Andrea Yates, convicted in Texas of the 2001 murder of her four young children, had her convictions overturned.  A three judge appellate panel decided psychiatrist Park Dietz  gave false testimony that might have prejudiced the jury.  Dietz cited events on an episode of Law & Order that didn't really happen.  Right.  Law & Order is a television drama.  None of it really happened.  Understood.  Dietz, however, cited events that didn't even really happen within the context of the television show.  So....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=1&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_re_us/andrea_yates

This is sooooo Texas.  They execute/incarcerate people based on shabby evidence, then retry an woman  based on a questionable appeal such as this, and still think that her husband should have been on the dock right along with her. 

While I think that no sane person drowns their five children, if anyone else had murdered her children they would have been executed a long time ago.

What a sad story...

No quack shrink is going to deprive Andrea Yates of the punishment she deserves. I hope they both serve time, and that Yates has time to think about what she has done to here children behind bars. >:(

No quack shrink is going to deprive Andrea Yates of the punishment she deserves. I hope they both serve time, and that Yates has time to think about what she has done to here children behind bars. >:(
I agree.
I have a mental illness(schizoaffective disorder)and I have NEVER and will NEVER do VIOLENCE to another living being! I think her husband should have DONE the right thing in the first place and GOTTEN CUSTODY OF THE KIDS,MADE SURE HIS WIFE WAS LEGALLY COMMITTED TO A PLACE OF TREATMENT FOR HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES...and joined a family support group like NAMI(National Alliance for the Mentally Ill)...he was in DENIAL as well as his wife!

I agree with the decision. As someone who is obviously mentally ill she should not have been convicted. However, from what i hear her lawyer will not try to get her released from prison-which I also agree with. I feel that someone that mentally ill shouldn't be convicted of a crime, but they shouldn't let them out into society either. I'm shocked by some of the ignorant attitudes toward mental illness in this thread. Sad really.

No quack shrink is going to deprive Andrea Yates of the punishment she deserves. I hope they both serve time, and that Yates has time to think about what she has done to here children behind bars. >:(

I really don't think Yates was categorically evil.  I just didn't see it.  She was a confused and delusional women who murdered her own children, but she never had the stink of malice about her.  That doesn't mean she shouldn't be held accountable...
::)

Ted Bundy, now that dude was evil...

I don't believe in good/evil. Just sane/insane, logical/illogical etc.

I really don't think Yates was categorically evil.  I just didn't see it.  She was a confused and delusional women who murdered her own children, but she never had the stink of malice about her.  That doesn't mean she shouldn't be held accountable...
::)

Ted Bundy, now that dude was evil...


I know you're smarter than this. If she is mentally ill, how can she be 'held accountable'? She didn't have the logic or sanity to make sound judgement(obviously), so how can she be convicted if she obviously didn't realize what she was doing?

I know you're smarter than this. If she is mentally ill, how can she be 'held accountable'? She didn't have the logic or sanity to make sound judgement(obviously), so how can she be convicted if she obviously didn't realize what she was doing?

You're right philosophically, I was saying more that it shouldn't necessarily qualify her for the legal definition of insanity.  Some testimony by Yates did indicate serious delusion, but the jury found otherwise. 
Anyway, if I left that sentence with a caveat certain people around here might jump all over me saying, "Oh so you should be able to kill your kids and get away with it, eh?"

I think that she should be kept in a minimum security psychiatric hospital for at least five years, where she can be properly diagnosed, treated, and slowly become able to function in society again. After that I think she should be relocated and be put in a half-way house and possibly given a new identity due to the nature and high profile of the case. Then slowly she would be re-introduced into society. After all this is done, she should be able to hold a steady job and be able to marry if she chooses. I think that the law should stipulate that she never concieve again, and offer her voluntary sterilisation. In the event that she chooses not to be sterilised she must abide by the law, and if she is impregnated she will be derelict in her responsibility. She could then choose to either abort the pregnancy or give it up for adoption, but society cannot allow her to ever care for children again. However the former choices must be hers, the government cannot decide for her. She should then be given a case worker who would be the only person who is privy to her real identity, and who would be there to check up on her and make sure that everything is going well. If not, then she would obviously have to be re-evaluated and dealt with accordingly.

This is what I think the proper way to deal with her is, although I know full well that it will NEVER happen. Not in this country... we're too hysterical when it comes to crime. We actually try kids as adults, and we've contemplated putting them to death as well. It's unreal.

This is what I think the proper way to deal with her is, although I know full well that it will NEVER happen. Not in this country... we're too hysterical when it comes to crime. We actually try kids as adults, and we've contemplated putting them to death as well. It's unreal.

Americans are big into retribution.  When there's a crime in which somebody hurts kids, all bets are off.  There's no cool-headed thinking to be done about it!
Yates' is lucky she didn't get a death sentence.  As far as capital punishment goes, Harris County is to Texas what Texas is to the rest of the country!

I don't believe in good/evil.

Okay.....moving on.

This is what I think the proper way to deal with her is, although I know full well that it will NEVER happen. Not in this country... we're too hysterical when it comes to crime. We actually try kids as adults, and we've contemplated putting them to death as well. It's unreal.

Why shouldn't we?  Give the kid a hug?  Let them off when they become 18/21?  Most experts agree that a child knows right from wrong at age 7, so in my opinion 12 and up is life in jail.  16 and up is death.  So far as I know, Florida is currently the state that has convicted the youngest person.  They gave a 12-year-old life in prison without parole for killing his younger sister with a pillow.  That was a year ago, they said some were trying to overturn it and let him off at age 21, not sure if they did or not.

