NBC News: Appeals court overturns Andrea Yates capital murder conviction.

[Roon]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

[lazarus]

1. So someone else killed her kids?

:shrug:

[livinginphotographs]

2. It just means she won't be eligible for the death penalty.

Which is a good thing.

[lazarus]

4. Ah, okay

I agree, no death penalty. But she's still locked up forever, right?

[LisaL]

24. She is not facing a death penalty in any case.

She was sentenced to life in prison.

[elehhhhna]

3. No, she's insane. Guilty and insane.

[liberalnurse]

70. Anyone who comits murder has some "hint"

of insanity. I've met quite a few of them. Yates was not insane, just stressed. She knew the difference of right and wrong. She should rot in hell......

[livinginphotographs]

72. edited

edited after taking a deep breath

[liberalnurse]

78. Don't insult my nursing.

Your way out of your league. Post partum depression is not complete psychosis. It is depression. Andrea knew that what she was doing was wrong and was murder.

You don't have to agree with me, it's your choice. I'm a Corrections Nurse who knows a thing or two about murderers.

[livinginphotographs]

81. I apologize.

I got a little hot-headed debating with another person in this thread. I shouldn't have posted that.

I still disagree, though...

[liberalnurse]

90. I'm accepting of your apology.

I was ready to take you on in full color and throw down. It is most beautiful for folks to regroup and make amends. :pals:

[Bunny]

83. But didn't she have post-partum psychosis?

Which is a form of post-partum depression?

I think she truly was psychotic, although she was not legally insane.

[liberalnurse]

89. She was functional and premeditatedly

acted out her crime against innocent children....repeatedly. She knew when they were dead and they were her children.....thats the clincher. She was aware of other options but chose not to engage in them. She was self serving. Mentally ill but still self serving and deliberate.

[liberalnurse]

82. Thank you........

[yinkaafrica]

85. I think her husband should rot in hell with her

He is every bit as guilty as she is.

[liberalnurse]

94. Yes he has much to be guilty about.

[Wabbajack]

102. Every bit?

HE didn't kill anyone.

[sojourner]

108. He knew........she was psychotic and talked about her

obsessions with him. I have lived with a psychotic individual before...(my son's girlfriend and mother of his son --- and no, didn't seem like anything was amiss until she had a complete "psychotic break" when the baby was a year and a half old.)

And just because someone on this board works in corrections as a medical nurse doesn't mean squat to me. I'm a professor of psychology and have worked in corrections agency.........I know a thing or two about both fields.

Our insanity definition is a sham from centuries ago. No relevance to the diagnosis of mental illness whatsoever.

[LostinVA]

5. Good

Mental illness should not be punished by execution.

[LisaL]

34. She was not going to be executed.

:eyes:

[PunkPop]

48. I don't understand

I thought she was given the death penalty.

[LostinVA]

49. Okay

I thought she had been given the death penalty. Then I'll rephrase: someone legitimately mentally ill should not be treated as a cold-blooded sociopath. So many people in this country do not understand -- nor care to understand -- mental illness. It is an ILLNESS.

She killed her children. Without meds, something bad could happen again. So, treat her in a mental hospital instead of throwing her in prison.

And, in a lucid state, she understands what she did. She is remorseful. This isn't Ted Bundy here. Or even Susan Smith.

[puddycat]

69. society HATES people it calls "mentally ill" -- extreme bias against

and besides, I don't believe there is anything amounting to mental illness--its chemical imbalance in her case, a real post-partum change in her biological chemistry. That's not mental, its physical. And as far as depression, anxiety--lots of that is culturally induced by the stress of capitalistic society and the lack of love and support. Its more emotional than "mental".

In any case, this culture promotes the widespread use of mentally ill labelling against people, then uses it against them in every way. But I'm convinced Yates wasn't emotionally disturbed, she was not mental, she was chemically ill from her hormones of childbearing.

