Yates not guilty by reason of Insanity

[Mastodon]

Is it bad that I don't care that she got off on insanity?

I didn't know the family and so long as she dosn't go off to kill other people I don't see the problem is.

Maybe it's just because I don't have children.

 

[Rev2010]

What I can't understand is why they call it "not guilty by reason of insanity". It should be "guilty by reason of insanity". She's still guilty, she's not innocent in any way. Being insane may explain your actions but it certainly doesn't excuse them. Not in my eyes anyway.


Rev.

And I suppose all the qualified medical people who have examined her know jack shit

LOL, that's a good one... qualified medical people. I'm not going Tom Cruise on psychiatry here cause he's just a fucking loon. But I do have to agree that most docs in this field are far far away from being miracle workers. Most of them are quacks.


Rev.

 

[Drew]

What I can't understand is why they call it "not guilty by reason of insanity". It should be "guilty by reason of insanity". She's still guilty, she's not innocent in any way. Being insane may explain your actions but it certainly doesn't excuse them. Not in my eyes anyway.

I agree with you in principle, Rev. However, you have to remember that Andrea Yates wasn't tried to find out if she was guilty in killing her kids, plain and simple - the actual charge was what is called "capital murder" in Texas. I did some yahoo searching to find out the actual charge levied against her and then the definition of capital muder (follow that link) because I suspected it'd be something like this.
Texas Penal code:

PENAL CODE
TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
§ 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. (a) A person
commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly,
recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an
individual. (b) Criminal homicide is murder, capital murder,
manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, § 1,
eff. Jan. 1, 1974; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff.
Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly
produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person
of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool
reflection.
(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by
and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another
acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of
the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an
individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits
an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an
individual; or
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than
manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the
commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission
or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly
dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under
this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may
raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the
immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate
cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a
preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second
degree.Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, § 1,
eff. Jan. 1, 1974; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff.
Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 19.03. CAPITAL MURDER. (a) A person commits an offense
if the person commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(b)(1)
and:
(1) the person murders a peace officer or fireman who
is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty and who the
person knows is a peace officer or fireman;
(2) the person intentionally commits the murder in the
course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary,
robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or
retaliation, or terroristic threat under Section 22.07(a)(1), (3),
(4), (5), or (6);
(3) the person commits the murder for remuneration or
the promise of remuneration or employs another to commit the murder
for remuneration or the promise of remuneration;
(4) the person commits the murder while escaping or
attempting to escape from a penal institution;
(5) the person, while incarcerated in a penal
institution, murders another:
(A) who is employed in the operation of the penal
institution; or
(B) with the intent to establish, maintain, or
participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination;
(6) the person:
(A) while incarcerated for an offense under this
section or Section 19.02, murders another; or
(B) while serving a sentence of life imprisonment
or a term of 99 years for an offense under Section 20.04, 22.021, or
29.03, murders another;
(7) the person murders more than one person:
(A) during the same criminal transaction; or
(B) during different criminal transactions but
the murders are committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of
conduct;
(8) the person murders an individual under six years
of age; or
(9) the person murders another person in retaliation
for or on account of the service or status of the other person as a
judge or justice of the supreme court, the court of criminal
appeals, a court of appeals, a district court, a criminal district
court, a constitutional county court, a statutory county court, a
justice court, or a municipal court.
(b) An offense under this section is a capital felony.
(c) If the jury or, when authorized by law, the judge does
not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of
an offense under this section, he may be convicted of murder or of
any other lesser included offense.Added by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, § 1, eff.
Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5317, ch. 977,
§ 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 44, § 1,
eff. Sept. 1, 1985; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 652, § 13, eff.
Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 715, § 1, eff. Sept. 1,
1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 887, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993;
Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts
2003, 78th Leg., ch. 388, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2005,
79th Leg., ch. 428, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.
§ 19.04. MANSLAUGHTER. (a) A person commits an offense
if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second
degree.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 19.04 by Acts 1973, 63rd
Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended
by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 307, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.
Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 19.05 and amended by Acts
1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 19.05. CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE. (a) A person
commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by
criminal negligence.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 19.06 by Acts 1973, 63rd
Leg., p. 1123, ch. 426, art. 2, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Renumbered from V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 19.07 and amended by Acts
1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
§ 19.06. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter
does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct
charged is:
(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn
child;
(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a
physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite
consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of
the procedure;
(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a
physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite
consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section
160.102, Family Code; or
(4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law
or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law.
Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 822, § 2.02, eff. Sept. 1,
2003.

