Andrea Yates found NOT guilty of capital murder

[Anuwolf]

What do you guys think about this case? I find it quite disturbing and quite disguesting! Her 5 dead children have no justice! At least what the Judge could do is order a hysterectomy to this child killer.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Solideliquid]

What do you guys think about this case? I find it quite disturbing and quite disguesting! Her 5 dead children have no justice! At least what the Judge could do is order a hysterectomy to this child killer.

I'm glad she was not sent to prison. This way she will have access to proper treatment for her illness.

 

[50960]

I am not a believer of dim-cap defenses. You do the crime, you do the time. It is a shame. PS. this opinion keeps me out of jury duty!!

 

[LADoc00]

What do you guys think about this case? I find it quite disturbing and quite disguesting! Her 5 dead children have no justice! At least what the Judge could do is order a hysterectomy to this child killer.

Its rare a case like this that so loudly screams out for execution, insanity plea or not. She is right up there with the Nightstalker, Charles Ng, Ted Bundy and Peterson. That is a travesity of justice she doesnt get decapitated and the remainder hung out on a spike to be eaten by birds.

 

[Demosthenes]

Dear God, and how many of you are actually practicing?

I am truly appalled by this thread. Mrs Yates was clearly psychotic for a good long time, and certain not getting adequate care. What happened was a tragedy, and she is also a victim in it. And justice is absent when it is not tempered by mercy.

But that's beside the point, which probably should be whether you bring this sort of compassion to your own patients? If this is your view of your own pts, you're in the wrong line of work -- this sort of attitude towards pts can cause an awful lot of damage to them.

 

[LADoc00]

Dear God, and how many of you are actually practicing?

I am truly appalled by this thread. What happened was a tragedy, and she is also a victim in it. .

Dear god, Im appalled by you!

Im appalled by your callous disregard for innocent lives lost and utter failure to even understand the facts of the case:

Yates planned her actions carefully. She waited for the one hour when no other adults would be in the house. (Her husband had already left for work, and her mother-in-law had not yet arrived to babysit.) .

In addition, she seemed efficient and unrelenting in her actions. Rather than being overcome with emotion, she appeared strangely numb and under control - more like a merciless soldier than a distraught mother. She killed five, one after the other. And when her oldest son, Noah, resisted and fought for his life, Andrea overpowered him and would not let go. She forced him to die in the same tub water in which she had killed all four of his siblings - several of whom had vomited and defecated as they died.

Further, even after the terrible killings, Andrea was able to speak coherently, to sound rational, and to retain her composure. Immediately upon drowning her defenseless children, Andrea called the police and confessed. She was calm as she explained what she had done. And then, when the police arrived at her home, she continued to act unperturbed about the grotesque slaughter that she had only moments ago carried out. The police found the bodies lined up neatly, still wet, on Andrea's bed.

Is she insane, yes. But an insane person can also be EVIL and she most certainly is.

Our legal system has no validity unless she is hanged and hanged HIGH!

Just read a great commentary:

If we trotted out similar justifications or excuses for men accused of violent crimes the courts would erupt in laughter or indignation. No one would stand for it. No matter how messed up a man is--he could have been from a poor, desperate, terribly abusive childhood, suffered as an adult, and had serious mental health issues or psychosis--it wouldn't matter. If he committed a violent crime he'd be made to pay for it. PERIOD.

There is an unfair, disturbing, and deeply-entrenched gender double-standard in our criminal justice system (and in the attitudes of much of the public) that needs to be abolished if we are to ever have a truly equal society. Either we're treating male defendants justly and we need to be tougher on the women, or we're not granting men the fair, sympathetic hearing and consideration of their mental issues that we grant women defendants. Which is it?

This is a travesty of justice pure and simple. Im appalled by so-called healthcare professionals who would claim otherwise, you are either stupid, confused or taking your patients' meds!

 

[solumanculver]

Dear god, Im appalled by you!

Our legal system has no validity unless she is hanged and hanged HIGH!

Are you seriously stating a belief that you have or are you resorting to some hyperbole in order to portray yourself in some specific way?

If you are serious, I wonder if you could explain how executions are able to validate legal systems, and if you think legal systems that don't allow executions are invalid by default.

Also, I'm not clear on this, but are you a psychiatrist? It seems like you couldn't be a very good one, at least, because you seem to not take psychiatric disease seriously. Would you advocate prosecuting an epilectic for murder if he knocked someone over in the middle of a seizure? I assume not. Maybe you think that Ms. Yates chose to become psychotic and deserves to be punished for that...

Maybe it doesn't matter to you whether or not she was mentally ill because you believe that all people that do bad things need to be punished. If this is your belief, which seems to be what you're saying, then culpability would be a non-issue and even insane people would be subject to executions. Unfortunately not only insane people are deemed not to be culpable for their crimes, but also children, unwilling actors being held at gunpoint, and physicians whose best intentions still result in the death of a patient.

In the end, I wonder if you even have a coherent philosophy at all, or whether you just allow yourself to shout out whatever you feel like at the moment in the hopes that someone will listen to you.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

...In the end, I wonder if you even have a coherent philosophy at all, or whether you just allow yourself to shout out whatever you feel like at the moment in the hopes that someone will listen to you.

LA Doc is thankfully NOT a psychiatrist, and from what I have read has no "coherent philosophy" about anything beyond the tip of his urethral meatus.

I agree with your sentiments. As horrifying as it is, this tragedy would probably never have occurred had her illness been properly identified and treated. And I have to believe that everyday is a living death penalty for her.

 

[jeff2005]

LA Doc is thankfully NOT a psychiatrist, and from what I have read has no "coherent philosophy" about anything beyond the tip of his urethral meatus.