And for that she gets stuck in prison, while a mass-murdering sociopath like George Bush gets to live in the White House. This society is sick and twisted.

[LostinVA]

91. We're on the same side, Puddy

I guess I was using more of a layman's term of "mental illness." But, it's all the same: she was legally not sane (except in Texas!) when she killed her children. And, society sure as hell does hate those "weak" mentally ill people.

People don't get it --

[trogdor]

Then give clemency to ALL of them.

Not just the ones who profess to have accepted Jesus as their personal savior, etc.

[liberalnurse]

79. I'd say most all felons have some degree of mental illness.

That said, I like the way it has been differentiated in our legal system....Insanity is a legal term not a mental health term. The term Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity is the only reason a criminal should not be held criminally responsible for their offenses and actions.

Society needs to have clear boundaries. Mentally ill individuals do know the difference between right and wrong....especially murder. Even animals know the difference.

[sojourner]

109. You probably need to suffer a little mental illness

yourself then you'd have some basis for your opinions - other than your observations. That's not a wish, mind you. Just a statement. It wasn't until I suffered from a clinical depression that I had a clue about what it was about.

There is the also the concept of "impulsivity" that obstructs rational decision-making and CAN over-ride awareness of right/wrong.
The woman was delusional as well -- meaning she had a belief system that was out of whack with our concepts of reality (definition of psychotic BTW) within which killing the children was "in their best interests".

This is NOT as clear-cut and black and white issue as you make it out to be. Nor as our archaic criminal justice systems holds it out to be either.

[Roon]

6. Did you all know..

that the father didn't change one diaper the whole time he was married to her?

[lazarus]

10. So?

That means it's his fault she killed her own children?

[livinginphotographs]

12. No it means that he forced her to keep having children

Even though she had already been suffering from postpartum psychosis. He also was the one who left his children alone with her while she was suffering from this.

IMO, he's just as guilty, if not more, for those childrens' deaths.

[bowens43]

19. That's ridiculous.

He isn't guilty of anything except being an asshole.

[livinginphotographs]

27. Or maybe criminal negligence.

He knew what her problems were. He didn't give a shit. He forced her to keep having baby after baby and didn't seem to think that maybe you shouldn't leave your kids home with their mother when she's psychotic.

You know the truth is I feel sorry for her. He's just one more fundie asshole who thinks his wife is nothing but a baby-making piece of property.

[elehhhhna]

31. She felt normal when pregnant. Self medicating hormones perhaps?

[Mandate My Ass]

58. He had a good job at NASA

and forced his wife and kids to live in an abandoned bus and also for his psychotic wife to home school them. I save all my contempt for him.

[gypsy11]

68. I agree with you

I followed this case when it was happening. I feel for that woman as well. She is ill, and needs treatment.
Her husband on the other hand, came off as if he could care less about his wife or her problems. He knew she suffered from postpartum psychosis, yet wanted even more children, even after her doctor told them both is wasn't a good idea for her to have any more after the 4th one.
He should have been charged with negligence at the very least. He played a part in the death of those children.

[rooboy]

57. And it should be a criminal offense to be an asshole causing death. n/t

[liberalnurse]

80. She made the choice to say in a sick relationship.

She was not a prisoner.

[LostinVA]

93. Odds are she was a prisoner

An emotional one, and maybe even a physical one, too. I had a good friend go from an intelligent, independent, vibrant woman to one totally cowled and controlled by her husband, becaus eit was "God's plan." It is often a form of control and abuse just as much as physical violence is. And, in this case, both families approved of the rules Rusty was forcing onto his family.

[sojourner]

113. Not only would his personality help make her a prisoner

the illness would have affected her ability to think of alternatives...

I repeat -- THINGS ARE NOT THAT SIMPLE IN THE REAL WORLD!!

