Andrea Yates is found Guilty today by the jury.....
- Thread starter Siren
- Start date
DulceCrema
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2002
- Posts
- 265
Death would be the easy way out...
Living with the knowledge of what she's done to her own children should be a nice punishment.
Living with the knowledge of what she's done to her own children should be a nice punishment.
thumbs2_ca
wishin I was fishin
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2001
- Posts
- 1,723
I agree dulceCrema
I am for the death penalty in a lot of cases but I agree let her stay in prison knowing what she did to those children.
I am for the death penalty in a lot of cases but I agree let her stay in prison knowing what she did to those children.
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,692
She's not a threat to society - she's a woman with severe emotional problems. There's a big difference between her and someone like Richard Ramirez or Ted Bundy. I don't believe the state should execute anyone, but even those who do support the death penalty should see that she's not a pathologically violent person. Life in prison, hopefully with psychiatric care, is justice. She killed her kids, which is a foul, heinous crime, but killing her won't bring them back to life.
sigh
chant mistress
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Posts
- 10,248
imagine the final minutes of the seven year old
running around the house in terror with his own mother bent on killing him, almost certainly knowing that all his siblings have died at her hands...where else can a seven year old turn, if not to his mother?
seven years old
my god
i'm against the death penalty...i'll stick to that but i'm sick to my stomach thinking about this...i honestly don't care if she gets even a minute of psychological care...let the demons eat her soul
(and in case you're wondering, this sort of sentiment is wholly unlike me)
running around the house in terror with his own mother bent on killing him, almost certainly knowing that all his siblings have died at her hands...where else can a seven year old turn, if not to his mother?
seven years old
my god
i'm against the death penalty...i'll stick to that but i'm sick to my stomach thinking about this...i honestly don't care if she gets even a minute of psychological care...let the demons eat her soul
(and in case you're wondering, this sort of sentiment is wholly unlike me)
G
Guest
Guest
Re: Laurel is right,
Mensa
Non Compos Mentis
- Joined
- May 25, 2000
- Posts
- 4,107
Burn, baby, burn!!
To murder one child is horrific, to coldly murder five is beyond description. I say she is a waste of skin and they should fry her!
In this case you can take your bleeding heart liberalism, compassion for the criminal, trying to justify the unjustifiable, and stick it where the sun don't shine!!
She murdered five innocent children, her own innocent children and deserves to die. Do it!! I'd gladly volunteer to pull the switch!
To murder one child is horrific, to coldly murder five is beyond description. I say she is a waste of skin and they should fry her!
In this case you can take your bleeding heart liberalism, compassion for the criminal, trying to justify the unjustifiable, and stick it where the sun don't shine!!
She murdered five innocent children, her own innocent children and deserves to die. Do it!! I'd gladly volunteer to pull the switch!
Oliver Clozoff
SirRealism
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2000
- Posts
- 7,468
I don't know all the facts about this case or the actual severity of Ms. Yates' condition. She very well may have been fully aware of the wrongness of her act (which I believe was the standard by which her insanity claim was denied). Still there were some things that bothered me, though, primarily that the prosecution never established any semblance of a motive.
If she was capable of knowing right from wrong, why drown all five of her children one by one? Can anyone come up with a plausible motivation?
I think cases like this highlight how poorly we understand human behavior, particularly how much of our behavior is under our control and how much is determined by our biology, psychology, and social factors.
No matter the particulars of this case it's obvious that the law is extraordinarily poorly equipped to deal with resolving questions of free actions in the mentally ill.
If she was capable of knowing right from wrong, why drown all five of her children one by one? Can anyone come up with a plausible motivation?
I think cases like this highlight how poorly we understand human behavior, particularly how much of our behavior is under our control and how much is determined by our biology, psychology, and social factors.
No matter the particulars of this case it's obvious that the law is extraordinarily poorly equipped to deal with resolving questions of free actions in the mentally ill.
Last edited:
MaddyBaby
Lesbian Avenger
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2002
- Posts
- 1,194
Hm. I was thinking... even if she did get life, she'd probably end up dying in prison anyway. Think about some of the women in there... and think of the shit that goes on in those prisons.
Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in prison... who knows... Andrea Yates might end up dead too.
But, even if she doesn't end up dead in prison... can you imagine the physical and mental abuse she is going to under go for years on end? I think living is more of a punishment for her.
Jeffrey Dahmer was killed in prison... who knows... Andrea Yates might end up dead too.
But, even if she doesn't end up dead in prison... can you imagine the physical and mental abuse she is going to under go for years on end? I think living is more of a punishment for her.
Burn, baby, burn!!
I'm guessing it'll come as no big surprise that I'm with you, Mensa. I'll arm wrestle you for the switch, though.
This little gem just cements even more if that's possible my condemnation of religion; the things people do in the name of religion. Disgusting!
I'm guessing it'll come as no big surprise that I'm with you, Mensa. I'll arm wrestle you for the switch, though.
The motive she gave was, "To save them from the devil."Oliver Clozoff said:
This little gem just cements even more if that's possible my condemnation of religion; the things people do in the name of religion. Disgusting!