I bolded a few parts here for relevancy.

Essentially, where the prosecution fell apart was on trying her for capital muder, but failing to prove what she did was in fact muder - i.e, that she acted "intelligently and knowingly." While her actions clearly warrented an attempt at a capital muder conviction, there was clearly a reasonable case for an insanity plea in that she arguably didn't know what she was doing was wrong. At this point, it becomes a crapshoot for the prosecution - do they attempt to make a capital murder charge stick, or do they drop to a second degree felony (I'm extrapolating a little bit here in arguing that provision 19.02.3.b could be construed as to allow a second-degree felony convition for a crime of insanity, but I think it's at least a plausible argument)?

Like it or not, the wording of the law supports this conviction - they couldn't prove that her actions were a knowing attempt to cause harm on another human being. Had they settled for a second degree manslaughter or murder charge, while they couldn't have executed her, they most likely would have gotten her life in prison, effectively if not actually.

Don't like it? Challenge the american legal system or support congressional candidates who favor the reworking of the capital punishment laws to allow execution of those judged to be insane and commiting crimes they don't believe were wrong.

I agree, she deserves to fry. But the prosecution should have asked for a lesser sentence here, and taken a sure conviction over a chance at the death penalty in exchange for a chance she will walk. Especially in light of 19.03.3.c, they completely dropped the ball.

 

[Rev2010]

they couldn't prove that her actions were a knowing attempt to cause harm on another human being.

But see that's what I'm saying is BS. She knew damn well very conciously that putting their heads under water and holding them there would cause death. That's why she did it. So, it looks plain enough to me that she knowingly and intentionally murdered them.


Rev.

 

[Leon]

i feel sad for the family members. if i was one of them, i'd probably crucify her. ...and not in a literal or figurative sense

 

[Drew]

But see that's what I'm saying is BS. She knew damn well very conciously that putting their heads under water and holding them there would cause death. That's why she did it. So, it looks plain enough to me that she knowingly and intentionally murdered them.
Rev.

But, the hair we're splitting here is that from her world view at the time of the actions that resulted in their deaths, she thought she was saving them. I.e- she didn't know right from wrong, and did no knowing harm to her kids.

I agree it's bullshit that she's going to walk away from this, but by the Texas state legal definitions of "murder" and "capital murder," she is innocent. Yeah, it sucks, but you can't execute her if she is not found guilty of the case that's tried against her, and for that you can either blame the prosecution for not taking a safer bet or considering a weaker charge that would have given her a life sentence but not death, or the code of law for not allowing someone who's unaware that their actions are harming others to be put to death. Myself, I think the prosecution is at fault here, near as I can tell, but if you'd rather blame the Texas legal code and their definitition of what constitutes "murder" or "capital murder" then go right ahead.

It's about as twisted a piece of legal-ese as you'll ever see, but under the American legal system, "muder" and "directly through your own actions cause someone's death" are not one and the same. She clearly did the later, but the case fell apart when they couldn't prove the former. The fault, I personally feel, lies with the prosecution for not taking a more conservative stance in a high-profile case for fear of risking the reputational harm that would ensue for not seeking the maximum sentence for a mother who had drowned her near-infant children even in light of a case that was far from bulletproof that what she did legally constituted murder.

Basically, she got off because she was tried for the wrong crime.

 

[Dylan7620]

^ So by your thinking, what rational thought processes were going on in her mind for her to murder her children?
C'mon, dude. You're totally sidestepping the issue. You're ascribing rational motives to a nutjob. A guy barges into a house, kills the family, steals their shit, yes, he's responsible. A mother kills all of her children because they had the devil in them, and you're saying she has the same mental state as the aforementioned thug?
Gimmie a break. That doesn't make sense. And I suppose all the qualified medical people who have examined her know jack shit.
BTW Dylan...

sry, i'm not trying to side step the issue here. but was there a history of her having mental problems? medical examiners have opinions just like the rest of us and tapping into minds isn't fool proof. there could have been another examiner that said she was fine, but a good defense attorny would find a away to appeal(they're great at loopholes, we all know) and get another examiner with more pleasing results.

