Join The Debate!

Arm Chair quaterbacking

It is easy for a man to sit back and postulate about the guilt of a woman regarding reproduction, child rearing and or birthing.

If there were true justice, her husband would have been on trial also. Until you read the history of their life together you cannot sit back idly and say the second jury was wrong.

http://crime.about.com/od/current/p/andreayates.htm

"In March of 2000, Andrea, on Rusty's urging, became pregnant and stopped taking the Haldol. On November 30, 2000, Mary was born. Andrea was coping but on March 12, her father died and immediately her mental state digressed. She stopped talking, refused liquids, mutilated herself, and would not feed Mary. She also frantically read the Bible."

Maybe religious fundamentalists should be held to task here. It takes two parents to make a family work. He knew she was unstable but left her alone with 5 children between the ages of 4 months and 7 years old.

Comparing Andrea yates to Susan Smith is not exactly a fair argument. Where Smith killed her children in cold blood and tried to blame it on someone else, Yates picked up the phone, called 911. Comparing her to an Islamic terrorist isn't exactly a fair assessment either, after all, she did not set her sights on other people's destruction in mass proportion because they did not agree with her religion.

The woman is sick and has been sick for a long time. My opinion may change if she is miraculously cured in the next year and she returns to society a new woman. But at this point I believe the insanity defense was used correctly.

Not guilty by reason of being female

What is typical in this case is the numbers of those whiteknights on their white horses and others who jump to the defense of this "woman" and of course try to blame her husband or some other man in her life, because as we are supposed to understand, no woman is guilty of anything because whatever she did it is the fault of some "man". Why? Because we just "know" that no woman or mother would do to a child what Yates did to hers. If she does, then of course she has to be insane and is cureable and of course it HAS to be the fault of her husband. "He" forced her to become pregnant, "He" forced her to stop taking her medications. Its allways a "he" who is guilty. Not a mother, not a woman.

One of the basic tenents of feminism is that women are the eternal victims of the patriarchy. That whatever bad thing a woman does, its the result of that woman reacting to some bad thing done or forced upon her by some bad man. She isnt bad, she isnt evil and if she did happen to do some evil thing, well, of course, she has to be insane and would never do it again. Unless of course some evil man forces her.

Amen to the article- Guilty *AND* Insane

Hey Conrad,

Here's a woman's perspective on reproduction, child rearing and or birthing: GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!

It's the same when men claim they have no say over a woman's "right to choose", because it's not their body. It's a cop out. Things are right, or they're wrong.

Killing your babies, no matter how sad or pitiful or downtrodden you think your life may be, is wrong. Even if Satan personally talked her into it, it was still wrong. I can agree that she was insane, she'd have to be to kill her precious babies. She is still responsible. It was her hands that held her babies (fighting for their lives!) under the water until their lives expired.

So she was isolated, under pressure of religious fundamentalism, blah, blah, blah. Excuses. There are plenty of women who can't even have kids. They would have been thrilled to adopt them.

Not Guilty by reason of insanity is a crap shoot created by a morally relatavistic society. Her husband may be guilty of being a fool, but she's guilty of murder.

Amen to the article- Guilty *AND* Insane

Hey Conrad,

Here's a woman's perspective on reproduction, child rearing and or birthing: GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!!

It's the same when men claim they have no say over a woman's "right to choose", because it's not their body. It's a cop out. Things are right, or they're wrong.

Killing your babies, no matter how sad or pitiful or downtrodden you think your life may be, is wrong. Even if Satan personally talked her into it, it was still wrong. I can agree that she was insane, she'd have to be to kill her precious babies. She is still responsible. It was her hands that held her babies (fighting for their lives!) under the water until their lives expired.

So she was isolated, under pressure of religious fundamentalism, blah, blah, blah. Excuses. There are plenty of women who can't even have kids. They would have been thrilled to adopt them.

Not Guilty by reason of insanity is a crap shoot created by a morally relatavistic society. Her husband may be guilty of being a fool, but she's guilty of murder.

Insanity Defense

I agree with Mike and I never could understand the Not Guilty by reason of Insanity plea. It always seemed like a contradiction in terms. It should be "Guilty by reason of Insanity". That way the "Guilty" would always remain even if the person miraculously returned to functional mental health. The bottom line is, it's another example of Liberal Lawyering. When will these Liberal Lawyers ever reap their just rewards ???? They have gone after the Medical Profession, our many successful businesses, Tobacco Companies and Drug Companies, . What goes around must some day come around and I'm just waiting for their turn to come !!