As for Yates, if she is not sane, life in prison.  If she is, toast her.  She shouldn't get a lighter punishment just because she is crazy, hell if she is we should be giving her a stricter penalty.

Okay.....moving on.

Why shouldn't we?  Give the kid a hug?  Let them off when they become 18/21?  Most experts agree that a child knows right from wrong at age 7, so in my opinion 12 and up is life in jail.  16 and up is death.  So far as I know, Florida is currently the state that has convicted the youngest person.  They gave a 12-year-old life in prison without parole for killing his younger sister with a pillow.  That was a year ago, they said some were trying to overturn it and let him off at age 21, not sure if they did or not.

As for Yates, if she is not sane, life in prison.  If she is, toast her.  She shouldn't get a lighter punishment just because she is crazy, hell if she we should be giving her a stricter penalty.


Just because a child knows the difference between right and wrong does not mean that they are equipped with the self control and mental responsibility of contemplating the true consequences of their actions and weighing the pros and cons... Kids don't think in the future, they think in the present. You are saying that a kid at the age of fifteen is mentally capable enough to rationally decide to murder and receive life imprisonment for it, when someone of the same age is not even legally old enough to consent to sexual intercourse? Prespammersite! I agree they should be punished but a 7-16 year old kid does not possess an adult mind and therefore cannot be treated as an adult leagally. You are caught up in the hysteria. As for Yates, get over it. The woman killed her kids... infanticide is nothing new, it happens all the time. But because this case is high profile, everybody freaks out and throws stones. Wasn't it your second go-to guy (behind Bush, of course), Jesus, the one who said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" If the woman is insane, she's insane and we can't go around killing insane people for acting insane. So she goes to a psych ward for several years and then gets out and starts living another life... what do you care? Were they your kids? As long as she is never allowed to care for children ever again, you have nothing to worry about. She's not some psycho-killer (qu'est-ce que c'est?) on the loose, she freaked out and killed her kids. Solution: no more kids for her.

I agree with what McDonald is saying, but like he said, it would never happen.

Just because a child knows the difference between right and wrong does not mean that they are equipped with the self control and mental responsibility of contemplating the true consequences of their actions and weighing the pros and cons... Kids don't think in the future, they think in the present. You are saying that a kid at the age of fifteen is mentally capable enough to rationally decide to murder and receive life imprisonment for it, when someone of the same age is not even legally old enough to consent to sexual intercourse? Prespammersite! I agree they should be punished but a 7-16 year old kid does not possess an adult mind and therefore cannot be treated as an adult leagally. You are caught up in the hysteria.


I tried to say it better but I couldn't :)

I tried to say it better but I couldn't :)
Kids who are at risk of committing a crime should be required to go through an ordeal like SCARED STRAIGHT.....and then if they STILL commit a crime,do the FULL SENTENCE with no parole. Kids need to know they cannot get away with being a 'thug'!

Kids who are at risk of committing a crime should be required to go through an ordeal like SCARED STRAIGHT.....and then if they STILL commit a crime,do the FULL SENTENCE with no parole. Kids need to know they cannot get away with being a 'thug'!


Somebody understands!  Murder is murder, regardless of age.

Kids who are at risk of committing a crime should be required to go through an ordeal like SCARED STRAIGHT.....and then if they STILL commit a crime,do the FULL SENTENCE with no parole. Kids need to know they cannot get away with being a 'thug'!


SCARED STRAIGHT is about effective as DARE.

SCARED STRAIGHT is about effective as DARE.
In the 1980's I was mugged TWICE by the same teenage dirtbag....the second time,he was CAUGHT RED-HANDED walking down the street with MY money and MY belongings STILL on him...and he actually said...."Uhh,officer,I just bought this stuff"...yeah right,ten minutes after the act a Pleasantville NJ police officer and myself find him with the goods,and no open stores in sight!(this was late night!) He should be on a reality show called "America's Dumbest Criminals"!

In the 1980's I was mugged TWICE by the same teenage dirtbag....the second time,he was CAUGHT RED-HANDED walking down the street with MY money and MY belongings STILL on him...and he actually said...."Uhh,officer,I just bought this stuff"...yeah right,ten minutes after the act a Pleasantville NJ police officer and myself find him with the goods,and no open stores in sight!(this was late night!) He should be on a reality show called "America's Dumbest Criminals"!

Are you really from "Pleasantville"?
???

I agree to an extent.  One of hubby's good friends is a defense attorney who has been "chosen" to represent some 13-15 y.o. gangbangers who KNOW that they can go out and kill someone and not be punished to the full extent of the law BECAUSE they're minors.  They look at 3-5 years (as most juvenile sentences in IL end at 18) as nothing.  They're sent to the boys home for 3-5, get out when they're 18 & keep on comitting crimes.


But what has been going on in the life of a 13 year old that he/she is so numbed by life that murder is
something that even enters the realm of possibility?  The problem is our society collectively and individually turning a blind eye to neglect, abuse, illness, hunger, etc. until the child is an ugly problem.
I'm sure if your good friends hubby knows some of the tragic tales that go along with this kids. I bet there are some stories he doesn't even want to talk about.

But what has been going on in the life of a 13 year old that he/she is so numbed by life that murder is
something that even enters the realm of possibility?  The problem is our society collectively and individually turning a blind eye to neglect, abuse, illness, hunger, etc. until the child is an ugly problem.
I'm sure if your good friends hubby knows some of the tragic tales that go along with this kids. I bet there are some stories he doesn't even want to talk about.


Parents have too many rights.  A lot of kids ought to be yanked out of their homes.  And a lot of people shouldn't have the right to be parents.