I agree with your sentiments. As horrifying as it is, this tragedy would probably never have occurred had her illness been properly identified and treated. And I have to believe that everyday is a living death penalty for her.

LADOC is a pathologist.

I'm with you guys. I am so happy to see this verdict.

 

[Anuwolf]

Demosthenes,
since you're new let me intro myself. I'm not a doctor nor a nurse.. I'm consider a patient according to the real docs on this board.

My diagnoses are

1 Borderline Personality Disorder
2 Bipolar (The mania side)
3 High anxiety (No not the movie)
4 Depression

I know what goes on inside the mind of somebody with mental ill problems because I have experience as far as what I'm diagnosed of having.. I also have psychotic breakdowns where my personality completely changes and that I would be that person that nobody wants to be around with.

I also have friends who have Schizophrenia where they hear voices. I'm completely surrounded by people who have all kinds of different mental illness. Theses people are my friends also.

I do not consider it a mental illness to have such craving of wanting to kill children.. Even inside the prisons.. thats not acceptable. Why do you think that they put all of the child predators/killers inside another unit??

I'm sick of tired of heartless people using a mental illness to get away with a violent crime that they commited.. It doesn't do us any good as we have to suffer from the rap that goes on from the uneducated public.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

...I do not consider it a mental illness to have such craving of wanting to kill children.. Even inside the prisons.. thats not acceptable. Why do you think that they put all of the child predators/killers inside another unit??

I'm sick of tired of heartless people using a mental illness to get away with a violent crime that they commited.. It doesn't do us any good as we have to suffer from the rap that goes on from the uneducated public.

I really do not believe that Mrs. Yates had any "such craving of wanting to kill children". From what I've read of this case, she was truly psychotic at the time of the murders.

I'm curious, Anuwolf, where have you seen "heartless people using a mental illness to get away with a violent crime that they commited"? In my limited experience, the truly "heartless" antisocial individual who kills without remorse is rarely successful in an insanity defense. And I fail to see that Mrs. Yates has "gotten away with" anything here.

 

[Solideliquid]

Are you seriously stating a belief that you have or are you resorting to some hyperbole in order to portray yourself in some specific way?

If you are serious, I wonder if you could explain how executions are able to validate legal systems, and if you think legal systems that don't allow executions are invalid by default.

Also, I'm not clear on this, but are you a psychiatrist? It seems like you couldn't be a very good one, at least, because you seem to not take psychiatric disease seriously. Would you advocate prosecuting an epilectic for murder if he knocked someone over in the middle of a seizure? I assume not. Maybe you think that Ms. Yates chose to become psychotic and deserves to be punished for that...

Maybe it doesn't matter to you whether or not she was mentally ill because you believe that all people that do bad things need to be punished. If this is your belief, which seems to be what you're saying, then culpability would be a non-issue and even insane people would be subject to executions. Unfortunately not only insane people are deemed not to be culpable for their crimes, but also children, unwilling actors being held at gunpoint, and physicians whose best intentions still result in the death of a patient.

In the end, I wonder if you even have a coherent philosophy at all, or whether you just allow yourself to shout out whatever you feel like at the moment in the hopes that someone will listen to you.

I couldn't have said this better myself.

 

[Psyclops]

As usual, those who know the least are speaking the loudest, yes I mean you Anuwolf and LAD. As I don't know much about the particulars I'll keep my opinions to my self. I will say though that the insanity defense (anuwolf, insanity is a legal not a medical term) is rarely successful. You have to convince a jury of 12 people that someone was incapable of appreciating the nature of their actions, and it sounds like in this case it would have to have happened 5 times over or whatever. It's a common misconception that it is an easy way out. That suggests to me that those who do get off on this defense tend to suffer from some severe pathology. To the greek, must you always be so self righteous?

 

[solumanculver]

Demosthenes,
I do not consider it a mental illness to have such craving of wanting to kill children...

You don't think that wanting to murder children is a sign of mental illness?

I'm not a psychiatrist, so I'll have to appeal to the docs on this forum to answer this: If a patient came to you with no symptoms other than expressing an intense desire to murder children, how would you treat them?

By the way, anuwolf, as a self-confessed non-physician, why would anybody care what you think is a mental illness or not? Do you think that just because you're a psych patient you're qualified to offer medical opinions on a psychiatry forum?

 

[outofhere]

What a heated discussion!

I am surprised people are so ready to say that Mrs. Yates needs to die- do we really know all the facts? I personally am more disgusted by how her doctors/family failed Mrs. Yates. Imagine, having postpartum depression then psychosis, and not having the support to even realize she needed help. From what I have read, at one point, she and her family lived on a big bus, because her husband wanted to. Can anyone imagine, raising five kids, on a bus, with no support? I would imagine most of us would become depressed, and who is to say we won't be psychotic, so delusional that we don't even realize right from wrong.

 

[veridisquo]

Well I can certainly say I'm surprised by the responses in this thread, in a psychiatry sub-forum no less.

I am absolutely glad she's been found not guilty. If anyone deserves to be sitting it jail, it's her former husband. His criminal negligence is appalling. He forced his obviously disturbed wife off the Haldol during her pregnancy with her last child, pushed her into having more kids despite her own hesitance and knowing it wouldn't be an intelligent decision considering the multiple bouts of PPD she experienced with her earlier children, and yet he still left their children in the care of an openly suicidal, schizophrenic mother. It's worth noting her father died just a few months earlier so the emotional effects of that must also must be taken into consideration. Oh, and he forced her to live on a bloody bus. With five kids. Give me a break.