[livinginphotographs]

119. Welcome to DU, sojourner.

Especially since we agree. ;)

[Kitka]

92. Exactly right. He should be spending his life in prison, not her.

[goddess40]

98. I agree, and have been saying the same since I first heard

about the murders.

He gets treated like a victim instead of the perpetrator that he is.
Instead of getting her pregnant again he should have got her help, and put those kids in school.

I heard a while ago that she refuses her meds because when she is lucid she can't cope with what she did.

As a former, now disabled, correctional officer in a women's maximum security prison I have seen the different kinds of murderers too. This women wasn't in the same league as most murderers that kill for selfish reasons - she had nothing to gain from killing her children.

[TheDebbieDee]

13. It's his fault that he didn't do more to protect his kids!

I've always believed that he should have been brought up on reckless endangerment or willful negligence for knowingly leaving his kids completely in the care of someone who was having mental health issues.

If you ask me, he should have gotten the death penalty!

[bowens43]

21. You're kidding right?

[Sinistrous]

39. As a minimum, the husband is responsible for

exacerbating his wife's deteriorated mental state -- insisting on her home schooling the children, doing all the housework and child-rearing, having more children than she could handle. His insensitivity directly contributed to the children's deaths. If he were not such a sanctimonious, self-rightous prick, he would go in mourning for the rest of his wreched life, instead of marrying another woman.

[Verve]

60. He just divorced her! Prick!!!!!!! He should suffer like her! n/t

[goddess40]

99. so much for his marriage vows

I bet he made the vow of in sickness and in health. He is suppose to be such a devote Christian - it only matters when it fits his plans.

[LostinVA]

45. He is definitely culpable

Does he deserve the death penalty? No. A prison sentence? Maybe, if the evidence proved it. However, he WAS culpable in this whole heart-breaking tragedy. He didn't protect his children, nor did he protect and honor his wife.

But, while his MENTALLY ILL (not criminally insane) wife is locked up for the rest of her life, he is scot free to live his life however he wants. And, I agree with another poster on this thread: that will include having more babies. I remember reading on DU fairly recently that he had joined a Christian singles group.

So, did he directly kill his children? No, but he did indirectly allowed them to be killed. And he definitely helped destroy the mind of his wife, regardless of what medical experts said. He is morally guilty, if not legally.

[livinginphotographs]

47. Well said.

Welcome to DU.

[LostinVA]

51. Thanks, LIP!

[musette_sf]

77. I look at him

as a sleazier, meaner, craftier Scotty Peterson. Looks to me like he set her up.

[yinkaafrica]

87. He showed no remorse after the fact

I wonder if you are right.

[yinkaafrica]

86. "He didn't protect his children, nor did he protect and honor his wife. "

Yes. He should have been charged and he should be serving the same
sentence as his wife.

[Roon]

16. Just an interesting little tidbit eom

[AzDar]

14. Yes, and he has since divorced her. I've always felt that he should be

held responsible to some degree; she had been diagnosed with severe
postpartum psychosis years earlier (had even been institutionalized),
yet he kept encouraging her to have more children.Then he would just waltz out the door,leaving her to deal.

I've had mild postpartum depression (not psychosis!)and it does
very strange things to one's mind.

Truly not guilty by reason of insanity,imho.

[bleedingheart]

20. how much you bet he gets another wife to start birthing more babes

for him????

[AzDar]

37. You are sooo horribly right.. if I remember correctly it's "mandated" by

his nutjob fundie-brand of christianity. Jeebus.

[Bunny]

84. The only thing that amazes me is that he hasn't already done so.

I mean, it's been several years, right? How can any God-fearin' man go without a wife and babies for that long?

[bleedingheart]

95. you are right...I am suprised that he hasn't gotten hitched yet..

[PunkPop]

42. Absolutely he should

Anybody claiming Rusty Yates doesn't bear some responsibility in all this is in some deep denial. The signs she was losing her grip on reality were abundant before she even conceived of the last child. As the person closest to her and in the best position to help he should have done something. Instead, he stayed in his fundamentalist fairytale land where God only gives a shit about producing more and more good Christian soldiers - and the wife is nothing more than your servant.

