Celtic_Angel

I don't understand the point of the whole "not guilty by reason of insanity" thing, can't we have guilty but insane? I mean even if you committed a murder while you were off your head...you still physically caused the murder..how on earth can you be called not guilty??


It's all words but the whole thing sits wrong with me...Andrea is guilty and insane..she should be punish but I don't hold her husband blameless...he let down those kids ...so he didn't drown them but he did nothing to stop it either...insist she homeschool them...he should be sent to jail just for that!

username 34

anyone who kills anyone in cold blood isnt mentally insane just by the act they committed - maybe not technically insane in the legal definition - but insane in terms of their actions and thoughts.

She was cold blooded, she didnt regret it and her husband supported her after she was arrested - he's almost as much to blame if you ask me.

Any normal grieving parent who's partner did this to their children I dont imagine wanting to ever see that persons face again - let alone excuse their behaviour. I personally dont think I could even live if my partner murdered my kids - all of them! and I wouldnt want him to live either.

this decision sets a hugely dangerous precedent - excusing cold blooded murder due to insanity spurred on by PPD and religious beliefs. She believed she was doing right in her religious eyes.

There is no excuse - a "normal" person doesnt act like this, doesnt kill others - shes not legally insane, shes just a plane old mudering bitch - and the husband is one DANGEROUS guy in my view.

Leslie

I agree. I don't understand or like Rusty Yates. He did let his children down but I believe it was unknowlingly - hindsight is 20/20. Let's face it they were/are both nuts .... the difference is that she was/is capable of murder.

Jeffrey Dahmer showed more remorse for his crimes than Andrea Yates has.

Andrew Cross

Being the mother of five kids I know first hand how hard it is, but there is NO way on earth I could do something like that. Why didn't she just leave if her life was so bad?? How could you make your kids suffer like that because of the way you feel? Its been said before about how the last ones to be drowned must have known what was happening and been so scared. It makes me so angry that she could be so selfish...those poor poor kids....

Leslie

I ate lunch with my parents today and the Yates case came up for discussion ( the institution she's been shipped to is very close to where we live) . I asked my father - what he thought his reaction would have been if he came home to find out Mom had drowned all 5 of us kids? He said, "I'd have killed her. And then I'd have killed myself." My Mom said, "He wouldn't have had to. If I had "snapped" and killed my own children .... when I "snapped out of it" I'd have killed myself."

It may sound dramatic but I actually believe them. They both were saying they couldn't go on living after something like that. I'm not a parent but I find this to be the general opinion of the parents I know.

Jerseygirl

I fully agree Lesley. If anyone harmed my daughter I am sure I would not want to carry on. Although until you are in that situation I don't really think you know how you would react. Its surprising how strong you can be when you have to.

Did you enjoy your birthday lunch?

AmerLisa

This is something I totally can agree/understand. If I "snapped" enough to do something like that - I hope that I'd never be aware of anything ever again. Or yes, I'd probably kill myself as well. I just can't imagine ever getting to the point of actually harming my children.

Leslie

I know what you mean ..... I believe that my parents "believe" that is what they'd do but who knows until you are confronted with the reality?

Yes, I had a great lunch, thanks. It was good to be with my family.... nice and relaxed and low key. Thank God nobody brought up the situation in the Middle East or I may have had to challenge my Dad to a duel.

Jerseygirl

Think back to when you were a child, your mum and dad were everything to you. You trusted them to care for you, to feed you and keep you safe. I can't begin to imagine the horror a child must go through when they are abused or harmed by a parent.

AmerLisa

I understand what you mean Jersey.....and don't think for one minute that I haven't thought about those children. It still makes me it extremely hard to believe that a mother in her right mind, would do that to 5 innocent children. But, I know it happens....Susan Smith is an example of pure and utter evil.

cinnabar

I was talking to a US friend about this case over the weekend. She has family in the same town where the Yateses lived, and therefore had "gossip" to share.

(No facts, just gossip. Wanted to make that clear. This is just over-the-garden-fence stuff, like Les Dawson used to do dressed up as a woman.)

Rusty Yates never lifted a finger to help Andrea in the house, not with housework, not with childcare. When she was looking after her terminally-ill father, Rusty still expected Andrea to put in a full day looking after him, as was her wifely duty. He's considered by their neighbours, I was told, to be a lazy asshole.

On the other hand, my own father never lifted a finger to help my mother in the house; he did a job outside the home which brought in the money and that's how their generation viewed marriage.

It's perhaps old-fashioned today, especially to a Brit born since 1960, but if it works for both people in the relationship then there's nothing wrong with it.

I believe that Andrea was not unhappy with her lifestyle and that she wanted more children. I think the tragedy is that she and her husband didn't heed medical advice about how having more children would worsen the psychosis she already had.

From wikipedia, psychosis:

"Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state in which thought and perception are severely impaired. Persons experiencing a psychotic episode may experience hallucinations, hold delusional beliefs (e.g., grandiose or paranoid delusions), demonstrate personality changes and exhibit disorganized thinking (see thought disorder). This is often accompanied by lack of insight into the unusual or bizarre nature of such behavior, difficulties with social interaction and impairments in carrying out the activities of daily living. A psychotic episode is often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality"."

I take that to mean that psychosis is episodic, and the sufferer can go from periods of delusion to relative lucidity. Such a person could commit a terrible crime while in the delusional phase, and then realise the wrong they've done. I personally can't see that this makes such a crime "pre-meditated". I'm comfortable accepting that Andrea Yates was insane at the time of the murders.

It's a question of jurisprudence whether Texas law is "fair" on the subject. If the case balances on whether the criminal is aware they did something wrong, then episodic psychosis may not count as insanity under Texas law.

Partystar

Dev & I were talking about it a few days ago & I was saying how I can't believe that Rusty is still 'friends' with Andrea after what she did. I asked him if he could imagine still wanting to be friends with me if I did something like that, he said no, he would have killed me.

TruBrit

yep same here with my father although only 3 of us (OMG and that's enough)...overall i think that the insanity defense is inappropriate however in this case i think it's justified...if yates had killed her children and tried to hide the fact as i believe susan smith did it would have been clear that she knew it was the wrong thing to do....the fact that she killed them and then called the police to the house calmly admitting everything is pretty strong evidence imo that she was truly insane therefore i think the verdict should be 'guilty but insane' instead of not guilty because of insanity.

cinnabar

I agree. From what I've seen on a number of message boards, most people would much have preferred a "guilty but insane" verdict.

Does anyone know if such a verdict is possible, either in Texas or any other state? Did the jury have the choice between those two, or were they stuck with picking from "innocent", "guilty", or "not guilty but insane"?

I know British courts can find someone guilty but insane, I'm curious as to what the legalities are over here.

Leslie

There is not such verdict in Texas - or the US for that matter. By finding a person "insane" (in the US courts) you are effectively branding them not responsible for their own actions - therefore innocent of the murder charges. I know it sounds stupid but the definition has been narrowed to such a fine point for the protection of the truly mentally handicapped (such as a hallucinating schizophrenic) who truthfully would have had no clue about what they were doing. Andrea Yates lied and pretended to be one of these people and got away with murder. Bitch.