Even her own psychiatrist told her to think positively about 'happy' things just days before the murders. I'm speechless about that one.

I can agree that her method of action was well thought out and carefully planned, but that doesn't mean insanity still can't be the underlying issue here. She thought she was saving her kids' souls. She was planning on killing herself because she was convinced she was going to hell anyway, but she wanted to ensure her children were going to heaven. She was hearing things and seeing things. She was psychotic in the very real sense of the word. In her mind, what she was doing was the right thing to do because it was the only option that would save her kids (check out the legal definition of insanity). There was reasoning behind her actions, as crazy as that reasoning was.

I don't understand why many seem to think a life spent institutionalized is some sort of break from prison. It's hardly a pleasant life. Plus, being found not guilty by reason of insanity basically means no chance of parole/release, and no chance of appeal for a lighter sentence. She will most likely be institutionalized for life.

At the end of the day, this case just illustrates how mismanaged her care was (which is also the case for many others who are mentally is), as well as how much progress needs to be made not only in producing competent psychiatrists and similar professionals, but also in informing the general public about mental illness.
My money is on schizophrenia, and PPD with the resulting psychosis. This definitely isn't BPD or BP.

 

[50960]

****e...move to France will you????? I am glad there are soldiers outhere, like I am about to become who have a sense of JUSTICE...

ashamed

 

[outofhere]

What a heated discussion!

I am surprised people are so ready to say that Mrs. Yates needs to die- do we really know all the facts? I personally am more disgusted by how her doctors/family failed Mrs. Yates. Imagine, having postpartum depression then psychosis, and not having the support to even realize she needed help. From what I have read, at one point, she and her family lived on a big bus, because her husband wanted to. Can anyone imagine, raising five kids, on a bus, with no support? I would imagine most of us would become depressed, and who is to say we won't be psychotic, so delusional that we don't even realize right from wrong.

 

[Demosthenes]

I will say though that the insanity defense (anuwolf, insanity is a legal not a medical term) is rarely successful. You have to convince a jury of 12 people that someone was incapable of appreciating the nature of their actions, .... It's a common misconception that it is an easy way out. That suggests to me that those who do get off on this defense tend to suffer from some severe pathology.

Considering some of the recent verdicts in highly publicized cases, I'd have to say you're spot on. The Ohio sniper? The kid on Zoloft who killed his grandparents? Andrea Yates' first trial? This is not a country which is inclined to believe in either the medical or the legal versions of insanity.

It makes me very sad. I guess it's the logical consequence of the importance placed on individualism and self-responsibility, but it's also close to pathological, if you ask me. And let's not let this get any more political, but how many other countries do you know of which execute minors, the mentally ill, and the mentally ******ed?

I guess next that epileptic someone mentioned will be eligible for the death penalty...

 

[Anasazi23]

I didn't read the official verdict, and no one has mentioned her likely sentence that will be handed down, but I'll chime in.

It's a little more complicated than, "She's not guilty, walk out the back door there and resume your soap-opera watching."

There are likely going to be mandated treatments, restrictive parolls, etc. There are more verdicts than guilty/not guilty. One can also be found "guilty but mentally ill." Which may still result in jail time in a less restrictive setting while being forced to undergo psychiatric treatment. There are also psychiatric forensic prisons/hospitals, where she may be sent. Also, a finding of NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity) does not mean that there is no sentenced time to serve in another setting.

No one likes justice more than me, and the brutal and ruthless way in which this woman murdered her children clearly make people incensed. However, it appears quite clear that this woman is/was psychotic and likely acting on command auditory hallucinations. In the United States, we generally don't execute mentally ******ed or mentally ill, and children.

All I'm saying is that there are in-betweens. I don't want her off scott-free either. But there may be other alternatives for her.

 

[OldPsychDoc]

.... In the United States, we generally don't execute mentally ******ed or mentally ill, and children.
....

"Generally", yes, but this was in TEXAS .
I think they're still a little fuzzy on the state vs. independent republic thing....

 

[cjw0918]

Well I can certainly say I'm surprised by the responses in this thread, in a psychiatry sub-forum no less.

I am absolutely glad she's been found not guilty. If anyone deserves to be sitting it jail, it's her former husband. His criminal negligence is appalling. He forced his obviously disturbed wife off the Haldol during her pregnancy with her last child, pushed her into having more kids despite her own hesitance and knowing it wouldn't be an intelligent decision considering the multiple bouts of PPD she experienced with her earlier children, and yet he still left their children in the care of an openly suicidal, schizophrenic mother. It's worth noting her father died just a few months earlier so the emotional effects of that must also must be taken into consideration. Oh, and he forced her to live on a bloody bus. With five kids. Give me a break.

Even her own psychiatrist told her to think positively about 'happy' things just days before the murders. I'm speechless about that one.

I can agree that her method of action was well thought out and carefully planned, but that doesn't mean insanity still can't be the underlying issue here. She thought she was saving her kids' souls. She was planning on killing herself because she was convinced she was going to hell anyway, but she wanted to ensure her children were going to heaven. She was hearing things and seeing things. She was psychotic in the very real sense of the word. In her mind, what she was doing was the right thing to do because it was the only option that would save her kids (check out the legal definition of insanity). There was reasoning behind her actions, as crazy as that reasoning was.

I don't understand why many seem to think a life spent institutionalized is some sort of break from prison. It's hardly a pleasant life. Plus, being found not guilty by reason of insanity basically means no chance of parole/release, and no chance of appeal for a lighter sentence. She will most likely be institutionalized for life.