As a Texan, that verdict was an embarassment but pretty understandable when you consider the high number of religous wackos in this state. Of course this woman was insane.

[SemperEadem]

114. this brings up an interesting issue

Ok, there's a pregnant woman in WA who was seeking a divorce from the man who was not the father of her baby. The judge refused to grant her the divorce, even though her husband had abused her.

Here, a man's negligence towards his born children and disinterest in his mentally ill wife was rewarded by a judge in that judge granting him a divorce while she goes to prison for the rest of her life, leaving him free and clear with no children in tow to marry someone else.

Should judges be allowed such subjective lattitude when granting divorces? What else needs to be brought into the picture to make it more uniform?

[ElectroPrincess]

7. I'm not surprised because there's documented evidence that

she has slipped into a PSYCHOTIC (meaning loss of one's sense of reality) Depression. That is, she was not living in the real world. No matter how horrendous this act is, she was not aware that she was "breaking the law" at the time because of her psychosis.

Andrea does easily meet the LEGAL as well as the moral definition of Innocent by Reason of Insanity.

Unfortunately our revenge seeking public will rue over the fact that she'll not be killed by the state and will now be placed in an treatment facility that can more effectively address her psychotic depression.

[tanyev]

8. OK., there's the top headline for the day.

No time to talk about anything going on in Washington today, sorry.

[Jeanette in FL]

11. Yes siree

Bring on the experts, bring in the family members, We can run with this all day long. No need to talk about the tsunami any longer with those pesky Americans that are missing. No need to cover the Congress where we just might have a Senator join the House members in objecting to the certification of the Electoral college. No need to cover the Gonzales hearings.

Andrea Yates all day long.

[MaineDem]

9. Fantastic news!

Now I hope she's getting help.

And I never trusted the husband...

[elehhhhna]

17. Here's the legal explaination for overturning the capital conviction:

From the Houston Chronicle--Park Deitz false testimony convinced the jury that Andrea had diabolically (and sanely) planned it all out.


The three-member appeals court took exception to the testimony of prosecutors' psychiatric witness, Dr. Park Dietz, who told the jury he had served as a consultant on an episode of the television drama Law & Order in which a woman drowned her children in the bathtub and was judged insane. He testified the show aired shortly before Yates drowned her five young children.

Prosecutors referred to Dietz's testimony in his closing arguments of the trial's guilt or innocence phase, noting that Yates regularly watched the show and that she had alluded to finding "a way out" when Dietz interviewed her in the Harris County Jail after the drownings.

But defense attorneys discovered no such episode was produced.

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. do-over

"In appealing her conviction before a three-judge panel of the 1st Court of Appeals, Yates' attorneys argued that a prosecution witness, Dr. Park Deitz, presented false testimony during her trial by stating that he had consulted on an episode of the NBC television show “Law & Order” in which a woman drowned her children and later was acquitted by reason of insanity.

Jurors learned after Yates was convicted that the episode never existed.

Yates attorney Troy McKinney argued on Tuesday that Dietz's testimony was a "bombshell. … it was dynamite," according to the Houston Chronicle."


---------
She was aquitted which means they must prosecute her again--or she gets away with murdering her children.

[elehhhhna]

22. She doesn't "get away" with anything...

She will never be free from institutionalization. When she comes out of her zombie state and improves, the reality of what she's done causes her to spiral again. She's stopped eating and been hospitalized and force fed twice in the past 18 months. This self-starvation starts as soon as her delusions subside.

There's nothing society can do to her now. When she's lucid, she WANTS to die. It's pathetic.

[Pirate Smile]

23. She was not acquitted, her conviction was overturned. They will have to

re-try the case.

[Evergreen Emerald]

26. oops

Right, she was not aquitted...(my bad). The coffee has not kicked in this morning.