Murdering Mother of 5

Mike is absolutely right on all counts. She is a murderer, period. She planned it and she executed it in cold blood, while her trusting children could not overpower her and while her husband was gone. And yes, Rusty is also to blame. But there are many pathetic families out there, just like the Yates family, and as long as we pander to the peaceniks and other idiots, we will continue to have things like family murders and a nonsensical defense for headline-hungry lawyers to chew on. It's pathetic.

But then what do I know...

“I guess our enemy terrorists are just depressed people in dire need of medications. “ Mike Gallagher
I generally agree with Gallagher’s opinions but it is a stretch to compare her to the extremist terrorists in such a lose way. I do however agree that there needs to be a “Guilty but Insane” verdict that allows for the continued punishment of offenders once they have received the mental assistance they need. Andrea Yates has major mental issues that very few of us out here in the world are capable of truly understanding. Like Conrad, my opinion might change if she is released from treatment in a short period of time but all in all she is exactly where she needs to be. As to the terrorists … maybe Gallagher is right when he states the above…ok, maybe they don’t need medication but they are to some degree depressed or maybe repressed people in dire need of new leadership. Too many of them have been indoctrinated into the cult of terrorism in the disguise of religion and are just as bad off as the people of Jonestown that drank the Kool-Aid.

Andrea Yates

Bleeding heart liberals will make all kinds of excuses for ''Andrea Yates'' and they will call the rest of us cold hearted and say we have no compassion when we speak badly of this woman. I think Andrea should have a date with Old Sparky ending her life on the same date she killed her kids. I'm sorry but I can't get it out of my head those 5 dead kids in a bath tub. Just imagine what those kids went through, it just hurts too much to think about it. As for her ex-hubby ''Rusty Yates'' he's a brain dead idiot. I will bet 6 yrs down the road he will divorce his wife now, and remarry Andrea when she gets out so they can start a new family. God I hope I'm wrong.

Pennsylvania has "guilty b/mentally ill"

I can't believe other states don't present "guilty but mentally ill" as an option in these cases. The standard of proof is that the defendant knew he or she was doing something wrong; specifically such as killing her children, but acted under an irresistable compulsion from a mental illness. With this verdict, you get mental helath treatment, but there is a conviction and a sentence to prison. The true insanity defense requires that the defendant not have understood "the nature or quality of the act," such as believing that he was killing insects or something other than human beings. I can't understand how this defense worked here, unless Texas doesn't offer "guilty but mentally ill."

Terrorist equivalence

Now drawing the parallel to terrorists is a bit much.

Yates was clearly out of her mind to do what she did, while terrorists have allowed a hateful ideology to warp their minds so that they think what they are doing is right.

Andrea Yates, if it is possible to imagine it, actually loved her children back in her sane world. Insanity made her a monster, but it can be argued that her descent into insanity was not an act of will.

To the extent that Islamists are raised in hate from the cradle, their mass insanity is no more an act of will than that of the Hitler Youth. It is taught to them and they submit to the authority of their teachers. So you could argue that their type of 'self-chosen' group psychosis is actually no more an act of will than Yates' random psychotic break.

But the main difference is we can see it coming from Islam and fight the insanity with words, intelligence work and every weapon at our disposal. Rusty probably knew his wife was going off the rails. But I am dead certain he could not have predicted the kind of mayhem that was coming.

We knew the Islamists were itching to murder us. Rusty got blindsided. His knowledge that his wife needed help probably did not countenance the possibility that she would murder his entire family. We say that 9/11 was 'unthinkable.' But was it really? I could have told you the kind of savages we were dealing with years before 9/11.

But a mother physically drowning her five children, one by one, is truly unthinkable. Since it is unthinkable, who are we to shake our fingers at Rusty and say, "Why didn't you think of this?"

Andrea Yates, whether insane or sane, needs to be kept from the rest of society because of what she did. Guilty by reason of insanity is exactly what she is. Count me in favor of adding this legal outcome.

But although I absolutely hate Islamists, and if I were standing behind one I'd shoot him down without waiting for him to turn around, I cannot bring myself to hate Andrea Yates. I'm in favor of closing Club Gitmo. For the cost of a couple thousand bullets, it can be done. Every one of those men, when every last bit of useful information has been wrung out of them, should be shot in the interest of saving innocent lives.

