Andrea Yates verdict - huh?

[Ashock]

Ok, let's say she really is insane, so what? She killed 5 kids. Where is the punishment? Personally, I would have quartered her, but even if you don't believe in the death penalty, how can she *not* at least go to jail for life? Would jail rehabilitate her? Of course not. However, she would be *punished* for the rest of her life. Our justice system is a joke and this is a perfect example of that.

I also read some comments by her husband http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060727/ap_o...ates_trial.

He is a total POS too. Seems like no one placed any value on those poor kids. Instead of being devastated for the rest of his life, he seems like he is easily getting on with it. WTF??? He even visits his ex? Why is he not carrying a cleaver to those visits? I guess he is a very sensitive person if he can find a place in his heart for his poor sick ex-wife. Sensitize this, fu..er.

I am disgusted.


-A

[pakman]

Ok, let's say she really is insane, so what? She killed 5 kids. Where is the punishment? Personally, I would have quartered her, but even if you don't believe in the death penalty, how can she *not* at least go to jail for life? Would jail rehabilitate her? Of course not. However, she would be *punished* for the rest of her life. Our justice system is a joke and this is a perfect example of that.

[...]

He is a total POS too. Seems like no one placed any value on those poor kids. Instead of being devastated for the rest of his life, he seems like he is easily getting on with it. WTF??? He even visits his ex? Why is he not carrying a cleaver to those visits?

Well, I guess the sex was good, that's why he's going to visit her.

"We understand that she knew it was legally wrong," he said. "But in her delusional mind, in her severely mentally ill mind, we believe that she thought what she did was right."

That was taken from the article. Isn't that contradictory? If she knew it was legally wrong, but morally right, shouldn't the legal supercede the moral? Isn't that the case with law? It may not be ethical, per say, but it's still legal.

I agree with you, Ashock. It's deplorable what is going to happen. I mean she gets to sit in a hospital room watching tv and getting blood tests for a few years. Horrible treatment. </sarcasm> I think she should be locked away for life. They have to decide if she's a menace to society? Give me a break, she MURDERED 5 CHILDREN :angry:. How is murder no longer mean you're a menace? I guess kids don't count as people in the justice system between the ages of conception and 18, unless you kill a pregnant woman, then it counts as double homicide. I don't understand it. :wacko:

I guess the real punishment in this case is the hospital food. <_<

[Ashock]

I guess kids don't count as people in the justice system between the ages of conception and 18, unless you kill a pregnant woman, then it counts as double homicide.

Yes, I think this is a big part of the problem. IMO, today's society does not place nearly enough value on kid's lives.


-A

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ok, let's say she really is insane, so what? She killed 5 kids. Where is the punishment?

If she is crazy, what would the purpose of punishment be? To cure her insanity so that she will never kill five kids again? Do you really think that beating the insane with thorns and whips does any good? Would years in prison change the chemical and biological deficiencies in her brain?

Our whole system has two combined flaws. The first is determining who is and is not crazy and the second is what we do with the crazy ones. In a case like this, the determination should simply be if this person can ever be trusted out in society again. IMHO, no. So, exclusion from society for life is the only rational option. That exclusion can be made fairly short by euthanasia, and the liberal use of that could well be a detriment to the use of the insanity defense.

But punishment for punishments sake -- no. We routinely put down mad dogs, but we do it humanely. We owe the same courtesy to her and people like her. I'd only reintroduce crucifixion for the sane, evil, criminals.

--Pete

[Ashock]

Hi,
If she is crazy, what would the purpose of punishment be? To cure her insanity so that she will never kill five kids again? Do you really think that beating the insane with thorns and whips does any good? Would years in prison change the chemical and biological deficiencies in her brain?

--Pete

I am not looking to cure her. I am looking for justice. You kill 5 kids. You then spend 20-30-60 years in a hospital. This is justice? This was not a one-time thing. She actually hunted down her kids, chasing some of them through the house (this is from earleir reports on this from a while back). Hitler was possibly at least somewhat insane too.

Why is it called the Justice System if justice is not administered..... at least on behalf of the victims?