phycology is far from an exact science, and many scientists dismiss it as a science at all. i believe she still had an idea of what was right and wrong. i'm sure satan was the one yelling "no mommy please". most bitches are crazy any ways, that doesn't mean we get to throw them in hospitals. whos to say she isn't putting on. i was raised to take what i deserve based on my actions. i bet she was too. if she was so crazy why wasn't she in the hospital already? someone should've and would've known.

pretty big coincidence that she happen to go insane and kill all her children in one quick instance. think of all the people that claim insanity, and think of the ratio from the true ones to the fake ones. just because you make a crazy stupid choice doesn't make you crazy. it just makes you stupid.
much wub to you too bob

 

[Rev2010]

But, the hair we're splitting here is that from her world view at the time of the actions that resulted in their deaths, she thought she was saving them. I.e- she didn't know right from wrong, and did no knowing harm to her kids.

Drew, that is incorrect. She said she was saving them from Satan by killing them. She did not think she was saving their lives but rather their souls. She knew outright that she was killing them hence the murder and hence the guilt. We're not splitting hairs here. I merely stated prior that I think it should be called, "guilty by reason of insanity" rather than "not guilty". That's all. And fact is every single shred of evidence including her testimony shows that she is indeed guilty of killing her kids. My point is the legal terminology makes it sound like she's innocent. Also, having a change in the calling of the verdict would in no way change the sentencing. That's all I'm saying, it just sounds stupid saying, "Not guilty by reason of insanity".


Rev.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

LOL, that's a good one... qualified medical people. I'm not going Tom Cruise on psychiatry here cause he's just a fucking loon. But I do have to agree that most docs in this field are far far away from being miracle workers. Most of them are quacks.
Rev.

Talk about a good one! You have a degree in medicine to back this claim up?

 

[Rev2010]

Talk about a good one! You have a degree in medicine to back this claim up?

Do you have a degree in music to back up anything you say about guitar... or a degree in politics to allow you to vote?


Rev.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

Do you have a degree in music to back up anything you say about guitar... or a degree in politics to allow you to vote?
Rev.

Actually, I have a minor in music (guitar performance and theory) that backs up what I say about music, and 2 years of studying political science and sociology as an undergrad. So yes, in a manner of speaking, I do.

Like you know that "most of them are quacks anyways"? Gimmie a break. What evidence do you offer to supoort this? Besides your opinion?
Your analogies aren't connected to my original point, anyway. If some newb came up to you and tried to spout off nonsense about guitar, you have enough working knowledge to know he's full of it. What working knowledge do you have of the mental health field to qualify most of these highly trained professionals as "quacks", and dismiss thier conclusions so handily? Voting is one thing... but making blanket judgements on a whole profession is completely another.

 

[Rev2010]

Like you know that "most of them are quacks anyways"? Gimmie a break. What evidence do you offer to supoort this? Besides your opinion?

Dude, grow up and get over it. From the moment I quoted you I knew you'd have to say something. I also knew in your reply you'd use the rolling eyes -> as well simply cause I did. You are waaay too senstive. Stop dragging this off topic with this nonsense.


Rev.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

Dude, grow up and get over it. From the moment I quoted you I knew you'd have to say something. I also knew in your reply you'd use the rolling eyes -> as well simply cause I did. You are waaay too senstive. Stop dragging this off topic with this nonsense.
Rev.

Nice rebuttal. Where's your evidence?

BTW, it's completely ON TOPIC. We're talking about the qualifications of mental health professionals, which you question.

Way to debate, bro. Try to turn it into a personal attack. Boo. I didn't question your character or personality once - just your claims. If you believe them, then back them up!

Seriously, I'm not going to flame-fest back and forth with you. Back up your claims, or offer a strong argument to support them. That's all I'm saying. If you can't, fine. Say so. "It's just my opinion." Fair enough.

 

[Rev2010]

Nice rebuttal. Where's your evidence?

Look, I'm not going to continue arguing with you cause doing so with you goes nowhere. But since you keep insisting I'll point to a few examples that lead me to my opinion.

The brain is the most complex of organs in our body. It is way beyond being fully or even close to half undertood. When you see commercials for despression medications they always say, "While no one knows what causes depression it is believe to be a chemical imbalance in the brain" or other quotes like that. So... they don't know what causes it yet they can come up with a medication to prescribe??? I have heart problems and one doctor I went to wanted me to try different drugs till we found one that alleviated the palpitations! He tried prescribing me Beta Blockers not knowing at all what I am suffering from. A lot of doctors do this shit and those are the ones I call quacks. Look at Autism... they still don't know exactly what causes it.