My hatred for Islamic fascism has actually spilled over into extreme dislike for all things Islamic. I'm convinced that Islam itself is the source of the mass psychosis known to many as Islamic fascism. So maybe I'm in a bit of a psychotic break myself. I restrain my urge to slap liberals whenever they make a particularly silly argument. I restrain my urge to punch a Muslim if I see one out with his veiled wife in public.

But I don't have a desire to shoot, slap or punch Andrea Yates. It may be that the best thing for her and the public is to execute her. At the very least she should not be released into the public. But for all my revulsion at her unthinkable brutality toward her own children--by definition an act even more monstrous than a terrorist killing women and children he does not know--I really believe she was madder than a hatter when she did it.

'Guilty by reason of insanity' does not necessarily mean the guilty party should not be executed. But we must have clarity about the reason for the existence of the death penalty. Some say it is for 'revenge.' Some say it is a just punishment. Some say it is for deterrence. Some say it is to protect the public from any more mayhem from the one being executed. It may be some of these things, or a little bit of each. In Yates' case, the death penalty seems to fit the crime, but as revenge or deterrence it seems almost as crazy as Andrea Yates herself.

You can't deter a crazy person, and revenge, even collective revenge, doesn't seem to be a sufficient motive by itself. I'd say this mad woman's insanity not only should ensure a 'guilty by reason of insanity' verdict, but should probably spare her the death penalty.

Islamic fascism, whose practitioners are guilty by reason of brainwashing, can't be excused in the same way. They are not random nuts that can be contained. Can you imagine a nuthouse big enough and well-armed enough to handle all the Islamofascist crazies out there? That is, the ones unlucky enough to actually be taken before they can get their finger to the button on their explosive vest?

It would be like having the world's largest prison chock full of Hannibal Lecters, each one looking for an opportunity to wreak havoc.

Nope. We don't even give these walking train wrecks a trial. The only good one is a dead one.

Apples and oranges, Mike. Try again.

GUILTY!!!

Guilty is guilty is guilty....It all comes back to personal responsibility. I think the whole insanity plea is a cop out. Insane, temorary insanity, whatever. Ok, so she has problems, it somebody elses fault, right?? If this woman, or anyone else for that matter, is crazy enough to kill her own flesh and blood, then the world would be better off without her either way. As far as the husband goes, he screwed up, from what I have heard his mother or her mother was usually there to watch over her and help her take care of the children. All it takes is one slip, maybe the other caretaker was running a little late and he figured she would be ok for a short time. She was obviously sane enough to wait untill he left before filling the tub and carying out the murders.

jmadison

Well said! From the beginning of this case I felt that Andrea Yates was insane and would be best served in a state mental institution rather than a state prison. Unfortunately, the state of Texas like many other states does not have a guilty but insane option, so the only way for Mrs. Yates to argue her obvious mental deficiency was to use the insanity defense. What dissapoints me most about this article and some of the posts today is the idea that the justice system is broken. I don't quite seem to remember hearing this lament when Karl Rove was not indicted or when the court in New York upheld existing marriage laws; then the system was working perfectly! We should not get caught up in the typical hypocrisy of the left whereby we only like our justice system when it serves our purposes, and want to 'fix' it when we get a decision that we don't like. As for the complaints about the defense lawyers, what is the beef? They are after all defense lawyers and their job is to defend their client, not look for justice...justice is what the prosecutor is supposed to be about. But even most prosecutors know that justice is only a by product of the judicial system; there are plenty of cases where justice is never really done. And is Park Dietz hadn't lied about Andrea Yates copying something she saw on an episode of "Law & Order" that din't exist, and if the prosecutors had done a bit more research into his claim instead of taking it at face value then the conviction probably would have stood; but you cannot be about justice if you think that it is okay to convict someone on perjured testimony. I wonder if everyone would be so supportive of a jury verdict if Tom Delay were sent to a Texas prison on the strength of perjured testimony?

While what happened was tragic, and some of us may not have gotten the verdict that we wanted, we need to be careful about rushing to chanfe things every time we get a decision we don't like! While our judicial system may not be perfect, it is the best one going anywhere.

