Andrea Yates verdict - huh?

[Taem]

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.

I am a strong advocate for justice, as I'm sure everybody here knows, however even I would not send her through our justice system without first getting her head fixed. In my heart, I feel that she should pay for what she did but I'm a rational person, and justice does not always mean following my heart. You see, she is undoubtedly insane - anyone can see that. Being insane, she should spend the rest of her life locked up in a psychiatric ward out of publics reach. This... this would be justice! Giving an insane person death is not punishment. Her punishment will come when the drugs she takes to stabilize her mind make her one-day realize that she’s crazy and will have to spend the rest of her life with crazy people, and without her family… Although, if they do let her out claiming she is now free to frolic amongst the public because she has been “cured,” then I will be outraged! Then justice will not have been served!

[Taem]

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.

Just commenting that I agree 100% with everything you just said.

RE: Doc

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.

See my other post in this thread. Killing her would hardly be justice IMO. A lifetime of psychotherapy without the possibility of release would be a fitting justice for a legitimately insane person in my book.

[Taem]

Some people would say that anyone who commits heinous crimes, like murder, is a a little insane.

Small nit here:

"Murder: 1. Kill intentionally and with premeditation"

I'm sure this is [not] the meaning of your reply, however this did strike me as odd. By what you said, does this make everyone fighting a war insane by your definition? I know a few people who came back from Iraq and, while they didn't like what they saw and had to do, they knew it was part of their job. They had to find out where the enemies were located and formulate a strategy to eradicate them. This is definitely premeditation and fits the bill for murder, however I would hardly classify them - or their actions - as expressions of ‘insanity,’ not by any stretch of the imagination.

[DeeBye]

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.

Clearly the solution is for society to have 2 types of mental institutions. One is a mental facility where people with mental defects receive care and help, and the other is for the dangerous headcases that have committed crimes of a heinous nature. Gotham has it right. There should be an Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane in every metroplitan area.

I'm only half-kidding with my suggestion.

[DeeBye]

wow double post

[DeeBye]

wtf hat trick triple post

[Xukuth]

Clearly the solution is for society to have 2 types of mental institutions. One is a mental facility where people with mental defects receive care and help, and the other is for the dangerous headcases that have committed crimes of a heinous nature. Gotham has it right. There should be an Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane in every metroplitan area.

I'm only half-kidding with my suggestion.

To be fair, there are Asylums for the Criminally Insane in the US in operation.

[DeeBye]

To be fair, there are Asylums for the Criminally Insane in the US in operation.

Yeah, but not Gotham-style ones:angry:

[LemmingofGlory]

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.

Y'know, I was going to respond with something very similar to what you've said here. What most closely hits home with my way of thinking is when you say "The determination should simply be if this person can ever be trusted out in society again." (It's even eerie how similar your phrasing is to how I usually phrase my position.) I don't see the point of sentences that simply "punish"; what good is that? What problem does it solve? To my reckoning, it's just an excuse for society to feel self-righteous and finger-wag -- which people LOVE to do! It's GREAT to look down your nose at someone; it makes you feel better than them. It's a little pick-me-up. Demonize someone in law and you've got a nice conflict: criminal vs society. It's great entertainment, but I think it's time we recognize that's what it is and start trying to be objective.

Now, Pete suggests that Andrea "Suffocates" Yates is a danger to society. I don't know; maybe she's just dangerous to children and should be prevented from having more. But then, my approach to troublesome situations often leads to sterilization for some reason... so I might be slightly biased. Pete likes crucifixion for the sane, evil criminals among us; that's fine. I'd use it on criminally dangerous sociopaths who also happened to be Christians, personally. (Christians aspire to be Christ-like, right?) But thinking on it, I hope crucifixion would not be reintroduced simply due to the inhumanity of it. I mean, wouldn't the sick #$%& who'd nail someone to some cheap lumber from Lowes be the sort who's due for the same?

-Lemmy

[Munkay]

Clearly the solution is for society to have 2 types of mental institutions. One is a mental facility where people with mental defects receive care and help, and the other is for the dangerous headcases that have committed crimes of a heinous nature. Gotham has it right. There should be an Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane in every metroplitan area.

I'm only half-kidding with my suggestion.