-A

[Xukuth]

I agree with you, Ashock. It's deplorable what is going to happen. I mean she gets to sit in a hospital room watching tv and getting blood tests for a few years. Horrible treatment. </sarcasm> I think she should be locked away for life. They have to decide if she's a menace to society? Give me a break, she MURDERED 5 CHILDREN :angry:. How is murder no longer mean you're a menace? I guess kids don't count as people in the justice system between the ages of conception and 18, unless you kill a pregnant woman, then it counts as double homicide. I don't understand it. :wacko:

I guess the real punishment in this case is the hospital food. <_<

If this woman is insane (which she is, as determined by a jury of her peers), then it would be wrong to execute her, because she (the "real" she) didn't know what she was doing and/or had little to no control over herself. Life imprisonment in a standard prison would similarly go wrong; it's ridiculous to think that someone as legitimately insane as this woman would survive long in prison.

If and when she is treated successfully she will have to deal with the fact that she murdered her five children for the rest of her life; that's not punishment enough?


Besides, I would have to say she's not really a menace to society.


After all, what's the recidivism rate for murdering your five children?

[Ashock]

If this woman is insane (which she is, as determined by a jury of her peers), then it would be wrong to execute her, because she (the "real" she) didn't know what she was doing and/or had little to no control over herself. Life imprisonment in a standard prison would similarly go wrong; it's ridiculous to think that someone as legitimately insane as this woman would survive long in prison.

And this would be bad for what reason? Do you think she deserves better? She killed FIVE KIDS! If she is "legitimately" insane, let's "legitimately" punish her. Hospital is not a punishment, unless it's one like in "One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest". People who get suffuciently drunk do not know what htey are doing either, but we punish them real good. This whole "not responsible for their action" crap, is one of the major resaons why crime these days is so rampant. Our society has excuses for pretty much everything these days.

>>>>>If and when she is treated successfully she will have to deal with the fact that she murdered her five children for the rest of her life; that's not punishment enough?<<<


No it is not.


>>>Besides, I would have to say she's not really a menace to society.<<<


That is irrelevant. She also has to account for her actions, with no #@$@#$@ excuses.


>>>After all, what's the recidivism rate for murdering your five children?<<<

So what you're saying is that if you commit a crime, but then it is determined that you will never do it again, you're free to go? Maybe then we should not even bother prosecuting 1st time offenders at all and just put them on a list, until the next time?


-A

[--Pete]

Hi,

I am not looking to cure her. I am looking for justice.

So, you are driving down the road one day, you have a stroke. You hit a school bus, kill thirty kids, but you survive. And your idea of 'justice' is to ignore anything other than the fact that you've killed thirty people. You get the needle and we all sing hosannas. That attitude is out of date by at least a hundred and fifty years. Just because mental problems don't bleed doesn't mean they are not real. And note, my attitude leaves her as dead as yours, but not from some primitive (and, in the third millennium, ignorant) desire for retribution. I save retribution for people who knew what they are doing.

Justice? Would you punish people born defective for their defects? If you say yes, you are irrational. If you say no, then why do you distinguish between the mind and the body? The person with the broken mind is no more to blame for that breakage than is the person with the broken body. It is not society's place to punish a person for their physical or mental deficiencies. Indeed, if society has any responsibility in the matter at all, it is to aid those people. Only when a person becomes a threat to society should there be negative intervention, and that must be without passion or hatred. Much like having to shoot your dog, it is done because it is necessary.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . a bunch of crap . . .

Give it a rest for a day. You are foaming at the mouth and sounding like a jackass. I know you are smarter than that, quit being an effing parent and think like a rational adult for a while.

--Pete

[Ashock]

Hi,
So, you are driving down the road one day, you have a stroke. You hit a school bus, kill thirty kids, but you survive. And your idea of 'justice' is to ignore anything other than the fact that you've killed thirty people. You get the needle and we all sing hosannas. That attitude is out of date by at least a hundred and fifty years. Just because mental problems don't bleed doesn't mean they are not real. And note, my attitude leaves her as dead as yours, but not from some primitive (and, in the third millennium, ignorant) desire for retribution. I save retribution for people who knew what they are doing.

