctors orders then this whole tragedy wouldn't have occured. Not taking the drugs is something that she was responsible for, and probably contributed to her worsening mental state.

Actually,that isnot really a clear representation of the sequence of events.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Actually,that isnot really a clear representation of the sequence of events.

Nope,in fact she and her husband were at the doctor days before the murder begging for the medication that had worked before. He said no and told her to go home and "think good thoughts"

 

[VSL]

Nope,in fact she and her husband were at the doctor days before the murder begging for the medication that had worked before. He said no and told her to go home and "think good thoughts"

Oh I agree - the last doctor didn't seem to have a clue.

But before then there were numerous times where she had simply thrown away the drugs that she had been given because they wanted to pro-create.

 

[inaminute]

It doesn't say anything about a person getting away with a crime. It is a comment on what this person disagrees with about the justice system. It also doesn't call anyone in particular insane for what they believe to be true.

declansdad, Thanks for trying. My comment apparently hit a nerve or two.

I don't mind that I was called insane. I've been called much worse, and by people I actually care about.

 

[yeartolate]

Nope,in fact she and her husband were at the doctor days before the murder begging for the medication that had worked before. He said no and told her to go home and "think good thoughts"

That is a closer representation. In fact, if you look back at the timeline --- starting with having postpartum violent hallucinations with the first child, suicide atttempts (holding a knife to her own throat, overdose, etc) and major postpartum depressions .......if I was a man and that was my wife - she would not be left alone with the kids - let alone left alone in a small dwelling, homeschooling....and 5 kids (7 and under I believe). What was everyone thinking????????????????

Good grief. We are not talking baby blues here. This woman was mentally ill for a long time. If I lived next to her and saw the same symptoms...I would have been calling CPS and APS until I knew those kids were in safe hands.

Leaving here alone with 5 very young children after being taken off of her antipsychotic meds - socially isolated????????? What the heck was everybody thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She will remain locked up for a long time. I have to wonder if the situation presents - whether she will kill herself.


I hope changes were made to the mental health system in that state to prevent this type of thing from happening again. I hope folks realize they have a personal responsibility to get involved if someone is a real danger to themeselves or others.

 

[TheDoctor]

This verdict is being called a major victory for the rights of the mentally ill. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4075087.html

Mental health advocates saw the acquittal of Andrea Yates as vindication of sorts for their long campaign to increase public appreciation of mental illness and how drastically it can affect human behavior.

Joe Lovelace, longtime mental health policy adviser in Texas and the immediate past executive director of the state's chapter of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, called Wednesday "a fine day for Harris County," which he attributed in part to years of media attention to mental illness, especially among mothers.

"I think this verdict sends a clear message that people understand how profoundly ill Andrea Yates was," added Betsy Schwartz, president of the local chapter of National Mental Health Association.

There have been a couple of other high profile insanity cases in Texas with similar verdicts but less press.

Though still a difficult defense to mount, Yates is the fourth woman in Texas in the last few years to be acquitted of murdering their children by employing it.

One chopped her baby's arms off; another bludgeoned her sons with a rock; the third, like Yates, drowned her two girls in a bathtub. The common thread was religiously oriented delusions by a mother who had never shown any inclination to harm. The juries in each case came to the conclusion that the defendants did not know their conduct was wrong, even if they knew that the law and others would consider it so. The statute does not offer juries specific guidance on how to interpret or define its language.

Hopefully, the Harris County DA will not seek to try Andrea Yates on the other two cases.

University of Texas law professor George Dix, an expert on mental health issues, said the recent track record of prosecutors in such cases should give them pause in bringing obviously ill defendants to trial.

If conscientious prosecutors can tell in advance what will be presented," he said, "elaborate trials like this ought not to be necessary. Yes, that's a difficult decision to reach. But they make difficult decisions in other types of cases."

 

[declansdad]

declansdad, Thanks for trying. My comment apparently hit a nerve or two.

I don't mind that I was called insane. I've been called much worse, and by people I actually care about.

I tried.

 

[Deb in IA]

Wow. It seems to me that there are obviously many, many people who have absolutely no understanding of mental illness and how it manifests itself.

I agree.

Andrea Yates could be a poster child for mental illness. She is a classic case. Testimony from her psychiatrists and the videotape that I've seen shows a woman whose mind is in such an impenatrable fog of delusion, incoherent thoughts, and confusion that it was impossible, literally, for her to function. She really thought that she was saving them from Satan by doing what she did. Of course it is difficult, if not impossible, for those of us who are sane to even imagine such a belief . . . but Andrea Yates, whose mind was so completely gone, did believe that.

Faking it? I don't think so. The criminals that attempt to fake an insanity plea usually have some other motive . . . monetary gain, revenge, power, etc. Andrea Yates has nothing.

