Her husband basically knew what was going on after the third child and, against the advice of her doctor, impregnated her two more times. She obviously didn't have the ability to use good judgment, so why didn't he? The whole mess was avoidable. She had a serious mental illness; he knew it. The doctors told him that she would almost certainly relapse if she had more kids, yet "they decided" for her to quit taking her medicines and have another kid? Then, although she is clearly becoming disturbed, he continues to leave her alone with them, not even giving her a break by sending them to school. Why was having more kids more important? In my humble opinion, he made a bad situation worse. And even after she talks about killing the kids he leaves them home alone with her. Is that criminally negligent? Peace.
goofyfish ... I have a real problem with a justice system that considers, in that beautifully euphemistic term, 'mitigating circumstances'. Execute her to guarantee that she'll never do it again; Sentence him to life without parole so he can't exercise poor judgement again when it comes to impregnating an unbalanced female. And get on with it ... Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's a tough call, in my book. Short-sighted? Yes. Irresponsible? You bet. Criminally culpable? That's a tough decision. It's entirely possible, and from the interviews I've seen very likely, that he feels guilty for the murders himself. That guilt might transfer over into an exaggerated statement made to the grand jury and the trial court when the time comes, in order to help his wife not be executed. I have always found family member testimony to be highly suspect. Meanwhile, I think that the appropriate sentence for someone with mental defect is an appropriate term (for 5 murders:life) in an institution where she can be cared for, and possibly even treated, but with no chance of actually leaving.
I think he showed negligence. But at the same time, you never think something like that would happen to you. And I think they both had an active role in choosing to have more kids. From what I read, she wanted them just as bad as he did. Its just so sad of a situation, those poor children. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think Strgrl is right, I doubt that he really honestly thought that she would actually kill the children, even after saying it. That really is a foreign thought to people, that their spouse or they would ever be able to actually kill their children.
Riomacleod, "Meanwhile, I think that the appropriate sentence for someone with mental defect is an appropriate term (for 5 murders:life) in an institution where she can be cared for, and possibly even treated, but with no chance of actually leaving." Why treat her if you're going to leave her locked up forever? And if you did cure her mental illness, what excuse would you use in order to keep her locked up??
You know, I kinda got the feeling that since this trial was so publicized, that if she were found innocent by reason of insanity, it would of opened the doors to alot of cases that use that plea. I think that plea should be used by people who are mentally retarded only. I mean look at some of the serial killers of our time. Dahmer, Bundy, these were seriously messed up people and I have no doubt that they were sick in the head, but they KNEW the difference between right and wrong and they still chose the wrong way. And by that, you have to suffer the consequences. Im glad she was found guilty. What makes me ill, is the vigils they are holding and the tears they are crying for a woman who was found guilty for murdering her children instead of for the children themselves.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I hope justice will prevail. Groove on
You would treat her for the same reason people with life sentences are given any medical treatment, not giving them medical attention would be cruel and unusual. Also, this would cut down on the insanity pleas because the plea will only get you into maybe a high security hospital instead of a maximum security prison. The basis on keeping her locked up after she was cured (although most real mental disorders are only treatable, not curable) is that she killed 5 people.
Riomacleod, "The basis on keeping her locked up after she was cured (although most real mental disorders are only treatable, not curable) is that she killed 5 people." But what if she killed five people BECAUSE she was sick??? Tom
Sick? Yes of course, you'd have to be sick to drown your 5 children. Knowing what she was doing? Yes of course, she wouldnt have called the police to tell them what she was doing if she didnt think it wrong. Give her help? Yes, give her some counseling. Lock her up to her dying day? Hell yes, she killed her 5 children in cold blood.
Goin' soft in your old age? Don't you want them to kill her? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace.
Well to hand down the death penalty, we would have to prove that she would be a future threat to society. Which I dont think she would be... unless she had more children. And since that is what the law states, no I wouldnt give her the death penalty. You know me... such a stickler for the rulesPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Groove on
stRgrL, "Knowing what she was doing? Yes of course, she wouldnt have called the police to tell them what she was doing if she didnt think it wrong." Maybe she knew that it was illegal, but didn't think it was wrong. Basically, it is very easy to be sane and to judge mentally ill people using your standards. Tom
To be fair, no one does anything that they think is wrong. Every criminal thinks that what they did was justified by something. No one wakes up and says "I think I'm going to go out and do things the wrong way today". and if we decide not to judge her by our standards, what standards should we use? Or should we just accept that evil isn't worse than good, it's just different? Is that the sort of society that we should live in? Is that mentality even sane?
The psycho bitch deliberately murdered her kids. Fnck standards. Lock the bitch up for ever. Or, if you want the longer way which actually means exactly the same thing... Life wants to reproduce and continue. It is a part of us to want our genetic code to continue. She killed her own kids. What she did is literally anti-human, even anti-life.
goofyfish, ***Her husband basically knew what was going on after the third child and, against the advice of her doctor, impregnated her two more times. She obviously didn't have the ability to use good judgment, so why didn't he? The whole mess was avoidable. She had a serious mental illness; he knew it. The doctors told him that she would almost certainly relapse if she had more kids, yet "they decided" for her to quit taking her medicines and have another kid? Then, although she is clearly becoming disturbed, he continues to leave her alone with them, not even giving her a break by sending them to school. Why was having more kids more important? In my humble opinion, he made a bad situation worse. And even after she talks about killing the kids he leaves them home alone with her. Is that criminally negligent?*** I agree that a number of sane people did not try hard enough in this case. Some DA could probably make a case against the husband if they really wanted to. From what I have been reading, if nothing else, Mr. Yates comes across as having been extremely selfish in the relationship. It's been reported that he never even lent a hand to help change a diaper. It's too bad that he didn't think to make better use of that hand he didn't lend instead of using his mentally ill wife as a receptacle, huh? As sick as she was, at least Andrea Yates was motivated to do what she did thinking that she was actually helping her children by drowning them. For the most part, it seems the only person Mr. Yates was helping was himself.
Yates & Conjugal Visits Creepy little thoughts that sometimes occur to me – Given: R. Yates and A. Yates are extreme Fundamentalists (unchurched), Evidently do not believe in divorce (given A), Have no living children. What will the State of Texas do if: R. Yates and A. Yates demand conjugal visitation rights. A. Yates becomes pregnant, and refuses to have the pregnancy terminated even if her medication regime constitutes a danger to the developing fetus. Peace.
Goofy You give an excellent point that Ive not thought of myself. I read where Russell said "I may never get to have children again." Im assuming he meant with his wife. MAY??? I think they should make her get her tubes tied! That would guarantee no more murdering of her childrenPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Still very very sad...
Duh ... Senile old man mumbling to himself: "Hrrrmph ... What I suggested March 1st, executing her and putting him away for life, would have been all that was needed. Oh well, wonder where this thread is going now that goofy has given a bit more thought to the unexpected/unintended consequences? Take care all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