Joking aside, you make a good point. Jail has two goals - which often like to conflict with eachother:

• Rehabilitation - Exactly as it sounds. Make them a contributing member of society again without fear of criminal acts.<>
  
• Seperation - Keep criminals who have yet to be rehab'd, or are impossible to rehab, apart from society. Of course the punishment aspect of jail falls under this category as well.<>
  [st]
  What do you do when a mentally ill convict shows no signs of possible rehabilitation? Since Yates falls into this category (it's rather hard to argue that such a heinous crime could be commited without some hard wired scrambled brains up there), it seems rather silly to put her in a rehabilitation facility. An Arkham Asylum seems rather fitting.
  
  Of course, everything gets bungled on the practical side of things. Who can make these determinations about rehabilitation with certainty, etc? But the underlying idea is solid DeeBye.
  
  Besides, who wants to take the chance of Andrea Yates becoming the Riddler? Not me :P
  
  Cheers,
  
  Munk

[Merlinios]

Pete is pretty much dead-on. An issue that has been skirted, but not really mentioned yet, is that "punishing" of the insane may not even be punishment. Even IF you believe that punishment is the answer, and you need vengeance and all that stuff, do they even know they're being punished if they're that far gone? If I'm living in my own world where Satan takes my children and whatnot, is locking me in a cell going to produce the usual effect of isolation, boredom, and that general "I'm being punished" feeling?

Another point that was brought up, I believe by Doc (but I may be wrong there) is that she knew it was legally wrong, but still believed it was right. This has been the subject for literature (and movies, plays, and everything else) for gawd knows how long, and it is almost always represented that the correct thing to do is follow what one believes to be morally correct. Somehow I'm drawing a blank on references right now, though I had one in mind when I started this up. Anyway, point is that a good portion of humanity agrees that sometimes the law is wrong, and that people DO need to disobey it. So yes, she is insane. Yes, what she did was wrong. But (if) she thought she was doing the right thing, doesn't that change something?

Here's a hypothetical example (that's probably ridden with holes). You're a witness in a murder trial. The suspect is innocent, and you are aware of this. However, you also know that if you testify as to what you saw, he WILL be convicted. Just to add some gravity here, let's say he will get the death penalty. So you have two choices; obey the law, tell the truth, and let him die, OR you can lie and save an innocent man's life. (I have NO idea how anything like this would come about, so please don't bother discussing the realism.)

Let's say you make the humane choice and save his life. Ten years down the line, it's discovered you lied. You are set to be tried. Is this justice? Does the answer change if the law knows he's innocent?

I forgot my original point. Rehabilitation is preferable here, and wherever possible, but I don't know how realistic it is. Can you EVER trust someone who has done this back in society? And if you are the guy in charge of her rehabilitation, and you let her out, and she does it again?

This is a pretty grey line. The knee-jerk reflex is of course to fry her and get it over with, but I think we need to look a little deeper than that.

--me

[Nystul]

Another point that was brought up, I believe by Doc (but I may be wrong there) is that she knew it was legally wrong, but still believed it was right. This has been the subject for literature (and movies, plays, and everything else) for gawd knows how long, and it is almost always represented that the correct thing to do is follow what one believes to be morally correct.

This gets us into the field of vigilantes and the antihero. The correct thing to do is what you believe to be morally correct, but that also causes problems. If everyone had the same moral beliefs, it would not be a problem to essentially try to match the law with the morality, and allow juries to act on good faith. But since that is not the case, we need to hold people accountable to the law even if they are doing what they believe to be morally right. Otherwise, we get to the point where the law has no teeth.

Rehabilitation is preferable here, and wherever possible, but I don't know how realistic it is. Can you EVER trust someone who has done this back in society? And if you are the guy in charge of her rehabilitation, and you let her out, and she does it again?

It is possible that when she is put back on anti-pyschotics, she will behave pretty much as a normal, safe member of society. But who can say the meds will always work? And even moreso, who can say she will never skip the meds? I do think she should get the appropriate treatment, but I don't think it can ever be considered safe to let someone like this rejoin society.

[--Pete]

Hi,

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.

Thank you, Doc, for opening my eyes. Until you clarified it for me, I always thought that the KKK was evil incarnate, operating from the raw emotions of prejudice, hatred, and ignorance. But you've made me see that they were right, they went with their spirit and that made them great and terrible (but, as your usage indicates, 'terrible' in a noble way).

Bah!

The crap you spout is why people believed in witches in the first place and stoned, burned, or hanged them (usually without benefit of trial or hearing) in the second. I bet I know the scene in Zorba the Greek that pleased you the most. It's the same one that makes rational people puke.

We have emotions, whether that is good or bad is moot, but if they are not controlled by the rational parts of our being, then we have no claim toward being an intelligent animal. So those who are ruled by their emotions do not deserve the title of human. Or the respect and freedoms that title implies.

-Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

This gets us into the field of vigilantes and the antihero. The correct thing to do is what you believe to be morally correct, but that also causes problems. If everyone had the same moral beliefs, it would not be a problem to essentially try to match the law with the morality, and allow juries to act on good faith. But since that is not the case, we need to hold people accountable to the law even if they are doing what they believe to be morally right. Otherwise, we get to the point where the law has no teeth.

Exactly. We have a whole generation that has been raised on Hollywood pap where the vigilantes or anti-heroes break every law in the book, and at the end, they walk off scot-free and often with the thanks and blessing of the authorities. The message is clear that one can do what one wants and there will be no repercussions as long as one's heart is pure. I think Jack Kevorkian would tell people that the reality is different. As he, and so many others before and since, well know, civil disobedience for a cause often has a steep price.

However,

Another point that was brought up, I believe by Doc (but I may be wrong there) is that she knew it was legally wrong, but still believed it was right.

is a bit ambiguous. The working of an insane mind are not the same (by definition) as those of a sane mind. In a sane mind, knowing that something is legally wrong but believing that it is right is the equivalent of believing that the law itself is wrong. That is the basis for the whole anti-hero, civic protester, etc. behavior; an attempt to change an unjust law or condition by bringing it to the attention of the public, even of the world. But in an insane mind, who can really tell what is happening? Does a Son of Sam forget that murder is unlawful? Or does that fact simply not have any influence on his actions? Or is the answer somewhere in between and adds to the stress or puts an element of anguish into his situation. The only way to know is to ask the person, but, given that they either are insane, or were insane at the time they performed the actions they did, they are not necessarily the best equipped to explain.

However those issues are addressed, I think (paraphrasing Yogi Barra's son) the similarities between insanity and civic protest are mostly different. I think most revolutions (the ultimate form of civil protest) are started by sane (but perhaps not practical) people who have rational goals in mind. And the test of that is that these revolutionaries can persuade a sufficient number of (presumably) sane people to follow them and a majority of those that do not follow them to 'get out of the way' (most successful revolutions are carried out with a small fraction of the population actively engaging but the majority at least not objecting).

I seriously doubt that any 'slack' granted to the insane would cause any slippery-slope effect on the sane civic protesters. The two are just too different (usually, but then the Unibomber comes to mind).

--Pete

[--Pete]

Small nit here:

"Murder: 1. Kill intentionally and with premeditation"

I don't know where you got your definition, but let me nit your nit. From M-W online, primary definition:
"Murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought."

The important point, missing from your definition, is the 'unlawfully'. Murder is defined in terms of the social norms. A state sanctioned executioner performing his task is not a murderer, nor is a police officer in line of duty, nor a military person following the ROE. Once again, while the actions are important, the circumstances and intentions surrounding those actions are also important.

This point is often mangled in capital punishment debates where the anti crowd claims that the state does not have the right to do what is illegal for the individual citizens to do. Of course, this is arrant nonsense. The state can tax you, your neighbors can't. The state can take your property under eminent domain, a private individual would be robbing you. Etc. In the same sense, the state can and does define the legality of capital punishment. In a democracy, that determination should be the voice of the majority and should be obeyed by all (which should not stop the minority from crusading within legal boundaries to get the law changed).

The King James Version says not to kill. But it instructs the Jews to exterminate every living creature in some conquered cities. A contradiction? No, simply a mistranslation of 'kill' for 'murder'. Once the extermination is mandated by authority (in this case, the insane entity who is the god of the old testament), then no murder is involved.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

What you described is an accident.

What I describe was a failure of one of your bodily systems leading to a tragic consequence. Exactly the same as the failure of one of her bodily systems leading to another tragic consequence. The two are exactly analogous.

Chasing down 5 kids and killing them is not an accident.

Of course it is no accident, because we all know that crazy people all sit in a corner, stare into space and drool. Anyone capable of taking action, of moving around, of making a plan MUST be sane.

Oh, BTW, that was sarcasm.

If you think I am smarter then this (according to your next post), please don't try to treat me like an idiot.

Then quit being an idiot.

Whatever respect I've had for you from a while back is quickly eroding on the basis of your last 2 posts.

If your respect is so shallow, and your ability to take disagreement is so poor, then I've lost nothing of value.

--Pete

[Doc]

Pete, thank you for both proving my point and proving that you are a fool.