[DemBones DemBones]

29. Will she ever be lucid enough long enough to allow another trial?

She should be in a hospital for the criminally insane rather than a prison. I haven't followed this case but I think she's in prison.

[Pirate Smile]

55. They put her on drugs to make her sane, she realizes what she did and

becomes suicidal or no drugs and psychotic.

What a choice. I'm sure they will keep her on drugs, retry (or get a plea bargin) and convict her and eventually she will successfully kill herself.

What a tortured soul and what a tragedy for those murdered children. Sometimes, in some situations, everything is just f@#ked.

[msanthrope]

74. Park Deitz is a meglomaniac--it's about time someone

took him down a peg...

Good. She was insane. She deserves a new trial.

[rocktivity]

18. Here's a direct link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6794098/\

But she never got the death penalty--I thought she got life.

:shrug:
rocknation

[Bridget Burke]

25. She did NOT get the death penalty.

And she'll never be "free." But prison is not the place for her.

[LisaL]

28. HTF do you know she will never be free with our mental system

being the way it is? At least with guilty verdict she was locked up. But now who the hell knows? Next time you know she is back on the street because Drs. say she is "cured".

[livinginphotographs]

32. See post #22.

I don't think she'll be released anytime soon, seeing as she's probably suicidal.

And the point is to treat her, not just to punish her. Which is why she belongs in a hospital and not in a prison. You don't need to punish someone for being mentally ill.

[LisaL]

38. Sure, sure.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
She is being treated right now, she is mental award of prison.
She is getting treatment paid by the state. Once she is found not-guilty by reason of insanity, the state isn't even going to pay for it anymore.
Did you even know that?

[livinginphotographs]

41. So this is about money?

It would probably be cheaper to just throw her to the wolves. Is that what you'd prefer?

Eyes right back atcha...

[LisaL]

43. Money? Is it my money we are talking about here?

HTF do you think she is going to be treated if nobody will pay for it?
She should be treated, bla,bla, bla, bla.
Who will treat her if it is isn't paid for?
:spank: :spank: :spank:

[livinginphotographs]

46. You're completely missing the point.

I'm saying I don't care if it costs money (the taxpayers or otherwise) to treat her. Part of being in a civilized society is helping those who are less fortunate, even if it means using our tax dollars to do it.

The point is she was convicted on false testimony, and deserves another trial.

The questions still stands....would you prefer she be thrown to the wolves instead of cared for in an institution?

[LisaL]

52. And you are missing my point.

You don't care about the money, but the shrinks do. How long do you think they will treat her if nobody pays for it? Which is what the laws in TX are.
:eyes:

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemBones DemBones]

33. It's a high profile case and she's a very sick person.

Put the two together and she will almost certainly be institutionalized for the rest of her life. A hospital for the criminally insane would be better for her than a prison.

[MaineDem]

40. She may very well be cured at some time

Why do you insinuate that being cured is a sham?

[LisaL]

44. Well, deary, maybe when she is cured, you can hire her

to baby-sit your children.
:eyes:

[Verve]

66. Sadly, curing her will probably do nothing for the guilt and loss she

feels. Her life is f---- regardless of being in prison, out prison, on meds or off of meds. It's really sad!

[patcox2]

53. I know our system, and even without a conviction she is in for a long time

Look at Hinckley, he was never convicted.

I am amazed at the people who cannot even accept a legitimate case of an insanity defense. If ever there were a legitimate case, this is it. It all started with the law and order propagandists of the right wing propagating the lie that the insanity defense is common and that people "get away" with it all the time. But now people just don't even accept the basic premise, which has been part of our society's generally accepted moral principles for 2000 years and part of our legal system for 1000 years, that insane people ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE. They are not responsible for their acts. They are not held to the same standard.