At the end of the day, this case just illustrates how mismanaged her care was (which is also the case for many others who are mentally is), as well as how much progress needs to be made not only in producing competent psychiatrists and similar professionals, but also in informing the general public about mental illness.
My money is on schizophrenia, and PPD with the resulting psychosis. This definitely isn't BPD or BP.

Excellent post! I could not agree more. Since first hearing of this tragedy, I have thought about the complicit guilt of Rusty Yates. In a major televised interview, he seemed very detached from the whole situation referring to the brutal murder of his children as "when the children passed away," as though they died in a terrible plane crash. And I find his justification for continuing to have children considering his wife's precarious emotional state ("We just wanted to have as many children as God would allow us...") reckless and irresponsible. Where was God, Rusty, when your children were gasping for breath?! When someone is as obviously ill as Andrea Yates, I would hope that a husband, as a rational adult, would think twice about allowing his wife to discontinue her psych meds to have more children. And now he has a new bride, most likely with more children to follow. Sleep well, Rusty. Glad YOU can go on with your life.

 

[LADoc00]

What a heated discussion!

I am surprised people are so ready to say that Mrs. Yates needs to die-

Well, shockingly some people dont like evil. Some posters here though think evil is cool, in vogue almost. I was not suprised that the National Org. of Women so readily jumped to her defense not knowing a single fact, obviously a lead in to their next election year's strategy of trying to legalize postbirth abortions. But I would curious what posters here might say about sociopaths with some lunatic taking a blowtorch to their head (ala Hostel).

The OBVIOUS gender bias in this case is beyond the pale. There is no recent or remote history of a similar crime by a father getting anything less than 25 years to life/execution. But lets brush that aside. She is no more a victim than Richard Ramirez aka the Nightstalker is a victim!

I know there must be some clear thinking psychiatrists who realize that just because someone is touting a half-assed DSMIV dx is not a carte blanche for murder and mayhem as some posters here feel it is. Maybe they will speak up.

She doesnt deserve to die, she deserves to SUFFER alot, and then eventually die. I really dont care about her husband, in a sense he was complicit, so execute them both then.

 

[solumanculver]

There is no recent or remote history of a similar crime by a father getting anything less than 25 years to life/execution.

You really confuse me. Do you believe that she had a secret motive for killing her children, and that she's just taking advantage of this whole "mental illness" thing to escape punishment?

Also, why are you calling her "evil"? Doesn't "being evil" require a person to knowingly take an action regardless of it's harm to other people? She thought she was sending her children to heaven... Not only that, but she did so "knowing" that she was going to hell for it... If we're ignoring the requirement that morality requires sanity, maybe we should make her a saint...

 

[LADoc00]

maybe we should make her a saint...

Youre insane. Thank for proving it. Its impossible to have any sort of dialogue with such fringe lunacy. Get back on your meds please, youre scaring me. I hope there are no children or eldery in your general vicinity.

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

You don't think that wanting to murder children is a sign of mental illness?

I'm not a psychiatrist, so I'll have to appeal to the docs on this forum to answer this: If a patient came to you with no symptoms other than expressing an intense desire to murder children, how would you treat them?

I think this is a rather common way of thinking when it comes to particularly heinous crimes: "To do that someone would have to be crazy." I guess that would obviously depend on one's definition of "crazy," but it seems like when there is a terrible crime, particularly a mother killing her children, people almost automatically assume that there is insanity involved. Similarly, most people in the general public seem to think that mental illness equals insanity in the eyes of the law, which it doesn't necessarily.

There are likely going to be mandated treatments, restrictive parolls, etc. There are more verdicts than guilty/not guilty. One can also be found "guilty but mentally ill." Which may still result in jail time in a less restrictive setting while being forced to undergo psychiatric treatment. There are also psychiatric forensic prisons/hospitals, where she may be sent. Also, a finding of NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity) does not mean that there is no sentenced time to serve in another setting.

Anasazi, it is interesting that you bring this up. I just finished an article about the Yates trial, and the jury mentioned that they wished they could have found her guilty but insane:

The foreman of the jury said Thursday that the group had “some emotional difficulty” reaching its unanimous verdict and would have had an easier time if they could have found her “guilty but insane.”

Is this verdict only available in particular states? Just curious why it wasn't an option for the Yates trial, as it seems it would be more palatable to many people.


I was curious about what people here thought about Park Dietz. From what I know, he is a very respected forensic psychiatrist. Yet it was his erroneous testimony that led to the mistrial, and he also seems to disagree with most psychiatrists on this board in that he feels Andrea Yates wasn't insane.

 

[solumanculver]

Youre insane. Thank for proving it. Its impossible to have any sort of dialogue with such fringe lunacy. Get back on your meds please, youre scaring me. I hope there are no children or eldery in your general vicinity.

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't being clear. It's your own position that we reward or punish people irrespective of their mental capacity. You think that we should execute a woman for exhibiting a sympton of her mental disease? Why shouldn't we reward her instead? It's makes just as much sense... at least in her delusional mind she thought she was doing the right thing.

I'm not serious, by the way, so don't tell me how crazy I am again.

I just want you to know, LAdoc, it is difficult to have a dialogue with you. You're such a reactionary. You also try to use ad hominem arguments. I also suspect that your position is so absurd that even you couldn't possible believe it... a picture of a noose...

 

[solumanculver]

I think this is a rather common way of thinking when it comes to particularly heinous crimes: "To do that someone would have to be crazy." I guess that would obviously depend on one's definition of "crazy," but it seems like when there is a terrible crime, particularly a mother killing her children, people almost automatically assume that there is insanity involved. Similarly, most people in the general public seem to think that mental illness equals insanity in the eyes of the law, which it doesn't necessarily.

