Yates Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

[-Cp]

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

 

[5stringJeff]

Well, at least she'll remain locked up, whether in a mental facility or a jail.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

 

[-Cp]

I suppose you can commit any crime and it's okay just as long as you're "insane"..... :/

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[Nienna]

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.

I agree with this.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

Not necessarily. What if she "recovers"?

 

[jillian]

Not necessarily. What if she "recovers"?

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.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Not necessarily. What if she "recovers"?

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? :huh:

 

[Nienna]

I had post-partem depression, but I didn't kill my kids.

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

 

[Hagbard Celine]

I had post-partem depression, but I didn't kill my kids.

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

Some women who experience post-partem depression have violent thoughts about their children. Most seek help and most do not act on those thoughts. I'm sure you know all of this already, but others may not. Hey I think I heard a rhyme like Dr. Seuss. The sentence even has the right time; I'm a silly goose.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Jillian is right about the intent issue. We need a new term; perhaps:
"Not guilty, but reprehensible, and really, really nuts."

 

[Abbey Normal]

Some women who experience post-partem depression have violent thoughts about their children. Most seek help and most do not act on those thoughts. I'm sure you know all of this already, but others may not. Hey I think I heard a rhyme like Dr. Seuss. The sentence even has the right time; I'm a silly goose.

I believe Mrs. Yates stopped taking her meds.

 

[jillian]

Jillian is right about the intent issue. We need a new term; perhaps:
"Not guilty, but reprehensible, and really, really nuts."

 

[Mr. P]

Jillian is right about the intent issue. We need a new term; perhaps:
"Not guilty, but reprehensible, and really, really nuts."

Coming in late....What she said.

I've always found "intent" a very interesting element of a crime.

 

[pegwinn]

I think Mrs. Yates should die.

Killing someone, under any conditions, is not the action of a rational person. IOW, sane people don't kill.

Her mental state doesn't bring back the kids. And if she recovers, she can be released.

For CH: God will possibly forgive her. I am not God, nor am I close. If you murder a kid, you need to exit life stage left.

 

[Gem]

As a non-practicing Catholic...I don't often choose to "stick-up" for the devoutly Christian on the board...but Hagbard Celine's statement here was so absurd, I just couldn't leave it alone:

Hagbard Wrote:

but for a bunch of people who claim to be Christians, you sure are quick to judge and condemn.

The woman admitted and was found guilty of killing her five babies by brutally drowning them one by one in the bathtub of their family home. The "judgement" you speak of has already taken place in the court of law. The only thing people on this board have done so far is debate whether or not her punishment should be more severe than a mental hospital with potential for release.

Most people here are uncomfortable with the notion of this woman walking free...many of the "Christians" you chose to pick on in your thread actually are quite comfortable with the notion of labeling her as insane - granting that she was certainly not "in her right mind" when she chose to kill all 5 of her children...they just want it remembered that while she was indeed crazy as a loon...5 people are no longer on the Earth because of it.

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

If you followed this case at all, you would remember that this woman sufferred from increasingly severe cases of PPD after every single birth - after baby number 2, I believe, her doctor firmly recommended that she and her husband have NO MORE children due to the severity of her PPD. She had violent thoughts towards herself and her children after child 2, 3, and 4 were born - she was on medication after all of them and was talking to doctors about it - so it was not a surprise that the PPD manifested itself again, only stronger...this is exactly what her doctors had said could be a worse-case scenario. She and her husband are BOTH responsible for choosing to have more children defying doctors recommendations and ignoring health risks.

Everyone has the right in this country to have as many children as they want. But when you know you have a medical condition that is only getting more and more severe...you must accept responsibilty for your actions. She did not take the medication needed to deal with her PPD, her husband did not monitor her PPD since she might not be mentally competant.

THAT is where the real problem with simply labeling her as insane comes in for me...she made conscious CHOICES that led to this tragedy. Lets not just heap blame on Christians for being upset about it...

[she] has completely ruined her own life in addition to the lives of all five of her children?

Not to be overly dramatic...but she didn't "ruin" the lives of her 5 children...she ended their lives, brutally and horribly...because she did not take the precautions she needed to take.

How about praying for her soul and her other family members who are going through anguish right now instead of slinging mud?

Who's to say they aren't praying for her soul? No one here has said that they are or are not...the only discussion has been about the verdict. You are the one who is implying that the "Christians" here are "slinging mud." A claim which really isn't substantiated at all.