Testimony

Clarification for Flagwaver, Dr. Dietz did not lie regarding the Law&Order episode; as a consultant to TV shows, he had read many scripts, and had read a similiar show about cases of women drowning her children, claiming insanity. It was one question, out of the blue, which his reference was inaccurate. It was reported that the jury members stated that this one answer was not the basis for the guilty verdict, nor did it influence them, as the preponderance of evidence, along with his and other witness testimony proved her guilt. That the Supreme Court of Texas ignored the first jury's well reasoned verdict was and is a miscarriage of justice.
And given Karl Rove did nothing illegal, given the sworn testimony of Novak, your rant reveals your bias, not the legal systems failures.

There is Justice for the Yates Children

one she is a premeditated murder and her husband should have been charged with child endangerment at the least. Russel Yates testifed that he know she was stressed out beyond the norm. So what does he do he locks her up with 5 kids. Who is the else should in jail. I live in the Houston area and this whole thing is a crime. The Court system needs to be put on trail that would allow a crime like this to go . I am praying that they they charge her on the other two children and don't get such horrorable jury. That jury needs to be put on trail. In the Texas system all she needs is on Doctor to say she is ok and she walks. These MONSTERS needs to never ever see the light of day.

make the Judical System

like the US Military process.

You get ONE appeal to the next higher authority and they review it for technical completeness and to insure that the lawyer was competent, nothing more.

Then a swift execution of sentence.

Yates executed her children, she should have gotten the same. Then, the libs would not be able to twist their hankies over her, she'd be pushing up daisies, which is where she belongs.

Her husband should be neutered for continuing to have kids with this kook.

Not Guilty?

Time out a minute here!

Those of you (including FOX News' Geraldo Rivera) who are blaming the husband as well--even to the point of putting HIM in jail for HER murders--are off base here.

ANDREA YATES murdered her kids. PERIOD. Just like the woman in South Carolina who drowned her kids, then claimed a "black man" did it (later found untrue), Yates gets off free because she's a woman and has a condition "unique" to women. As other posters her pointed out, it seems that the verdict in suc cases has become not "not guilty by reason of insanity", but "not guilty because of woman". Yes, I realize that mental institutions aren't a country club--but why should someone who commits such a heinous act be allowed to go there, instead of either the penitentiary or the chair?

P.S. Where else have we seen "not guilty because of woman"--the double standard whereby a man under the same circumstances get a much harsher penalty? Female teachers dating/seeing male students (she gets off or at worst gets fired; male teacher in same scene gets long jail time and is on sex-offender list).
Anyone think of any other examples?

Andrea Yates

This woman should have been subjected to the same fate she forced her children to endure. This was not a crime of passion, this was a premeditated act, the jury's verdict was wrong, and the judge involved should be dismissed from the bench, and subjected to imprisonment.

Andrea Yates: Childless

"Guiltiness will speak though tongues were out of use." ~ Shakespeare

A a jury reached the verdict of "Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity" in the retrial of Andrea Yates, who methodically murdered her five children on June 20, 2001, by drowning them in the bathtub of her suburban Houston home. The children ranged in age from 6 months to 7 years.

Despite the pseudo-psycho attempts by journalists, lawyers, academics, and so-called mental health professionals to justify her actions and her claim of insanity, this does not negate her responsibility in ending the lives of five innocent children, her own flesh and blood.

Undoubtedly, she has a history of suicide attempts and bouts of depression. Hell! Many millions of people suffer from bouts of depression and many hundreds of thousands think about or attempt suicide. What they don’t do, however, is methodically plan to murder their innocent children within a certain timeframe (before the mother-in-law is due to arrive), in a particular order so as to ensure that the oldest doesn’t alert the youngest, and then wait until the murders have been committed before calling their spouses and the police.

Laws regarding insanity vary from state to state. In Texas, one can only be found insane if the defendant is insane AND incapable of knowing right from wrong. To say that one is "mentally ill" does not necessarily render that individual guiltless. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t know what they were doing.

Consider the following:

Andrea dragged her children, one-by-one, away from the breakfast table, forcibly held them underwater as they struggled and gasped for air, drowned them, and then carried their limp and lifeless bodies and spread them out on her bed, covering their bodies with sheets. The first three to be murdered were Luke David, aged 2; Paul Abraham, aged 3 ½; and John Samuel, aged 5 ½. The fourth child to be drowned was Mary Deborah, aged 6 months. When Noah Jack, the fifth child, aged 7, saw Mary in the tub, he asked his mother, "What’s wrong with Mary?" It was at this point that little Noah realized what was happening and attempted to flee. His mother chased him down, dragged him back into the bathroom, and drowned him in the tub next to Mary’s floating body. She testified that he fought desperately (as confirmed by the bruises on his body), came up twice for air, and she held him down until he was dead. Leaving Noah in the tub, she carried Mary to the bed and laid her in the arms of her brother, John.