Hi,
I didn't mean to imply that a person would have to be "crazy" to murder children. I think that some mentally healthy people might possibly murder children. It seems to me, however, that if a person were to make an appointment with a psychiatrist, and tell them that they were feeling an intense desire to murder children, the psychiatrist would probably not tell them that there's nothing wrong with them and send them home. There must be some kind of treatment involved... and if there's a treatment, it seems that, by definition, there must be an illness...

But, as I said, I don't have any experience whatsoever in these matters. But I'm very interested in psychiatry, which is why I come here, so I hope that somebody qualified on these forums can enlighten me.

 

[LADoc00]

I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't being clear. It's your own position that we reward or punish people irrespective of their mental capacity. You think that we should execute a woman for exhibiting a sympton of her mental disease? Why shouldn't we reward her instead? It's makes just as much sense... at least in her delusional mind she thought she was doing the right thing.

I'm not serious, by the way, so don't tell me how crazy I am again.

I just want you to know, LAdoc, it is difficult to have a dialogue with you. You're such a reactionary. You also try to use ad hominem arguments. I also suspect that your position is so absurd that even you couldn't possible believe it... a picture of a noose...

How would you possibly know what the heck she was thinking in her supposed delusional mind?! If she is allowed to escape punishment based on what she claims she was thinking at the time, then the entire justice system is moot! Helter skelter. You are incoherent and your position is no more factual or scientific than the beliefs of Scientology! Where did you get your fantastic mind reading prowess? A send-away course from a late night infomercial maybe, sheesh.

Would I execute a woman? YES, most definitely yes. Her supposed mental state at the time is pure conjecture, convenient for you as you hide behind your 16 inch monitor and repeatedly post. The facts of the case are 5 kids were murdered. By your twisted logic, Hitler shouldnt have been punished given his struggle with Parkinson's and it's associated psychosis. The fact you would mock the deaths by saying she should be a saint shows you are incredibly insensitive (no great vice tho.

 

[Psyclops]

LAD, you touch what the exact difficulty is in this situation. The legal system has come up with a term, insanity, which becomes the ultimate legal question in these cases. Was the person insane at the time of the crime, and did that insanity make them incapable of appreciating the nature of their action. The justice system feels that 12 jurors are able to decide what the answer to that questio is. It is not the job of the medical expert, or forensic psychologist to make that decision, they are merely there to give their educatied opinion of what the accused might suffer from and what might be expected from womone like that. They are not there to answer the ultimate legal question in this or any other case.

 

[LADoc00]

Gotta love this:

NOW Names Andrea Yates "Mother of the Year"
by Joseph C. Hinson
January 10, 2002

In a move that stunned a nation, the National Organization for Women has named Houston child murderer Andrea Yates Mother of the Year. Yates beat out notables such as Marilyn Walker, mother of the American Taliban, John Walker and joins past winners Susan Smith, Patsy Ramsey and Yoko Ono.

The president of the Texas chapter of NOW, Deborah Bell, said that Yates won in a landslide. "Yates has gone above and beyond the call of duty. After years of putting the what was best for her children ahead of what she wanted, she finally drowned everything that was holding her back. Now she's happy and leading an active life in jail. Marilyn Walker, on the other hand, raised a boy who studied religion and searched for God in hip hop and fundamentalist Islam."

Bell says that the group is forming the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition. "To be there for her on a personal basis, woman to woman, that's the basis of feminism right there," Bell said. "You've got to care about all women, regardless of how many of their own children they kill. Likewise, you've also got to support women who kill other people's kids. We don't discriminate here. We treat all baby killers with the same amount of love, compassion and aldultation."

The coalition is encouraging people to donate to Yates's legal defense fund — much as Katie Couric did on "The Today Show" earlier this month. After the airing of a sympathetic taped interview by reporter Jim Cummins with Yates's mother and brother, Couric told viewers where they could send donations to Yates's legal-defense fund, with the address displayed on television screens across the nation. Couric told viewers that any money left over would be given to women's charities dealing with postpartum depression and psychosis.

 

[solumanculver]

How would you possibly know what the heck she was thinking in her supposed delusional mind?! If she is allowed to escape punishment based on what she claims she was thinking at the time, then the entire justice system is moot! Helter skelter.

Hi,
You don't know very much about our justice system, do you? What goes on in a person's mind is actually very important in a criminal trial. It's actually one third of the case, actus reus, mens rea, and concurrence are the three parts of the definition of a crime. It doesn't take law school to know this.

You are incoherent and your position is no more factual or scientific than the beliefs of Scientology! Where did you get your fantastic mind reading prowess? A send-away course from a late night infomercial maybe, sheesh.

OK

Would I execute a woman? YES, most definitely yes. Her supposed mental state at the time is pure conjecture, convenient for you as you hide behind your 16 inch monitor and repeatedly post. The facts of the case are 5 kids were murdered.

I guess it's true that no one will ever know exactly what she was thinking at the time; that's why we have a legal system. I suspect that it wasn't too difficult to convince a jury that she was thinking delusional thoughts, though, based upon her long history of having delusional thoughts. Also I'm a little bit confused by your tone, did I imply that she should be spared because she was a woman? I certainly didn't intend to.

By your twisted logic, Hitler shouldnt have been punished given his struggle with Parkinson's and it's associated psychosis. The fact you would mock the deaths by saying she should be a saint shows you are incredibly insensitive (no great vice tho.

I'm not sure where you read your history, but Hitler wasn't punished. He blew his brains out in a bunker in Berlin. In any case, if he had been brought to trial I don't think that evidence of his parkinson's would have been too persuasive. While there is pretty good evidence that untreated postpartum psychosis can result in mothers killing their children, I haven't seen any convincing connection between parkinson's and genocide.