It seems to be related to this "government as nanny" mentality, that the government should be required to prevent any bad thing from ever happening to anyone, ever, and should criminally sanction anyone who ever could have done anything to stop anything bad from happening. It completely misses the boat on the most basic principle of moral culpability. It is not the happening of the bad thing that determines guilt, it is the intent of the Actor. People are not responsible unless they act with guilty intent.

Negligence is not criminal culpability except in the rarest of cases. The abandonment of this principle and the expansion of criminal liability to the merely negligent will do more to make this society a police state than ten Patriot Acts. Thats the road you are driving on when you abandon the scienter requirement and expand liability to, for example, the husband in this case. Hey, what about her parents, shouldn't they have stepped in, knowing her condition? They knowingly allowed her to be a danger to her children. Andwhat about the doctor who diagnosed and treated her, he should be convicted of murder, too, right? It takes a village, as Hillary so fatuously asserts, the whole village failed, then so the whole village should be executed for murder, right? And the pastor of her church, for preaching that women should be subservient and raise children. Kill everyone, its everyone's fault. Thats the ticket. Nazis.

[LisaL]

59. That's all so nice.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
But what are you propose we do with mentally insane who are also violent criminals and killers? Give them some cookies and send them back out on the street?

[livinginphotographs]

64. Did he say that?

:eyes:

Reading comprehension must not be your strong point.

[Bridget Burke]

67. She needs to be in a mental hospital.

Not prison.

[SemperEadem]

116. what do you propose we do? Shoot them at dawn between the eyes?

[nannah]

97. very thought provoking post!

In the kaleidoscope of experience, unique to each person, we can benefit from a variety of perspectives. Your post put observable reality into a picture that makes sense to me, from the piece of world I experience. I appreciate this.

I work as a social worker. It is work that offers endless opportunities to be part of families' and individual's response to extended misery and wrenching crisis.

It may be that we need to find a way to respond to each other with out the need for judgment and assigning of responsibility (with an eye toward punishment or payback) . I feel this way because it seems clear to me that this doesn't work. Proof that it doesn't work is in the contentious nature of our world.

[Verve]

65. I don't think it really matters to her where she is.

She's probably living a daily hell in her mind. Being in prison or out of prison will do nothing for the suffering she's likely feeling.

[LisaL]

106. Well, I think you would change your mind

if you and your kids were living next to her.

[sojourner]

111. The post referred to Andrea's caring about her whereabouts -

which I believe is true - and your reply refers to YOUR caring about her whereabouts. Society in general doesn't want those who've committed murders walking about. Especially those who are psychotic.

[livinginphotographs]

30. My mistake. I didn't realize she'd been sentenced to life.

n/t

[Ilsa]

35. I don't believe she was ever given the death penalty.

The jury gave her life in prison because they recognized that she was and is severely mentally ill. They said the rules and law didn't give them any other choice except to convict her, even though they realized she was guilty by insanity.

It's the DA's fault that she wasn't tried for that, but tried for murder I because she "knew" that what she was doing was wrong. The jury in another Texas city defied the rule of law and did not convict another woman who did the same thing.

Texas law needs to be rewritten or clarified on this, IMO.

[Francis]

36. Hmm

She was not charged with the killing of all her children, leaving it open that she may well face charges again against those

[RUDUing2]

50. Thank goodness...her trial and conviction was a travesty of the

so called justice system in this country.

Did she kill her children? yes she did

Was she responsible for her actions? no she wasn't..she was suffering severe documented mental problesm, postnatal psychosis

Did she know that she killed her kids and that it was against the law? yes she did

Doesn't that mean that she was sane under law and should be held accountable? no, because her demential was so severe that she believed she had no choice but to kill the children.

For more info on postnatal psychosis Postnatal psychosis: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/health_advice/facts/depressionpostnatal.htm


This is a rare complication of childbirth, occurring in 1 in every 500 women or so.


It is most likely to occur in mothers who have previously had an episode of serious mental illness or in those who had a strong family history of serious mental illness.


