Yates Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by -Cp, Jul 26, 2006.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!


    A jury found Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity in the drowning deaths of her young children in the bathtub of their suburban home.

    Yates will be committed to a state mental hospital, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released. If convicted, she would have faced life in prison.

    Yates' attorneys never disputed that she drowned 6-month-old Mary, 2- year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah in their Houston-area home in June 2001. But they said she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and, in a delusional state, thought Satan was inside her and was trying to save them from hell.

    This is the second trial for the 42-year-old suburban mother.

    The jury had spent 11 hours Monday and Tuesday trying to determine if Yates was legally insane. Wednesday morning, they reviewed the state's definition of insanity and then asked to see a family photo and candid pictures of the five smiling youngsters. After about an hour of deliberations, they said they had reached a verdict.

    In Yates' first murder trial, in 2002, the jury deliberated about four hours before finding her guilty. That conviction was overturned on appeal.

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/26/D8J3Q62O7.html
     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Well, at least she'll remain locked up, whether in a mental facility or a jail.
     
  3. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,885
    Thanks Received:
    1,609
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,158
    She definitely killed her children. Saying she is "not guilty" of the crime is almost like saying she did nothing bad. It should be stated instead that she is guilty BY reason of insanity.

    The insanity plea should not excuse someone of the crime but should be used for sentencing purposes.
     
  4. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
    I suppose you can commit any crime and it's okay just as long as you're "insane"..... :/
     
  5. jillian
    Online

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    You can't be convicted simply for an "act". You have to be capable of forumulating the necessary mens rea or intent. If one is insane, one can't formulate intent at all.

    She'll be in a mental institution, properly so, for the rest of her life.
     
  6. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    I agree with this.
     
  7. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,885
    Thanks Received:
    1,609
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,158
    Not necessarily. What if she "recovers"?
     
  8. jillian
    Online

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Well, that's an interesting quandry. Not likely in her case, but I can see why it troubles you. (It troubles me, too.) But the basis for a criminal conviction (except for an act that carries strict liability -- like statutory rape) is intent. And if one can't formulate intent because they're insane at the time of the commission of the act, the law finds they can't be convicted.

    On the other hand, in most cases, that's a really risky defense because it admits the commission of the crime and if the jury finds that you weren't insane, then you're guaranteed being convicted. That's why it's not used real often. In Yates' case, I think it's appropriate. And if you think about it, now that they have her on all kinds of anti-psychotics and anti-depressants and she understands what she did, she's living a hell on earth, anyway.
     
  9. Hagbard Celine
    Offline

    Hagbard Celine Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,756
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +61
    She most likely suffers from post-partem depression, which is caused by a legitimate, physical abnormality in her brain. If that's the case, as I assume it is since a jury voted her not guilty by reason of insanity, then she really wasn't in control of her mental faculties. I agree with all of you that her verdict should be worded as guilty BY reason of insanity, but for a bunch of people who claim to be Christians, you sure are quick to judge and condemn. How about a little bit of sympathy for a woman who, due to a legitimate mental disorder caused by a physical problem with her brain, which she can't help, has completely ruined her own life in addition to the lives of all five of her children? How about praying for her soul and her other family members who are going through anguish right now instead of slinging mud? :puke: :huh:
     
  10. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    I had post-partem depression, but I didn't kill my kids.

    However, I do think she would qualify as "insane."
     

Share This Page