A mother may be tired, stressed, fatigued, depressed, and even suicidal. Such extremes, however, do not render a person incapable of deciding right from wrong. A person always has free will to decide how to respond to certain situations. With Andrea’s medical history and the medical advice given, she knew that she shouldn’t have any more children. She knew that she had issues with depression. She knew that she needed to take her medication, but she freely made the decision to stop taking it.

Taking all of this into consideration, however, she still committed five heinous acts of homicide. She, Andrea Yates, committed the crimes, not her mental illness. Five children, buried side-by-side, point to her guilt. If she were not guilty, they would still be alive. She is a killer, and no amount of excuses can remove her from moral culpability for her crimes. Anyone suggesting otherwise will also tell you that a gun kills, when, in fact, it’s the man behind the gun that kills. Likewise, the water didn’t kill the children. Their mother did.

She also contradicts herself by saying that Satan "made her do it," while also claiming that she killed the children to "keep them from going to hell." Now, I ask you, why would Satan ask her to kill her children so that they would go to heaven? Last time I checked, Satan wants us to go to hell. The more souls the better.

I wish someone could explain to me how, while there’s no definitive evidence to support such claims, that psychiatry always seeks to explain an individual’s bad behavior by claiming that it’s some disease. And why is it that, whenever someone hears voices, the voices always command that some evil deed be done? I’ve even heard recently some mumbo jumbo about road rage being attributed to some disease. Reality check! Murderers are murderers, and bad drivers are bad drivers. Period. No excuses apply!

Children:

Noah Jack, born on February 26, 1994
John Samuel, born on December 15, 1995
A miscarriage in November, 1996
Paul Abraham, born on September 13, 1997
Luke David, born on February 15, 1999
Mary Deborah, born on November 30, 2000

"However we may pity the mother whose health and even life is imperiled by performance of her natural duty, there yet remains no sufficient reason for condoning the direct murder of the innocent."

~ Pope Pius XI ~

From my ksreaganiteblog on texas justice

Next time you are tempted to strangle your kids out of frustration (and I think all sane parents have that passing thought once in a while!), please move to Texas. If you end up following through on your frustration, chances are that the state will pay for your mental hospital stay and then let you go home once some quack shrink certifies you “recovered”. Yep, that’s what Andrea Yates, the cold blooded murderer of her five children, gets. Not one day in prison, not a dime in fines, not an hour of community service.


Not that it should surprise too many people. For all its reputation of a conservative law and order place, the Lone Star state has a strange record of punishing those who harm children. Couple of years ago a thirty some year old teacher was found guilty of statutory rape of a fourteen year old. You know what happened? A fan of Texas like me had a hard time believing it: Thirty days jail time. The child conceived as a result of this statutory rape was given to the rapist while the young victim was ordered to pay child support and required to stay away from the child!! A Texas state judge made these orders with a straight face. I am not kidding!


Many liberals support killing unborn children. Seems that many conservative Texas judges and juries don’t particularly mind the killing of toddlers or the rape of teenagers.

"THE SYSTEM WORKED?"

Sorry, you are sadly mistaken. As I stated on Mona Charen's column, this woman, knowing full well what she was doing was wrong, drowned her five childrein in a quintuple murder spree. Called the police. Waited for them. When they arrived, was fully cognizant of the fact that what she did was wrong all the while professing that she knew she would be punished.
Insanity?
Hardly. Not even close to the standard that is to be applied to an insanity defense. Again, as I stated in my other posting, the only people guilty of insanity are the 12 members of this jury.
"The system worked." What a joke.

A Houstonian's perspective

I live in Houston and was horrified when I first heard about the murder of these five innocent children.. I wanted Andrea Yates to be put to death. But after in-depth reading about the case, my opinion has changed. Andrea had post-partum psychosis with features of schizophrenia. She'd had this before. Her doctor had warned both her and her husband Rusty not to have any more children. Sadly, they ignored that doctor's advice. Just 20 days before the murders, Andrea's psychiatrist took her off anti-psychotic mediation. She became non-verbal and would stand in front of the television, staring at cartoons for hours. I don't think you can compare Andrea's crime with that of Susan Smith or to Al Qaida's terrorists. We're talking post-partum psychosis! I do agree that there should be a guilty but insane verdict but unfortunately that is not now an option in Texas. I also think Rusty Yates is culpable in the death of his children. He had to know what was going on. Actually, most people I know think Rusty is creepy. There's something off about him.

