Sickend by Andrea Yates verdict

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:38 pm

Sickend. I don't understand it.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:40 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205696,00.html

I am beside myself as well.
*goes off to kill someone and claim insanity*

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:47 pm

longhorn_22 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205696,00.html

I am beside myself as well.
*goes off to kill someone and claim insanity*

Only if you have to chase the 7 year old around the house while he screams "mommy, no."

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:49 pm

ChiOCat wrote:
longhorn_22 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205696,00.html

I am beside myself as well.
*goes off to kill someone and claim insanity*
Only if you have to chase the 7 year old around the house while he screams "mommy, no."

Oh yes...forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:28 pm

I've always had a hard time with this issue. I think part of the problem is that our society does not have a really clear definition as to what constitutes "insanity" -- I mean, most serial killers are probably "insane" in some sense of the word, but I don't think anyone would argue that that means they shouldn't be in prison. On the other hand, people who truly do have genuine mental disorders, as a matter of policy, probably should get treatment instead of prison. I don't know...like I said, it's a tough issue.

Speaking of unclear definitions of terms -- this is a side-note, but it is kind of relevant and funny so I'll share it. When I was in law school, I was a research assistant to one of the law professors at UM, and he had me researching some old Montana statutes (from before Montana's criminal code was re-written in 1979). One of the statutes I found was the old statutory definition of "Persons of Unsound Mind," and I still remember the definition verbatim:

""Persons of unsound mind" shall be defined to include idiots, lunatics, imbeciles, and habitual drunkards."

--GL (that sounds like most of my friends.

)

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:32 pm

If anyone can find some examples of people who have been found not guilty by way of insanity, and then released from their mental institution in a period of time less than what they would have had they been sent to prison, and they subsequently commit another crime ... I will make the argument that these legal findings of "not guilty by reason of insanity" are harmful.

But as far as I can tell (pending revision if some examples are presented), it doesn't seem like the insanity plea is accepted very often, and it seems like the people that it is attached to are sincerely ****** crazy, and end up being locked up (for the good of themselves and society) in mental institutions for a very, very long time ... just like prison, only with a treatment of the cause.

I am not a fan of sending someone to prison for the sake of sending them to prison (society retribution motivation as a reason to imprison someone as opposed to imprisoning them to protect society and to rehabilitate them if at all possible) ... if a person really is crazy (is so whacked out that they sincerely don't know the difference between wrong and right), then I think being locked up in a facility that deals with severe mental issues is preferable than sending them to prison (and if they are crazy, the cause/effect relationship of the crime and the prison sentence won't even occur to them).

But if a person is not crazy and commits a horrible crime like this one, then I absolutely think they should be in prison as it is the most effective place to keep them so that they can do no further harm to society.

But as GL suggested ... how and where do you draw the line of what is "insane" and what isn't? I guess that's why Psychiatrists get paid the big bucks. Let's hope they know what they're doing.

Ponycat · Post by **Ponycat** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:04 pm

I had some involvement in a case very similar and went in it with a very biased mind (string her up) but came away very torn and confused and had a incrediable amount of, I guess you would say sympathy, for the person who committed the horrible act. In short I think in a lot of these cases there are people close to the person (significant others, family) who have to have some responsibility for not doing anything about the obvious mental illness before it escalates to this.

I'd go into more detail but don't want BAC to get on another religion rant.

Remember, Brooke Shields, stated that with her post-pardum depression she had thoughts similar to this case, and she appears fairly mentally stable.

Not to sound glib

ChiOCat · Post by **ChiOCat** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:17 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:If anyone can find some examples of people who have been found not guilty by way of insanity, and then released from their mental institution in a period of time less than what they would have had they been sent to prison, and they subsequently commit another crime ... I will make the argument that these legal findings of "not guilty by reason of insanity" are harmful.

But as far as I can tell (pending revision if some examples are presented), it doesn't seem like the insanity plea is accepted very often, and it seems like the people that it is attached to are sincerely ****** crazy, and end up being locked up (for the good of themselves and society) in mental institutions for a very, very long time ... just like prison, only with a treatment of the cause.

I am not a fan of sending someone to prison for the sake of sending them to prison (society retribution motivation as a reason to imprison someone as opposed to imprisoning them to protect society and to rehabilitate them if at all possible) ... if a person really is crazy (is so whacked out that they sincerely don't know the difference between wrong and right), then I think being locked up in a facility that deals with severe mental issues is preferable than sending them to prison (and if they are crazy, the cause/effect relationship of the crime and the prison sentence won't even occur to them).

But if a person is not crazy and commits a horrible crime like this one, then I absolutely think they should be in prison as it is the most effective place to keep them so that they can do no further harm to society.

But as GL suggested ... how and where do you draw the line of what is "insane" and what isn't? I guess that's why Psychiatrists get paid the big bucks. Let's hope they know what they're doing.

I don't think she is a harm to society. But she did kill her children. I think life in prison, with nothing to do everyday but think about what she did, is the most torturous punishment she could have received. And I think Rusty should be sitting right next to her.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:25 pm

ChiOCat wrote:I don't think she is a harm to society. But she did kill her children. I think life in prison, with nothing to do everyday but think about what she did, is the most torturous punishment she could have received. And I think Rusty should be sitting right next to her.

I guess that falls just about 180 degrees from my philosophy. If she's not a harm to society (which I actually think she is, until proven otherwise), then I see no reason for taxpayer dollars to go to lock her up, keep her from having any positive impact on society, just so she can dwell on something that she (if she's no longer crazy) would certainly be dwelling on regardless of what we did to her.