Now, to further explain our lack of undertanding and knowledge let's look at Proteus Syndrome (Elephant Man disease). We still don't know what causes it but it's definitely something neurological. I've looked all these diseases up on Wikipedia.org and it states that doctors don't know the exact causes of these diseases. I know they're not all psychiatry based but I'm referencing our lack of knowledge about the brain.

Sooo DarkWolf... from my personal interaction with doctors, and being someone who's suffered from depression from many years with no cure I think I have the right to form my opinions. Sorry I can't give you the medical degree you're looking for but that doesn't mean I'm absolutely clueless on the subject.


Rev.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

I never called you a moron, or even insinuated that you were. Look at my posts, man. That's not my style. I never attack anyone. I personally think you're extremely intelligent. But we all say goofy things from time to time, and that seemed goofy to me. Time to discuss! Besides, I love a good debate. (Minus the name calling and shit. That don't fly. So why try to make it out like it's some character flaw on my part because I want to explore that further, and argue a bit about it? C'mon, man.)


But still, back on point, anecdotal evidence in NO WAY calls for a blanket condemnation of an entire field of learning. Example - They don't know how to cure diabetes either... does that mean people should throw away their insulin and say, "Fuckit! Them doctors don't know shit anyway!" Hardly.
You pointed out a problem with my post about mental helth folks in the first place, and that's fine. And I think your final statement here is a terrific qualifier, to say we should always take this sorta stuff with at least a grain of salt. But that no way, no how legitamizes throwing out the baby with the bathwater!

I think these people are at the very least qualified to offer up a medical opinion about a person's state of mind, certainly at the moment, but even to a degree in the past. And I think that sort of thing should definitely have weight in a court of law. Doesn't mean I agree a person should be released, or absolved of guilt, but I do think it's significant. Basically the opposite of what you're saying, Rev... that that sort of information is basically hullabaloo.

I disagree with that.

 

[Rev2010]

I never called you a moron, or even insinuated that you were. Look at my posts, man. That's not my style. I never attack anyone. I personally think you're extremely intelligent. But we all say goofy things from time to time, and that seemed goofy to me.

Fair enough. But for the record I never claimed to be an expert on the medical field, I just made a short remark. It's just that psychiatry is the field that is truly furthest behind. Even neurology is more advanced but still, considering our current state, is still in it's infancy - technology wise. I'm not saying doctors have to have a cure to be knowledgable... but when they don't know the cause of something yet proclaim to be able to "treat" it it just comes off like

I know doctors are still learning. And just to let you know I wasn't heckling you in my initial response I was more making a light hearted joke as doctors know so little in these areas I found the term "qualified professional" to be a bit funny. That's all. Anyhow, I'm gonna retire from posting tonight. Must play some guitar and do some other things. Have a good evening


Rev.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

See? Love solves all the world's ills!

 

[7 Dying Trees]

"Yates pleaded insanity, and according to testimony at the trial, she was overwhelmed by motherhood, considered herself a bad mother, suffered postpartum depression, had attempted suicide and had been hospitalized for depression."

Jesus, that whole family looks possessed..

In any case, insanity? Give me a break, idiocy, yes, insanity, no. If she beklieved satan was within her, then why hasn't she killed herself?

 

[distressed_romeo]

Fair enough. But for the record I never claimed to be an expert on the medical field, I just made a short remark. It's just that psychiatry is the field that is truly furthest behind. Even neurology is more advanced but still, considering our current state, is still in it's infancy - technology wise. I'm not saying doctors have to have a cure to be knowledgable... but when they don't know the cause of something yet proclaim to be able to "treat" it it just comes off like
I know doctors are still learning. And just to let you know I wasn't heckling you in my initial response I was more making a light hearted joke as doctors know so little in these areas I found the term "qualified professional" to be a bit funny. That's all. Anyhow, I'm gonna retire from posting tonight. Must play some guitar and do some other things. Have a good evening
Rev.

Agreed. Sparing a lot of gory details, I've known people go into psychiatric care and come out with more problems than they went in with. Although it's done some people a world of good, it still isn't an exact science.