Texas

You know I'm surprised that this case went this way in Texas, the home of the fast track to capital punishment.

Why the disconnect?

I believe one of Bush's last execution clemency requests was from a woman who murdered just one person? My memory is surely wrong, but didn't she plead clemency because of insanity or some such, Bush denied her anyway, she was executed, and nobody in Texas made a fuss? I don't think her crime was as bad killing five children, so it is defintely hard for those of us not from Texas to reconcile the two cases. Most of the liberals who lobby against executions do so because they are against capital punishment in general, not due to specifics of the case or "insanity" pleas. Although I do believe even in Texas there has to be demonstarted a minimal IQ in order to be executed?

One thought I had was "you had to be there." This is a good time to bring up the OJ trial. I did follow the OJ trial and it was clear from all the evidence presented he was guilty as all hell. Yet he got off. I'm not up on the Yates case and have no opinion. However, I wonder if the correct view is one of failure not problems with the "insanity" plea. In other words, OJ bought his way out with jury selection and lawyers. I just wonder if the system failed in this case and the problem isn't the insanity plea. Especially considering this is Texas.

America's view today on the OJ trial today is one I think the founder's intended. That is to say, the system is not perfect and people will slip through the cracks, he's a free man entitled to what he is doing now. However, our imperfect system is still desired. No one is arguing to change the system because OJ gamed it. No one has done a vigilante act to kill OJ because of perceived disgust with failures in the system. It is understood the system is imperfect by all Americans. There are bad public prosecutors out there.

Yates appears like a player given what I know from the case. I wonder if she was just gaming the system and got the verdict she wanted by premeditated acting? I wonder if the prosecutor was as incompetent as in the OJ trial? Maybe what's needed is a national referendum on incompetent trial lawyers and more money put into public prosecuters? Just speculating.

I think if the verdict had been guilty in the first degree and the death penalty given, Texans would've been fine with it. I don't think George Soros was funding her defense attorney so its not like liberals as a group were trying to get her off. I think it is an isolated case of probably misscarried justice. For sure during the sentencing phase if she had been found guilty, liberals against all capital punishment would've lobbied on her behalf, but I find it hard to fathom that liberals orchestrated an organized lobby to obtain this insanity plea on Yates behalf. Sounds like to me this was just a system break-down.

But like I said, I'm not up on the case.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT

That Rusty Yates IS as culpable as his wife. That post partum depression is a REAL monster.
However, before one starts throwing around terms like "borderline retardation" and "sounding silly and juvenile" I would suggest one pick up a book or two or three and educate oneself about the foundation of the insanity defense in both this country,the United Kingdom as well as all common law, The McNaughton Defense. That was replaced by the more "liberal" Durham Defense. That(the Durham Defense) was THROWN OUT by the Federal Court.
It specifically details the essence of guilty by reason of insanity or diminished capacity.None of which apply here to this particular case.

RE: Rusty was more criminally negligent

Your position is not ethically tenable. For precisely the same reason it is not ethically tenable to throw mothers in jail for the crime of drinking during her pregnancy and causing fetal alcohol syndrome. "If a woman drinks alcohol during her pregnancy, her baby can be born with FAS, a lifelong condition that causes physical and mental disabilities. FAS is characterized by abnormal facial features, growth deficiencies, and central nervous system (CNS) problems."

If our society started throwing every pregnant women in jail for behaviors during pregnancy that hurt the child, millions of babies would be without their mothers, jails would be overflowing, and society would gain nothing. How is a convicted felon going to care for her kids when she gets out of jail? What job? If the husband knows the wife is drinking during the pregnancy, is he culpable too? Should he be thrown in jail?

Andrea was not diaganosed insane prior to this verdict. Given that we must legally assume Andrea is soley legally responsible for her actions. Unless of course the drug company has billions of dollars and Rusty can sue for millions in civil court because the drugs she was taking hurt her. However, I somehow thing think she was taking standard medicine for her problem.

California is up against a serious problem. Why? The state prison system is holding twice as many prisoners as the system has capacity. One of the downsides is that recitivism is up because programs that train prisoners to acclimate back into the culture once released are over capacity and therefore not attended. Justice has to balance what's doable for society with punishment and what's practical for society. We are schitzophrenic when it comes to justice. Liberals create problems in the justice system by being to leniant. Conservatives by being to harsh. Today California suffers from the latter whereby the prisons are over flowing. Soon sentences will have to be cut to accomodate new prisoners. Conservatives will scream liberal judges are being lenient and the cycle continues.