--Pete

What you described is an accident. Chasing down 5 kids and killing them is not an accident. If you think I am smarter then this (according to your next post), please don't try to treat me like an idiot.

As far as quitting being an "effing parent" as you put it, why would I want to do that? That is part of being a human being... at least for most normal adult people.

Quit sounding like a jackass and stop trying to rationalize everything. You sound like your moral compass sat too close to a magnet for far too long. Whatever respect I've had for you from a while back is quickly eroding on the basis of your last 2 posts.

I suggest you take a break too..... or whatever.


-A

[Doc]

A death penalty debate that I didn't start... God bless the Lurker Lounge.

I dunno, I think responding as "an effing parent" is the human thing to do. Anybody responding as otherwise should probably have their head examined. Rationality only goes so far, as does logic. The raw emotions of the human spirit can not, and should not always be ignored or repressed. It is what makes us both great and terrible as human beings.

Perhaps, if this Yates character knew that it was legally wrong, and that she was going to DIE from it, she may have paused for just one moment for second thoughts. Maybe, maybe not, we will never know.

I say, let her hang and may the crows have her eyes.

She chose to run down her kids and butcher them, knowing full well that she shouldn't do it.

[Chesspiece_face]

You sound like your moral compass sat too close to a magnet for far too long.

And you sound like your moral compass is a family heirloom that broke 200 years ago.

what do you hope to accomplish with this topic? want people to just say "yeah, you're right. that is effed up". If you want to have a real discussion on these ideas you need to set out some definitions regarding the ambiguous notions of morality and justice you are operating under. and then we can sit around for hours telling each other why the other persons defintions are wrong.

[Chesspiece_face]

The raw emotions of the human spirit can not, and should not always be ignored or repressed. It is what makes us both great and terrible as human beings.

and yet in the yates case that may be exactly why her kids are not alive. her actions, as irrational as they were, were an attempt to protect her kids from the evils of satan infecting them. the only way her mind could figure out to do this was to send them to god. in that she was both acting as an "effing parant" as well as acting on raw emotions of the human spirit.

[Nystul]

Perhaps, if this Yates character knew that it was legally wrong, and that she was going to DIE from it, she may have paused for just one moment for second thoughts. Maybe, maybe not, we will never know.

I'm a death penalty supporter, but I think the odds of certain death being a *deterrent* in this particular case are pretty close to 0%. We are talking about someone who has gone through suicide attempts and self-mutilation, gone into a catatonic state, got put on (and then taken off of) anti-psychotic drugs... I don't see death being a very strong deterrent to someone of that profile.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . because she (the "real" she) didn't know what she was doing . . .

The '"real" she' is a crazy person. Just like the real legless person is a cripple, the real person without eyes is blind, the real person who can't hear is deaf. What is so hard to understand about this concept? Just because you can't see a broken mind doesn't make it less real. And our mind and our body are not some game avatar that some disembodied entity controls. They ARE who we ARE! A crazy person is not a sane person with some sort of mental overlay any more than a diabetic is a healthy person with some sort of external condition. They're both sick, in different ways, and both can be treated to some extent. But they are both real and the illness is part of the person.

--Pete

[Munkay]

I dunno, I think responding as "an effing parent" is the human thing to do. Anybody responding as otherwise should probably have their head examined. Rationality only goes so far, as does logic. The raw emotions of the human spirit can not, and should not always be ignored or repressed. It is what makes us both great and terrible as human beings.

To some degree, yes Doc. There is a side of news that will touch your raw emotions. There have been stories I've read that have moved me to tears, made me throw the paper against the wall, or even yell in frustration. BUT, there is a difference between reaction and action. When you are calling for an action, leave the raw emotion at the door. Take your time and brood about it, but running around with the vengeance stick while the pain is still raw is silly. And on the microcosm that is the online forum, reaction is okay, but it's pretty pointless without putting emotions aside and digging deep into the underlying issues. Or to use that dirty word, logic;)

It's been said by Pete, and my post in essence echo's chesspiece_face.