 

[Solideliquid]

Hi,
I didn't mean to imply that a person would have to be "crazy" to murder children. I think that some mentally healthy people might possibly murder children. It seems to me, however, that if a person were to make an appointment with a psychiatrist, and tell them that they were feeling an intense desire to murder children, the psychiatrist would probably not tell them that there's nothing wrong with them and send them home. There must be some kind of treatment involved... and if there's a treatment, it seems that, by definition, there must be an illness...

Yes there is a treatment option. It's called committing the said person into a locked psych ward (with involvement of police if necessary), and beginning treatment with the appropriate medications.

Most likely neuroleptics (anti-psychotics) and monitoring the eventual abatement of the psychotic symptoms, while also dealing with any of the person's medical issues. Yes, people become psychotic, they lose touch with reality and may even begin to have delusions (def: an unshakeable belief) such as Yates had about how her actions would save her children, such as that they were in danger. If I took away your clothes and put you in a dark room for days without food and water, you may become psychotic. People can become psychotic because of adverse effects from certain OTC "natural" supplaments, it happens.

AND TO LADOC...

Jeebus man, you are basically saying the field of psychiatry is worthless aren't you? You are saying, the core of what we do in psychiatry, meaning that we sit down with people and interview them about their psychotic (or otherwise) psychiatric symptoms, is an absolute farce, because there is no reason that I should believe my patient when he tells me that the pictures on the wall are looking back at him and voices tell him to put his head through the window!

 

[MirrorTodd]

I'm not sure where you read your history, but Hitler wasn't punished. He blew his brains out in a bunker in Berlin. In any case, if he had been brought to trial I don't think that evidence of his parkinson's would have been too persuasive. While there is pretty good evidence that untreated postpartum psychosis can result in mothers killing their children, I haven't seen any convincing connection between parkinson's and genocide.

Or did he? Muahahahaha. Sorry had to do the childish thing here. no pun intended.

 

[LADoc00]

AND TO LADOC...

Jeebus man, you are basically saying the field of psychiatry is worthless aren't you? You are saying, the core of what we do in psychiatry, meaning that we sit down with people and interview them about their psychotic (or otherwise) psychiatric symptoms, is an absolute farce, because there is no reason that I should believe my patient when he tells me that the pictures on the wall are looking back at him and voices tell him to put his head through the window!

Im not saying the whole field of psychiatry is worthless BUT I think we all know which field of medicine is the most loosely based on hard science, at least at the clinical care level....but yes, I know we cant ALL be pathologists.

 

[Solideliquid]

Im not saying the whole field of psychiatry is worthless BUT I think we all know which field of medicine is the most loosely based on hard science, at least at the clinical care level....but yes, I know we cant ALL be pathologists.

Well. It's the BRAIN. When you have unlocked it's secrets and allowed the human race to become supereme beings over the entire universe let me know.

Until then I have to work with "loose science" to help my patients get better. Have fun cutting up dead flesh into salami slices tomorrow.

 

[MBK2003]

Having worked with several forensic psychiatrists (who actually work in the state forensic hospitals), for most states (I'm not sure about Texas specifically) being found guilty by reason of insanity results in a person serving 3-4 times longer than if they plea bargained. Yes, they serve time in locked psychiatric facilities instead of more conventional prisons, but they are there for years. Look at John Hinckley, Jr, coming up on 25 years in the locked unit and ZERO prospect of ever being released.

And to the point of there being a double standard, there are men out there who commit horrendous crimes involving severe psychopathy and who are found not guilty by reason of mental insanity simply because we are unable to comprehend how a non-delusional person could commit such a heinous act. E.g. Daniel Rakowitz who dismembered his girlfriend and fed her in a soup to the homeless in Tompkins Square Park, and by all accounts in the court records suffers from severe personality disorder, not a psychotic illness. Insanity is not gender-specific defense.

MBK2003

 

[50960]

For those of you in support of the verdict. If someone has an acquired brain injury or dementia, gets kluver-bucy symptoms and rapes a woman, should they get punished for the crime?
If someone is an addict, becomes delusional (meth), and kills someone whom they think was after them; should they be punished?
If someone has "pedophilia" and has sex with children; should they be punished for their crimes?

All of these are medical conditions with treatments (to some degree), but people get locked up every day for them without a dim-cap caveat. In a society that is just we should get punished for what we DO.

 

[Solideliquid]

For those of you in support of the verdict. If someone has an acquired brain injury or dementia, gets kluver-bucy symptoms and rapes a woman, should they get punished for the crime?
If someone is an addict, becomes delusional (meth), and kills someone whom they think was after them; should they be punished?
If someone has "pedophilia" and has sex with children; should they be punished for their crimes?

All of these are medical conditions with treatments (to some degree), but people get locked up every day for them without a dim-cap caveat. In a society that is just we should get punished for what we DO.

I see your points and I agree with you. However, the Yates case is different, she didn't smoke meth and become delusional. She didn't cause herself to become delusional, the murder of her children was a culmination of poor psychiatric care, poor primary support and basic deglect of her condition/symptoms (just the way LAdoc is neglecting the fact that this person suffers form a chronic mental illness, which was battled for years until the unforunate and horrific culmination of her symptoms which resulted in the death of her children).

 

[LADoc00]

Until then I have to work with "loose science" to help my patients get better. Have fun cutting up dead flesh into salami slices tomorrow.

Tea leaves: check
Chicken liver necklace: check
Shrunken monkey head: check
DSM-IV manual: Check



all in good fun, all in good fun.