Since you brought up the KKK, yes, they are needed in this world. Because of the KKK, we have had visionaries like Martin Luther King find his life's purpose. Because of the evil that men do, good men have found great works to counter them. Because of the evils of the British Empire, great men like Ghandi changed the world and changed people's hearts. Because of men like Hitler, good men tested their mettle and found them selves capable of so much more, and gave all they could. It was because of their EMOTIONS that they were moved to do great things... Pontificating pompous windbags like your self, I guess you would call them animals wouldn't you... Because they live within their hearts and their emotions. Your own humanity is lacking. You are cold, empty, and condemn all those things that you can't have. You are little more than a wannabe vulcan, straight out of star trek. Emotion is what has made us great, and terrible, as human beings. The good and the bad. They co-exist with one another and as long as they do, there is balance. Remove one or the other, and you upset that balance. And that is a bad thing. With out dark, there is no point to having light. It takes light to cast shadow. All things co-exist for the benefit of others. We, as human beings, need events, people, happenings to provoke our emotional responses, otherwise we die inside, become zombies. From the heady rush of the feeling of all consuming love, to the face burning heart thumping gut churning feeling of witnessing evil. That lump you get in your throat when you stand on top of a mountain and look down, reveling in the beauty, to the soul crushing dispair you feel when viewing photos of the nazi concentration camps. These are the things that drive us, makes us human. We can not deny them, or repress them. It is in our better interests to react to them, for good or ill, and no one can tell where the far reaching ripples from the effects of our actions might reach.

I want nothing to do with your definition of human... I'd rather be an animal.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Pete, thank you for both proving my point and proving that you are a fool.

Screw you, Doc.

{A bunch of crap}

I see your reading comprehension has not improved. How much did you pay for that supposed doctorate anyway? You accuse me of wanting to do away with emotions, when what I said is that emotions have to be controlled by the rational. It is you who are proposing that the rational be eliminated and raw emotions govern our actions. I can understand that desire in you, since rational seems to be so hard for you.

I want nothing to do with your definition of human... I'd rather be an animal.

You have *my* blessing in that. And my complete confidence that you can take the final small step.

--Pete

[Ashock]

Hi,
What I describe was a failure of one of your bodily systems leading to a tragic consequence. Exactly the same as the failure of one of her bodily systems leading to another tragic consequence. The two are exactly analogous.
Of course it is no accident, because we all know that crazy people all sit in a corner, stare into space and drool. Anyone capable of taking action, of moving around, of making a plan MUST be sane.

Oh, BTW, that was sarcasm.
Then quit being an idiot.
If your respect is so shallow, and your ability to take disagreement is so poor, then I've lost nothing of value.

--Pete

I have always had respect for your intellect, and general knowledge. However, in the last few years, I find that I am dissapointed by your ponts of view on many of the current issues. You remind me too much of college professors, and that is not really a good thing. Many here would probably view that as a compliment, but I don't. Additionally, you display an utter lack of respect to those that disagree with you. Up to a point, that is fine and I do that too. You however, have degenerated too far even for my own tastes in this matter. Also, I do not take well to being patronized, especially by the likes of someone who is not really living in the same world I am. This last series of posts has just sealed all of the above for me.

There is a term in russian that I will mention. Maybe there is an equivalent in english, but I can't think of it. Anyway, in russian the word "umnui" means smart. The word "zaumnui" means someone who thinks they are smarter than they actually are. It in no way implies that they are dumb, just that they think too much of themselves. I do not fraternize with people like that.


Have a nice life, Pete.


-A

[Doc]

Hi,
Screw you, Doc.
I see your reading comprehension has not improved. How much did you pay for that supposed doctorate anyway? You accuse me of wanting to do away with emotions, when what I said is that emotions have to be controlled by the rational. It is you who are proposing that the rational be eliminated and raw emotions govern our actions. I can understand that desire in you, since rational seems to be so hard for you.
You have *my* blessing in that. And my complete confidence that you can take the final small step.

--Pete

Ah, how the mighty has fallen. Welcome to my level. Your last couple of posts have lost you some respect. A long time ago, you said you were ignoring me. It is good to know I am hard to resist, even better to know that I can push your buttons hard enough to provoke a response that excites your ire. Your own emotions were probably a bit out of check there for a moment I bet. The little "Screw you, Doc" is probably the most human statement I have seen you say, and mayhap the most irrational. It pleases me mightily to know I bring out the best in people.

Your reading comprehension aint much better, as you assumed my wording of terrible to be noble somehow, which it wasn't. What is that part about assume making an ass out of you and me?

And your blessing aint worth a handfull of ass pennies.