And for those who think she is "getting away" with something, I can assure you that you would NOT want to live the life that she has, in jail or not.

 

[BuckNaked]

The legal defintion of insanity is not a one size fits all. I don't know what it is in Texas exactly, but I know it is a rather high standard. So, just because there was planning, or she knew it was illegal, does not mean she did not fit Texas' definition of legal insanity.

I believe it's based on M'Naughten (sp?) and has to do with not whether the killer believes what she's doing is wrong, but rather whether she knows that society considers what she is doing is wrong.

 

[Cool-Beans]

I believe it's based on M'Naughten (sp?) and has to do with not whether the killer believes what she's doing is wrong, but rather whether she knows that society considers what she is doing is wrong.

That's the rule. It doesn't matter if you are crazy, only whether or not you know it is illegal.

I know this because a guy broke into our house and ran out the back door when the cops showed up. They used the fact that he ran as evidence that he knew he was in the wrong and convicted him. And he WAS nuts.

I'd have voted "guilty." I don't like the idea of people killing children, even if the kids are their own. I feel sorry for people who are mentally unstable - Jeffrey Dahmer is a great example - but I'd still convict them.

 

[chobie]

That's the rule. It doesn't matter if you are crazy, only whether or not you know it is illegal.

I know this because a guy broke into our house and ran out the back door when the cops showed up. They used the fact that he ran as evidence that he knew he was in the wrong and convicted him. And he WAS nuts.

I'd have voted "guilty." I don't like the idea of people killing children, even if the kids are their own. I feel sorry for people who are mentally unstable - Jeffrey Dahmer is a great example - but I'd still convict them.

How can you say what you would vote without hearing all the evidence?

 

[TheDoctor]

The Texas definition of insanity is very restrictive and out of date. There has been calls for it to be modernized. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4074777.html

The restrictive, outdated Texas statute under which Yates twice was tried requires juries to find defendants guilty if they knew the difference between right and wrong, even if they are mentally ill. The second jury's verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity reflects the jurors' reasonable conclusion that the psychotic delusions that led Yates to believe she was saving her children by killing them prevented her from making rational judgments.....

To prevent a repeat of Yates' legal ordeal, Texas legislators should revise the statute concerning the culpability of the mentally ill. An unsuccessful effort in the last Legislature would have changed the standard for innocence by reason of insanity from whether defendants knew their actions were wrong to whether they could appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions. Another change would have allowed juries to know that defendants judged insane probably would be confined for the rest of their life in a secure mental hospital. Such knowledge is crucial in reaching a fair verdict.

Charged under an archaic law that barely recognizes the impact of mental illness, the Yates jury still found its way to reasoned justice that should end a painful chapter in Houston's history and allow a very sick woman the treatment she needs. The next jury to face such a decision should have better legal guideposts.

The Texas law like many states was changed back after the Hinkley verdict. The law is too restrictive and is not appropriate in situations like Andrea Yates. If Texas had a more rational law, then it would not have been necessary to try Andrea Yates twice and she could have been committed to the mental institution a long time ago.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

I am just wondering what kind of precident this verdict will set. Now anyone who kills their own children can say "but I am insane, I would have to be to kill my own kids"

I think if they say she was insane, and go by the evidence her lawyer and husband provided, documenting her PPD, then her husband needs to be brought up on charges. He KNEW his wife was unbalanced, and he left his children with her, all day, everyday. Never giving her a break. I wonder if his 2nd wife is pregnant yet.

 

[Cool-Beans]

How can you say what you would vote without hearing all the evidence?

Because that's me. I realize others have other viewpoints and don't think mine makes me a better person or that others are just plain wrong. And, again, I feel badly for Andrea Yates and Jeff Dahmer. BUT...

I believe that if somebody kills a person - especially a child - they ought to be locked up. No ifs, ands or buts. I've thought long and hard about it and that's my conclusion.

I've often said I'd get out of sitting on a trial for this sort of thing by saying so.

 

[yeartolate]

I am just wondering what kind of precident this verdict will set. Now anyone who kills their own children can say "but I am insane, I would have to be to kill my own kids"

I think if they say she was insane, and go by the evidence her lawyer and husband provided, documenting her PDD, then her husband needs to be brought up on charges. He KNEW his wife was unbalanced, and he left his children with her, all day, everyday. Never giving her a break. I wonder if his 2nd wife is pregnant yet.

I think it is important to note that this is not a "I snapped for a moment" type of situation. She was chronically mentally ill with a history of suicide attempts and hallucinations about killing dating back to her first pregnancy. She had ongoing documented history.


By the way, I agree that Russell Yates should have been brought up on charges and let the courts decide if he should have anticipated his children being in harms way.