Justice is imperfect. Justice at best keeps the common man in check so as to afford general prosperity and security. Justice cannot be about punishment of every perceived wrong else we'd all end up in jail at some point, if for no other reason than stopping someone we know from doing something irresponsible. Both the left and the right are guilty of treating the justice system in an ideal, utopian fashion when in fact the cost of prisons, the cost to society and recitivism mandates that prisons be used to find some balance of punishment vs. cost.

MY OLD ALGEBRA TEACHER TOLD ME

in his thick Hungarian accent an axiom which has stayed with me for many years.
"You can't add monkeys and elephants." On both this site and Mona Charens site today I heard the liberal "new math" pontificating on such matters.
There is no doubt this woman, Andrea Yates has problems.What has got the sane readers so hot and bothered is the very system that has legally absolved her of this horrific crime. I'm quite sure she will NOT see the street again for a very long time but this decision, all the same, seems to take the onus of this act off her and her husband and puts squarely in the realm of the old, "it's not my fault. Post partum made me do it."
The rule this is judged by, the McNaughton rule clearly states that "at the time of the act the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as to not know the nature and quality of the act or if he did know it, did not know what he was doing was wrong."
Andrea Yates upon killing her five children displayed none of this. She called the police. Waited for them. Upon arrival proclaimed that what she did was indeed wrong and she fully expected punishment for it.
The Durham rule,which was overturned and eventually rejected by the Federal Courts states" that an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act is result of mental disease or mental defect."
The Court, rightly so, overturned this definition of guilt by reason of insanity for the broad definition which would include alcholics, and people under the influence of drugs. People like Andrea Yates.
In all the new liberal relativism that I have read today in rebuttal to prevailing point of view I see new formulas equating the deaths of the five Yates children with death in Lebanon, Israel, Darfur et cetera,et cetera, ad nauseum.
Yates children + Darfur + Lebanon+ Israel + Iraq + all the rest of us = complicity.
I'll take compassionate conservatism over relativist new math and the myriad of "different truths" any day. It's not mental illness. It's the excuses one tries to put over for it when it is clearly not called for. Like in this instance.

Sad but true

"I truly believe that there are many people who fail to believe that there is true evil in the world."

This makes me sick

Perp commits horrible act, is tried, found guilt but gets another bite at "justice."

Everything is geared to the guilty person. No thought in court for the victims.

I thought 'not guilty by reason of insanity' was for when you found your spouse sleeping with someone. Temp insanity - you kill them but you are NOT REALLY A DANGER TO ANYONE ELSE.

Yates will only spend as much time in a mental hospital until someone lets her out. And you know it will happen.

What I want to ask the panel that will release her is this: Would you let Andrea watch your kids for an hour? If the answer is no, then you know SHE IS GUILTY and should be in prison.

Cause let me tell you - I wouldn't let her within a mile of any child EVER!

Re: braindoc

What bias am I supposed to be exhbibting in my post? A bias in favor of nottrying to 'fix' the legal system evry time a verdict comes down the pike? If that is the bias you see, fine I'll own that one, because I don't believe that the system is so broken that it needs to be radically changed!

If the bias is supposedly one in favor of respecting the work of defense attorneys, I'll own that one too. See, I have had a loved one in the dock for a 1st degree manslaughter that even the cops said was a justifiable homicide, but he was prosecuted anyway because the D.A. felt she had to show she was tough on crime. He was put on trial, had his name dragged through thr mud so that a prosecutor could try to score some political points. The best thing he had going for him was a well qualified, zealous advocate that stood in court to defend him. Thanks to that defense attorney, my loved one walked away free, but he will never be able to totally reclaim his good name.

As for Karl Rove, I know he did nothing wrong; I simply used his case as an example to show how when one of ours is in the dock and gets the result we think is right, we have no problem with the system. But the minute we get a result that we think is wrong, like Andrea Yates or even OJ Simpson, the cry is raised that the system is broken and needs to be revamped. Now as to my personal feelings, I have no doubt that OJ killed Nicole and Ron, and I have no would have no problem with a guilty but insane verdict where Andrea Yates went first to a mental hospital then to prison. That would be justice, but since the statutes in Texas do not allow that, then this is the only alternative that the jury felt was right. My point being that we as conservatives cannot be all for the rule of law when it suits us, we cannot hold up juries and the jury system reverentially only when we like the outcomes in certain cases and then start screaming like scalded dogs about changing the system when verdicts come down that we do not like.