Symptoms of the disorder can be very varied but usually include a disturbance of mood, though this can be either an elevation of mood (mania) or depression. Other symptoms include having muddled thoughts, false ideas (delusions) and hearing voices or seeing things that are not there.


Symptoms appear from a couple of days to a couple of weeks after the birth.


Postnatal psychosis requires treatment that will depend on the exact symptoms that the mother is suffering. This will usually involve a psychiatrist. It is important for mothers with postnatal psychosis to receive treatment as soon as possible.

also: http://www.everybody.co.nz/docsi_p/pnp.htm
http://www.iwant2bhealthy.com/mother_and_baby_health/mind_medicine/depression/psychosis.shtml
Post-natal psychosis is the most severe form of post-natal depression, affecting 1 to 3 mothers in 1000. It generally begins within the first 10 days after birth. Half of the women are admitted to hospital in the first two weeks, as they lose touch with reality and may harm the baby.

There are three types of psychosis: mania, depressive psychosis and atypical psychosis. Those suffering from mania may experience excitement and extreme bursts of energy. The mother may lose her inhibitions and makes unrealistic, grand plans.

Depressive psychosis is the opposite. The woman is confused and in a dazed state. She may suffer from delusions.

In atypical psychosis there is confusion, thought disorder and hallucination. Delusions of psychosis can include believing that people in the hospital are conspiring to kill them or feeling as if possessed by evil spirits. In this state mothers can be of great danger to themselves or to others.

[puddycat]

73. post-partum psychosis is a physical illness. Its a chemical imbalance

I really do hate that psychological DSM crap. the whole field of Psychology is a fraud. This woman was suffering from a medical, physical illness.

god, how I despise the psychological "profession". They are no more than voodoo doctors

[RUDUing2]

75. chemicals play a role in this but does not explain the entire condition..

genetics also play a role..psychological does not mean that there are not also chemical or genetic aspects at play..what it means is that there are also other things involved that may not be able to be empirically documented through scientific means...

[Fortunato]

112. Thank you...

... that's been my opinion ever since the jury convicted her.

My being a parent, what she did makes my blood run unimaginably cold -- it was horrible -- and yes, she is guilty...

... yet she was obviously mentally insane.

Not because she killed her kids, but because she was obviously suffering from true mental illness. If she had been treated properly, would she have killed her kids? Based on all evidence of her behavior when she was "sane," the answer is "No," she would not have -- and in fact would have been a wonderful mother.

This suggests the medical condition directed the killing.

She didn't sit around and calculate the killing as an excuse to "free herself up" or "solve her problems." Yeesh. It bugs me to see what some self-proclaimed experts here have said earlier in their ignorance of post-partum depression.

My cousin-in-law had it. She's a wonderful mother, raised by wonderful parents -- gracious, considerate, caring, would do anything for her kids. But when she had her second baby, she fell into a deep funk and totally ignored the baby; it would have starved to death if the family had not realized what was going on and gotten her treatment right away. Once they got her on meds, she became her old self and everything went swimmingly.

And her case was not anywhere near the severity of that of Andrea Yates.

I don't hold Rusty directly to blame for what Andrea did, but he showed remarkable insensitivity and ignorance to Andrea's condition and its ramifications on the family. He didn't care for his wife as he ought have. Although I don't know of a "suitable punishment," it's sort of odd to have him walking around free to treat another woman the same way, out of ignorance, while Andrea takes the full brunt of the law.

Okay. I just had to get all that out of my system. I'm done now.

[aikido15]

56. I don't get it...

It says it was a mistrial...if that's the case shouldn't she go free?

[LisaL]

62. She can be tried again for the same offense.

[caligirl]

71. Husband was in denial, extremely dysfunctional couple

No excuse for his conduct but some people are just not capable of registering feelings and acting on them. they are very dysfunctional. They may see problems and refuse to acknowledge them for many reasons.
This guy should have gotten his wife some help but did't. That is not normal behavior.

