Today a jury found Andrea Yates not quilty for the drowning deaths of her five children. Just wondering how everyone feels about that. I've got mixed emotions. Yes, I do think she was insane but no I don't think she should ever be free to walk the streets. I just hope her stay in the mental hospital is a very very long one.
Jury: Yates not guilty by reason of insanity
Mother who drowned her five children to be committed to mental hospital
I have very mixed feelings about it too. Maybe she lost her mind when she started drowning her children but you would think that before she killed the fifth one she would have come to her senses and realized what she was doing was so wrong. If she will not be serving her time in prison I certainly believe her stay in a mental institution should be for life.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to LucyLou For This Useful Post:
I think its a good verdict. I imagine, if she is not pyschotic anymore, she is in her own private hell.
I would like to slap her husband. Whoops, ex-husband. The newlywed.
A mother would have to be insane or on some really bad drugs. I belive that even God fearing people have mental problems that are uncontrolable if not on the right medacation. I have always said that you never know what going thru another persons mind. I am sure if she is on the right medication that she is feeling as bad about what she did as a person could feel. I just pray that she gets the help she needs and that she ask God to forgive her for what and why she did it. JMO
PawPaws Darling
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AUFAN For This Useful Post:
I don't think that "not guilty by reason of insanity" should be an option. I think the better option is "guilty by reason of insanity." I agree that something was mentally wrong with her but that shouldn't be a defense. To me, it's all the more reason that society should be protected from her or anyone else who uses this defense in a murder case.
"My grandma rides a Harley"
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Polly For This Useful Post:
I don't think that "not guilty by reason of insanity" should be an option. I think the better option is "guilty by reason of insanity." I agree that something was mentally wrong with her but that shouldn't be a defense. To me, it's all the more reason that society should be protected from her or anyone else who uses this defense in a murder case.
If you have no control over yourself and can't determine between right and wrong... I don't think a person should be held responsible for their actions. It's a hard fact... and I think it should be used VERY VERY rarely. But this seems like an appropriate case for that defense.
A person can't help being insane.
Life is something that you can't control.
When you try to hold on to it, it makes you let go!
If you have no control over yourself and can't determine between right and wrong... I don't think a person should be held responsible for their actions. It's a hard fact... and I think it should be used VERY VERY rarely. But this seems like an appropriate case for that defense.
A person can't help being insane.
I didn't say she could help it. The very fact that she can't help it is all the more reason she shouldn't be freed. It's not so much a matter of punishing her as it is a matter of protecting others. I still contend that the verdict should be GUILTY by reason of insanity.
Last edited by Polly; 07-26-2006 at 21:40 PM.
"My grandma rides a Harley"
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Polly For This Useful Post:
I think its a good verdict. I imagine, if she is not pyschotic anymore, she is in her own private hell.
I would like to slap her husband. Whoops, ex-husband. The newlywed.
PawPaws Darling