As to Park Dietz and his false testimony, here is what FoxNews.com had to say about it:

"Dietz told jurors that before the crimes occured in 2001, an episode of the television show 'Law and Order' aired about a mentally ill woman who drowned her children and was found innocent by reason of insanity.
Dietz, who has been a technical consultant for the show, suggested the Texas mother got the idea from the episode, but a defense lawyer later said he was told by the show's executive producer that no such episode ever aired.
Prosecutor Joe Owmby mentioned Dietz's refernce to the episode in his closing arguments, but later said the psychiatrist had been confused and had erred."

Also formm FoxNews.com, the Texas Court of Appeals said the folowing:

"We conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Dietz's false testimony could have affected the judgement of the jury."

The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that as a matter of law that Park Dietz's testimony was false and that it may have affected the jury's verdict. And for the prosecutor to mentionit in his closing should tell you that he thought it was a strong piece of evidence to support his belief that Mrs. Yates was not insane at the time of the murders. The Appeals Court does not have to poll the original jurors for their feelings or for their reasoning in their deliberations, they simply look at the law, and the law says that Park Dietz gave false testimony! It does not matter what his 'reason' for giving the false testimony was, the fact remains that it was false. And the fact remains that if the defense could check with the executive producer to see if the "Law & Order" episode existed, it should have been done by Mr. Owmby since it was testimony given by his witness on direct examination. He should have double checked his witnesses' tesimony before he let him get up there, lie, and damage the case, that is his responsibility! So if you think that I harbor a bias against prosecutors that lose convictions because they didn't do their homework when prepping their witnesses, or against witnesses that get 'confused' and state made up stories as facts, then yes I am biased! You should be biased against these things to, because the moment we start to allow prosecutors to use false testimony to secure convictions and say that it's okay, she was guilty anyway, then the rule of law no longer exists. Oh yeah, inasmuch as Dr. Dietz was asked about this "Law and Order" episode by the prosecutor, and he was a prosecution witness, I very much doubt that the question was "out of the blue".

Read a book, understand Andrea Yates

Read a book and understand Andrea Yates. Bull crap!!! No book can make me understand a killer mommy, no more than a mother who looks the other way when her 4 daughters are being sexually abused by their father. I know, I was one of those daughters. I don't want to understand evil and there's to much evil across this land. You can't help the evil in our society. Clean out our prison and plug in old sparky. Start with that animal in Florida who kidnapped & raped Jessica for days and buried her alive, next Andrea....

Not guilty by reason of insanity verdict

I've never liked this. Guilty or not guilty should be about whether or not you did it; insanity should be an extenuating circumstance that is taken into consideration at sentencing, but that's it. I would like something like "guilty but insane."

As for sentencing, send the guilty to some sort of institution, if that's appropriate. But when he gets out, rather than let him walk (as not guilty), have him spend the remainder of his sentence in prison.

My take...

...is that Andrea did have serious issues with mental illness, and that Rusty is one of those people who manipulate others by holding plums in front of them, then jerking them away with a sad tsk tsk that the other's work just doesn't quite measure up.

This does not excuse what Andrea did. What may have happened is that Rusty used the children as tools to keep Andrea under his thumb, and Andrea killed them to get out from under his thumb. Call it a power struggle between Andrea and Rusty, with the children as the victims because they were not seen as people by either parent, only as chains (Andrea) or tools of control (Rusty).

So Andrea gets the punishment, and Rusty gets to go on ruining every other life he touches.

In a world ruled by the Golden Rule, both would be brought to arbitration, to explain--or not--why they did what they did and stand under the sword should they choose not to be reconciled with each other, the children they so abused, and all the rest of us for whom this is a travesty of justice.

Too bad we don't see jurisprudence as a matter of dispute resolution backed by execution for refusing to be reconciled with all those one has harmed as a result of ones own choice to walk on the dark side of the Golden Rule.

This is one of the issues I'm exploring in the novel I'm currently working on, called "The Gordian Knot." I will be very interested to see how the avatars of Andrea and Rusty choose to resolve their dispute--but I haven't gotten that far yet.

Check my blog from time to time for progress reports and notification when the novel is available for download.