[hedgehog]

101. You just defined mental illness

When you are ill, it is impossible to know what is real and you are reacting to imaginary circumstances. Unless you've been there, you really don't understand. Depression distorts reality beyond all recognition. Just consider the fact that family after family has been devestated by suicide when they didn't even know there was a problem. If a kid can kill himself because he got an A- instead of A+ it is entirely possible that Andrea thaought she was doing the only thing she could.

[LisaL]

105. It would have been much better if she had killed herself

instead of five innocent children.

[ElectroPrincess]

76. She's psychotic and therefore she, like John Hinkley VALIDLY warrant

good mental health treatment at a locked facility for the rest of their lives. No one will ever release her or Hinkley so I don't understand what's the fuss other than the debase emotions for retribution.

[jmowreader]

88. You gotta see this...

http://www.yateskids.org/funeral_service.php

Of course, he left out the parts like when he saw in the Bible that you're supposed to live frugally and he followed up on it by selling his house and moving six people into a Greyhound bus...

[winsflorida]

96. yeah!

[LostinVA]

100. Park Dietz's website

Interesting -- they list ALL kinds of murder cases they've been involved in... LOADS of them. They write so proudly about how great their expertise is. Helping out with OJ, Christian Brando, Son of Sam, Susan Smith. What? What's that you say??? Andrea Yates' name isn't there???

Lying, grandstanding punk. I wonder if her name used to be listed?

http://www.parkdietzassociates.com/

[Renew Deal]

103. She should be holding hands with Scott Peterson when he fries.

She's no different than him and possibly worse.

[Orangepeel]

104. she should get a fair trial first

without some grandstanding yahoo lying on the stand about evidence for premeditation

[LostinVA]

107. You Cannot Compare the Two

After reading this thread all day, I'm starting to think I've accidentially connected to a FR.

[sojourner]

110. WTF?

Scott Peterson is a spoiled and sociopathic monster used to being indulged and in charming or buying his way out of everything.

Andrea Yates suffered from a serious, debilitating illness that SOME people pretend isn't real because they can't SEE it.
Also because most people still buy the "character flaw" paradigm of our Calvinistic past, and even more incredibly, the "demonic possession" paradigm of the Dark Ages. Those beliefs are reflected in most of the comments about mental illness - even here, sadly.

And if I recall , she wasn't getting the help she needed either. I think her fundie husband believed if she just worked hard enough she could "overcome" it. You know, with prayer and all.

[hedgehog]

120. People right left, center, athiest and fundy all think you can overcome

mental illness with hard work. I just wish it were so. Try thinking your way out of arthritis, diabetes, heart disease or cancer. Overcoming mental illness does take hard work, but also counseling and (usually) proper medication. Sometimes you have to go through many different trials to get the right mix and that in itself takes a lot of effort.

[Clyde Bruckman]

115. Good news

I don't think Andrea Yates should have ever been tried for capital murder in the first place. She was obviously mentally ill with post partum depression accompanied with psychotic features and should have been committed indefinitely to a psychiatric care facility. I can't begin to imagine the personal hell she must be experiencing since she started taking the meds and realized that she murdered all 5 of her children.

[pacifictiger]

117. I agree.

Having witnessed a fellow nurse undergo psychosis following delivery, many many years ago, the personality change is truly unbelievable. This disorder has been recognized for centuries and in England and other commonwealth countries it is a legal defense. She is of no risk to greater society and the only possible reason to have sent her to trial is punishment or some type of 'eye-for-an-eye' revenge.
Of course in other countries the socialized medical practices would have seen to it that she got the help she needed, possibly hospitalization before it was too late, rather than killing her or locking her away for life after the fact.

[Moderator]

118. Moving

Original post included neither quotes from the article nor a link to the article (just to the generic MSNBC website).