DSM-IV manual: $20
Slightly used white coat: $30
One hour consultation rate: $100
Getting a murderous sociopath released back onto the streets: Priceless.

Ooo how cute, not now though, typically the bacteria fermentation that builds up quickly after death makes one look a tad puffy and bloated:

last words the baby was thinking: Rot in hell you fking biotch. Unfortunately that deemed inadmissable, as only the mind reading of Andrea was considered valid by court experts.


SDN is now selling:

But only in psych forum, ACT NOW, these T-shirts are going fast!

 

[Anuwolf]

What I'm about to say is not attended to bash the psychiatry community.

I can understand why most of you guys are in total support of the verdict of finding Ms. Yates not guilty for the reason of insanity. If we allow Psychiatrists to sezied total control over the court rooms (unfortunatly it's getting there) the prisons would be empty and amazing how the hospitals would start packing in MORE and MORE patients who are in there with a court order. This means that the psychiatry community (Including the drug companies) would triple their salery and profit.

As sad as this may seem.. Some people just cannot be CURED. It's really sad... Yes I do believe that Ms. Yates do have a problem but she has commited a gruesome crime so she MUST do the time. BEING mental doesn't give anybody the excuse and the right to kill their children! If Yates was that unstable then why didn't her Psychatrists do anything and why didn't he/she saw this kind of behavior pattern?

 

[LADoc00]

This sums it up nicely:

 

[Poety]

For those of you in support of the verdict. If someone has an acquired brain injury or dementia, gets kluver-bucy symptoms and rapes a woman, should they get punished for the crime?
If someone is an addict, becomes delusional (meth), and kills someone whom they think was after them; should they be punished?
If someone has "pedophilia" and has sex with children; should they be punished for their crimes?

All of these are medical conditions with treatments (to some degree), but people get locked up every day for them without a dim-cap caveat. In a society that is just we should get punished for what we DO.

Then again, everyone here knows Im a fascist - I also think that after you have (YUP ONE) kid addicted to crack or heroin should = either MANDATED norplant, BTL, or hysterectomy, court ordered. You gotta pay the piper illness or not. We're becoming such a squishy society with all this "lets make the excuse for the mentally ill" I don't care how damn psychotic you are, you kill 5 kids in a bathtub, BRUTALLY mind you, without care, and I repeat I DONT CARE HOW PSYCHOTIC YOU ARE, you need to PAY FOR THAT CRIME in the SAME MANNER that others do.

Its ridiculous that becuase of mental illness you can get off for the most horrendous actions out there. Do I love forensics? Yes, but I'm keeping their asses in jail thats for sure.

Here, the forensic team does an eval, but they damn sure aren't letting them outta prison. Capitol punishment no, but thats because of my faith and its against what my religious beliefs are - but lock em up and throw away the damn key I say.

Everyone knows how I feel about people that offend against children anyway though so.... I would probably be a huge asset to the prosecuters side

 

[Solideliquid]

Then again, everyone here knows Im a fascist - I also think that after you have (YUP ONE) kid addicted to crack or heroin should = either MANDATED norplant, BTL, or hysterectomy, court ordered. You gotta pay the piper illness or not. We're becoming such a squishy society with all this "lets make the excuse for the mentally ill" I don't care how damn psychotic you are, you kill 5 kids in a bathtub, BRUTALLY mind you, without care, and I repeat I DONT CARE HOW PSYCHOTIC YOU ARE, you need to PAY FOR THAT CRIME in the SAME MANNER that others do.

Its ridiculous that becuase of mental illness you can get off for the most horrendous actions out there. Do I love forensics? Yes, but I'm keeping their asses in jail thats for sure.

Here, the forensic team does an eval, but they damn sure aren't letting them outta prison. Capitol punishment no, but thats because of my faith and its against what my religious beliefs are - but lock em up and throw away the damn key I say.

Everyone knows how I feel about people that offend against children anyway though so.... I would probably be a huge asset to the prosecuters side

Perhaps you should rethink your choice of fellowship...as I understand it, you can't be on any particular side when going into forensics. You just give your expert opinion (concerning the patient's illness, or lack thereof) right?

 

[Anuwolf]

Poety, If I had a million dollars I'd give you it.

 

[Poety]

Perhaps you should rethink your choice of fellowship...as I understand it, you can't be on any particular side when going into forensics. You just give your expert opinion (concerning the patient's illness, or lack thereof) right?

Hi Hon,

Howz internship? You can also be an expert witness for the prosecutions side, or for the defendants side. You're hired by one or the other.

ETA: thanks Anu, borderlines always love me


LADOC: Im so with you on this one. I may be going into psych, but I will most likely become one of those no bullshyt types that don't allow patients to push me around or get away with obscene actions.

I understand impulse control, but lets just say one thing, what if this woman isn't realy psychotic at all, what if she just knows playing into this can get her off? Perhaps shes just flucked up and as someone said, there is no cure for that. You can't change formed neuropathways, you can try to retrain, but the underlying trait is going to be there.

Theres no drug in the world, no therapy in the world thats going to bring those kids back, or their suffering while DROWING at the HANDS OF THE ONE WOMAN That was supposed to love them and nurture them. I can't believe any judge or jury would even let this evil woman off. Yes evil, there seems to be a flaw in drawing the line (as of late anyway) between EVIL and MENTALLY ILL.

There are schizophrenics serving life terms - (thats what a lot of forensics is, treating these pt's) and they're not getting out, they're in with the general population - but this chick gets off for treatment? GIVE ME A BREak. It makes me embarrassed of my specialty when I see this kind of crap going on.

And I'm aware of my own countertransferance going on here - hate for people that harm children and have no remorse. BTW, looking at her pics she looks like an evil woman to me.