My two cents on the whole deal? I resembled Ashock when I heard the news first. But after thinking about it, and hearing what Pete contributed, I must say I think Pete is spot on.

As far as this,

A death penalty debate that I didn't start... God bless the Lurker Lounge.

:lol:

Congrats!

Cheers,

Munk

[kandrathe]

I am not looking to cure her. I am looking for justice. You kill 5 kids. You then spend 20-30-60 years in a hospital. This is justice? This was not a one-time thing. She actually hunted down her kids, chasing some of them through the house (this is from earleir reports on this from a while back). Hitler was possibly at least somewhat insane too.

Why is it called the Justice System if justice is not administered..... at least on behalf of the victims?
-A

Some people would say that anyone who commits heinous crimes, like murder, is a a little insane. I think the killing of the mentally ill is a slippery slope. This is the path that leads to saying that anyone who has any infirmity that would prevent their being able to contribute to their economic support should be excised from the society.

[Xukuth]

And this would be bad for what reason? Do you think she deserves better? She killed FIVE KIDS! If she is "legitimately" insane, let's "legitimately" punish her. Hospital is not a punishment, unless it's one like in "One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest". People who get suffuciently drunk do not know what htey are doing either, but we punish them real good. This whole "not responsible for their action" crap, is one of the major resaons why crime these days is so rampant. Our society has excuses for pretty much everything these days.

>>>>>If and when she is treated successfully she will have to deal with the fact that she murdered her five children for the rest of her life; that's not punishment enough?<<<
No it is not.
>>>Besides, I would have to say she's not really a menace to society.<<<
That is irrelevant. She also has to account for her actions, with no #@$@#$@ excuses.
>>>After all, what's the recidivism rate for murdering your five children?<<<

So what you're saying is that if you commit a crime, but then it is determined that you will never do it again, you're free to go? Maybe then we should not even bother prosecuting 1st time offenders at all and just put them on a list, until the next time?
-A

The recidivism rate comment was a joke. A bad one, perhaps, but a joke.

Crime is rampant these days? The U.S. DOJ disagrees: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm
Violent crime has been declining steadily for over a decade.

Your "drunk people" argument is a straw man. I didn't say drunk people shouldn't be punished.
The reason we punish drunk people as, or more, severely than sober people is because they chose to drink to the point of drunkenness. This woman didn't choose to be insane. This is why we should treat her rather than punish her otherwise. She's not in her right mind, and if she can be removed as a danger and menace through treatment rather than imprisonment or death, why should we kill her? She's not exactly a danger confined in a mental hospital.

FYI, you have some serious misconceptions about mental hospitals; they're not nearly as cheerful and friendly as the standard hospitals you've been to. Think prison, except with psychiatrists as well.

[Munkay]

FYI, you have some serious misconceptions about mental hospitals; they're not nearly as cheerful and friendly as the standard hospitals you've been to. Think prison, except with psychiatrists as well.

The perception of mental hospitals is good to bring up, and to a degree you are correct about them not being as much of a cakewalk as they may be commonly made out to be. But at the same rate, there is still a very large difference between a psych ward//mental hospital and a state pen.

In a mental hospital you don't have to worry about your roomate being a mass murderer, about alliances/gangs that form or are already formed, about being stabbed by a makeshift knife, or gased/beaten by guards if you step far out of line. Granted, your roomate may actually be a murderer, but they're most likely loaded on a bunch of medications (as well as you) that leave you in a pretty catatonic state.

That alone makes the difference pretty chipper, even if the psych ward isn't much of a party.

Cheers,

Munk

[Xukuth]

In a mental hospital you don't have to worry about your roomate being a mass murderer, about alliances/gangs that form or are already formed, about being stabbed by a makeshift knife, or gased/beaten by guards if you step far out of line. Granted, your roomate may actually be a murderer, but they're most likely loaded on a bunch of medications (as well as you) that leave you in a pretty catatonic state.

As far as being beaten goes, if you get out of line you often get roughed up quite a bit by the large, burly orderlies, as they drag you into a solitary cell with padded walls...and sometimes they strap you to the table in said cell if you get too rowdy; it assists in ease of medication (intravenous sedative).