I'm not sure there is a punishment that we can inflict that exceeds the pain of knowing that she did what she did. If she's a danger to society, lock her up one way or another. If she's not ... then let her try to do something positive with her life (and save us the cost of locking her up ... and maybe even have her get a job to start paying taxes again).

If we want to punish her beyond the time where she is deemed to not be a danger to society, I think lots and lots of legitimate community service is a much better answer than prison ... it's cheaper (and potentially even beneficial to society), and doesn't just let a person waste away sitting on their ass in prison.

But if they are a danger to society, then I say lock them up and remove them from society.

Billings_Griz · Post by **Billings_Griz** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:34 pm

I'm a firm believer in an eye for an eye.

LTown Cat · Post by **LTown Cat** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:40 pm

Billings_Griz wrote:I'm a firm believer in an eye for an eye.

Me too, especially when kids were involved. Right or wrong I think she deserves the death penalty more than most serial killers.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:01 pm

I don't know ... I think a messed up woman who kills her own kids because her view of reality is so distorted she thinks she's doing it out of love (which is often how these people see things) is a little less deserving of the death penalty than a person who murders people for the thrill of it.

LTown Cat · Post by **LTown Cat** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:04 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:I don't know ... I think a messed up woman who kills her own kids because her view of reality is so distorted she thinks she's doing it out of love (which is often how these people see things) is a little less deserving of the death penalty than a person who murders people for the thrill of it.

A lot of serial killers think they are doing their victims' a favor or saving them. In the same sense that she thought she was doing something right. Bottom line is that you don't get any more innocent of a victim(s) than hers. Sad part is that "hers" is both plural and possessive.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:35 pm

Interesting only from a legal standpoint, this case only applied to 3 of the 5 kids that she killed. So apparently the state has the option of trying her in the deaths of the other two kids and see if they have better luck in the jury lottery next time around. It will be interesting to see if they pursue that route.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 5:11 pm

Some additional background on the case:

http://www.slate.com/id/111419/

bozbobcat · Post by **bozbobcat** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:46 pm

She needed some major help, and it was almost a crime that she didn't get the help that she needed. But I don't care if she claimed to be insane when she killed her kids, she still killed her 5 kids. And if that was a man who did that, he'd be in the express lane to the electric chair. Excuse the nature of that comment; I know it's just about awful to say that. Insane or not, she really should get an extremely heavy sentence for what she did.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:48 pm

BAC/GL

i honestly dont see how we can overreact on most occasions to a animal (not human to kill your kids...) kills all its children. Insaine? not really. to be insaine means not of sound mind, which she was because she was operating normally, raising kids, homeschooling kids, without any appearant issues.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:57 pm

Hell's Bells wrote:BAC/GL

i honestly dont see how we can overreact on most occasions to a animal (not human to kill your kids...) kills all its children. Insaine? not really. to be insaine means not of sound mind, which she was because she was operating normally, raising kids, homeschooling kids, without any appearant issues.

The suicide attempts and diagnoses of psychosis weren't "apparent issues?" Did you read that link I posted? Here it is again: http://www.slate.com/id/111419/ She was a messed up lady before the final act ... and it should have been obvious to those around her. And in retrospect, it certainly seems hard to make a case as you do that she was "of sound mind."

I personally think a lot of blame should be laid on the husband and anyone else that didn't keep the lady away from her kids when it was so clear that she was possibly a danger to them.

But at the same time, people want to think the best of their loved ones, and never imagine that they "will really do something like that." I happen to know a very loving and good family that went through the exact same thing, so it's hard to point any fingers and instead you just have to look at the whole situation as incredibly sad.

I personally think just dismissing someone like this as an "animal" is the easy way out of a very difficult conversation ... and one that I don't think has any easy answers of any kind.

Billings_Griz · Post by **Billings_Griz** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:24 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:I don't know ... I think a messed up woman who kills her own kids because her view of reality is so distorted she thinks she's doing it out of love (which is often how these people see things) is a little less deserving of the death penalty than a person who murders people for the thrill of it.

I'm not going to get into an internet pissing match w/ you, and believe it or not, respect your opinion. But she killed 5 kids-HER OWN KIDS. Crazy or not, she deserves to die.

Jeffery Dahmer met his fate, too bad this dumb biotch won't.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:49 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:
Hell's Bells wrote:BAC/GL

i honestly dont see how we can overreact on most occasions to a animal (not human to kill your kids...) kills all its children. Insaine? not really. to be insaine means not of sound mind, which she was because she was operating normally, raising kids, homeschooling kids, without any appearant issues.
The suicide attempts and diagnoses of psychosis weren't "apparent issues?" Did you read that link I posted? Here it is again: http://www.slate.com/id/111419/ She was a messed up lady before the final act ... and it should have been obvious to those around her. And in retrospect, it certainly seems hard to make a case as you do that she was "of sound mind."

I personally think a lot of blame should be laid on the husband and anyone else that didn't keep the lady away from her kids when it was so clear that she was possibly a danger to them.

But at the same time, people want to think the best of their loved ones, and never imagine that they "will really do something like that." I happen to know a very loving and good family that went through the exact same thing, so it's hard to point any fingers and instead you just have to look at the whole situation as incredibly sad.

I personally think just dismissing someone like this as an "animal" is the easy way out of a very difficult conversation ... and one that I don't think has any easy answers of any kind.

cant call someone like her human. only in the wild does anything eat their young, and usually its the male of the species if it occurs at all. making sure your loved ones are alive, especially children, is a instinct we all have.