 

[solumanculver]

I DONT CARE HOW PSYCHOTIC YOU ARE, you need to PAY FOR THAT CRIME in the SAME MANNER that others do.

For those people who believe that the mentally ill should be criminally punished, I'm curious as to what theory of punishment you follow... The way that I see it, a person either believes in separating criminals from society to protect society, using prison to attempt to rehabilitate criminals, or simply in brute punishment for misdeeds.

If you believe in protecting society by removing the criminal element from it, then I don't think that criminal imprsonment can be justified. It seems like institutionalization accomplishes the same thing, for a longer period of time, and under more tightly controlled conditions.

If you believe in rehabilitation, I don't see any justification for imprisoning the mentally ill, unless you believe that prisons are better envrionments than hospitals for rehabilitation.

And if you believe in simple retribution, then I think that punishing the mentally ill is fine, so long as they're determined to be culpable for their crime. A person with tourette's can't be prosecuted for crimes relating to their tourette's... by definition they didn't purposefully do anything wrong worthy of censure. I think, in the same way, a psychotic who believes that they have to save their children by killing them hasn't done anything subjectively wrong and worthy of censure. They are simply in the unfortunate position of trying to do something right, but being mentally incapable of knowing what the right thing is... It doesn't make sense to punish someone for this...

That's why it seems to me that there isn't ever any justification for punishing psychotic people who commit crimes...

 

[Poety]

For those people who believe that the mentally ill should be criminally punished, I'm curious as to what theory of punishment you follow... The way that I see it, a person either believes in separating criminals from society to protect society, using prison to attempt to rehabilitate criminals, or simply in brute punishment for misdeeds.

If you believe in protecting society by removing the criminal element from it, then I don't think that criminal imprsonment can be justified. It seems like institutionalization accomplishes the same thing, for a longer period of time, and under more tightly controlled conditions.

If you believe in rehabilitation, I don't see any justification for imprisoning the mentally ill, unless you believe that prisons are better envrionments than hospitals for rehabilitation.

And if you believe in simple retribution, then I think that punishing the mentally ill is fine, so long as they're determined to be culpable for their crime. A person with tourette's can't be prosecuted for crimes relating to their tourette's... by definition they didn't purposefully do anything wrong worthy of censure. I think, in the same way, a psychotic who believes that they have to save their children by killing them hasn't done anything subjectively wrong and worthy of censure. They are simply in the unfortunate position of trying to do something right, but being mentally incapable of knowing what the right thing is... It doesn't make sense to punish someone for this...
That's why it seems to me that there isn't ever any justification for punishing psychotic people who commit crimes...

Also want to add that there are degrees of crimes that are not forgiveable, as well, I've never had a patient with Tourettes that went around drowing their kids.

I don't believe she thought she had to save her children so she killed them, I think she was a sociopath. Thats the difference. I think she didn't want the responsibilty, hated having them around and wanted to get rid of them, thats what I think. I think she was selfish and should be punished in the manner anyone ese whos a "sociopath" should be punished - life term, bread and water only, no damn cable tv, no excercise, no nothing. For punishment for the crime, AND to keep them away from the rest of society.

I don't think you can rehab a sociopath, nor do I think you can retrain a sex offender (namely child molestors) since their recidivism rate although statistically is 80%, in reality is most likely 100%, the rest just haven't gotten caught again.

Let em rot., and take away all their rights and privileges.

FASCIST PIG I MAY BE, but I sleep good at night.

and my patients love me

 

[Poety]

Having worked with several forensic psychiatrists (who actually work in the state forensic hospitals), for most states (I'm not sure about Texas specifically) being found guilty by reason of insanity results in a person serving 3-4 times longer than if they plea bargained. Yes, they serve time in locked psychiatric facilities instead of more conventional prisons, but they are there for years. Look at John Hinckley, Jr, coming up on 25 years in the locked unit and ZERO prospect of ever being released.

And to the point of there being a double standard, there are men out there who commit horrendous crimes involving severe psychopathy and who are found not guilty by reason of mental insanity simply because we are unable to comprehend how a non-delusional person could commit such a heinous act. E.g. Daniel Rakowitz who dismembered his girlfriend and fed her in a soup to the homeless in Tompkins Square Park, and by all accounts in the court records suffers from severe personality disorder, not a psychotic illness. Insanity is not gender-specific defense.

MBK2003

exactly, and both of your examples are sociopaths, just like this sick twit that did this to her kids. She doesn't deserve treatment either, and neither does Rakowitz - I mean for petes sake, what are we going to do? treat all these people? what makes theM WORTHY of treatment?

 

[RustNeverSleeps]

And if you believe in simple retribution, then I think that punishing the mentally ill is fine, so long as they're determined to be culpable for their crime. A person with tourette's can't be prosecuted for crimes relating to their tourette's... by definition they didn't purposefully do anything wrong worthy of censure. I think, in the same way, a psychotic who believes that they have to save their children by killing them hasn't done anything subjectively wrong and worthy of censure. They are simply in the unfortunate position of trying to do something right, but being mentally incapable of knowing what the right thing is... It doesn't make sense to punish someone for this...

That's why it seems to me that there isn't ever any justification for punishing psychotic people who commit crimes...

Are you saying that you think any psychotic person is automatically not responsible for his or her crimes? The law actually requires a higher standard. Depending on the situation, you can be psychotic and still realize what you are doing is wrong. (For instance, you could argue that since Andrea Yates waited until her husband left to kill her children, she at some level knew it was wrong. You could also argue that she waited for reasons due to her elaborate psychosis, but you get the idea.)