LadyDarkFire
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2001
- Posts
- 1,796
While I think what she did was horrific, and unimaginable, I can't agree with the death penalty for her. The jury did find that she was mentally ill, and while this doesn't excuse her actions, it does shed some light on what we as a society need to learn about mental illness. I'd hope life imprisonment, of 5 back to back life sentances. I just don't like the taking of life.
scylis
Assassin/Subtlety Spec'd
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2000
- Posts
- 9,876
i say we hand her over to some of them Inquisitors and let them torture her for years and years and years upon end. death is too fucking good. when whoever is through with her, she should wish, beg, PLEAD for death... and be denied!
AND THEN she should be forced to watch nothing but Alan Alda movies until her heart finally gives out or she dies of old age!!!
(the first paragraph is what i think should happen, the second is there just out of spite!)
AND THEN she should be forced to watch nothing but Alan Alda movies until her heart finally gives out or she dies of old age!!!
(the first paragraph is what i think should happen, the second is there just out of spite!)
Sateema Lunasi
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2001
- Posts
- 892
If she is is so mentally ill that she doesn't understand that it is wrong to systematically execute her five small children, then she won't know it is wrong when she is executed for doing it.
They can tell her God wants her to come up for a visit.
And I think her husband should get a decade or so in prison showers dropping the soap. Reason why? Well, one of the reasons she killed those kids (according to her) is that she had too many and couldn't support them. They lived in a bus and could barely eat, but Russel Yates kept insisting they have kids. They had boys and kept trying for girls.
"First I want a basketball team, then we try for girls." -- Russel Yates.
Throw him in the slammer too. Hell, forget that, if he stands by his wife so much, maybe he can die alongside her too. Clean out the gene pool.
They can tell her God wants her to come up for a visit.
And I think her husband should get a decade or so in prison showers dropping the soap. Reason why? Well, one of the reasons she killed those kids (according to her) is that she had too many and couldn't support them. They lived in a bus and could barely eat, but Russel Yates kept insisting they have kids. They had boys and kept trying for girls.
"First I want a basketball team, then we try for girls." -- Russel Yates.
Throw him in the slammer too. Hell, forget that, if he stands by his wife so much, maybe he can die alongside her too. Clean out the gene pool.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Andrea Yates and the death penalty
I think justice was poorly served on this one. In my opinion the woman is insane. What ever the motivation, we are left with a woman that is severely incapacitated from a mental point of view.
I am NOT against the death penalty. I beleive it to be state sactioned revenge. A means of short circuiting revenge killings and fueds. There are a few states left, Georgia being one of them, that allow for the "He/she needed killing" defense. Specifically a defense in which the defendent attempts to prove that the victim was such an evil person that they truly needed to die. This defense has been used successfully in the past.
Unless the law has changed, Texas defined "life" to be thirty years. It's not a matter of parole, it's a matter of having satisfied the debt to the state. So she would be released, regardless. The only caveat here is that the judge could sentence her to consecutive life terms on the 5 counts in the indictment. 150 years total.
Death would be an easy way out for her. So I agree with the general consensus regarding life in prison.
It is unfortunate that the court has no hold on the husband here. He is one SOB that should be castrated at the least. He is the poster child for the neandrethal like men that the ultra-feminists have been talking about for years. And in saying that I'm probably doing a dis-service to the neandrethals. They probably showed more concern for their families and S/O's than this guy did.
If she is sentenced to die, they should make the hubby pull the switch. He did everything else possible to help move events to this point.
Ishmael
I think justice was poorly served on this one. In my opinion the woman is insane. What ever the motivation, we are left with a woman that is severely incapacitated from a mental point of view.
I am NOT against the death penalty. I beleive it to be state sactioned revenge. A means of short circuiting revenge killings and fueds. There are a few states left, Georgia being one of them, that allow for the "He/she needed killing" defense. Specifically a defense in which the defendent attempts to prove that the victim was such an evil person that they truly needed to die. This defense has been used successfully in the past.
Unless the law has changed, Texas defined "life" to be thirty years. It's not a matter of parole, it's a matter of having satisfied the debt to the state. So she would be released, regardless. The only caveat here is that the judge could sentence her to consecutive life terms on the 5 counts in the indictment. 150 years total.
Death would be an easy way out for her. So I agree with the general consensus regarding life in prison.
It is unfortunate that the court has no hold on the husband here. He is one SOB that should be castrated at the least. He is the poster child for the neandrethal like men that the ultra-feminists have been talking about for years. And in saying that I'm probably doing a dis-service to the neandrethals. They probably showed more concern for their families and S/O's than this guy did.
If she is sentenced to die, they should make the hubby pull the switch. He did everything else possible to help move events to this point.
Ishmael
bored1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Posts
- 1,831
While I agree with many that she is a sick puppy.I also believe she knew exactly what she was doing.........And because she knew, I believe she should suffer the severest penalty which is death.......However with the appeals process it will be years until the deed is done.........I also think the husband is responsible,But nothing can be done to him....
agrees with Sateema
I totally agree with you Sateema on everything! That husband knew what was going on and still left those babies with her! He should go with her! My god! Can you imagine what was going through those babies heads, the last thing they ever got to see was the face of the woman who KILLED them! I think it's nonsense that she didn't know what she was doing. Okay, the first one maybe, but 5 times! Why should we feed and house her for 40 years when she didn't give her kids a shot at the same option. I'm sorry but I am pissed off, you don't mess with babies or old people! YA JUST DON"T! UncleBill, Mensa? Gunna be a threeway arm wrestle to see who pulls the switch!
I totally agree with you Sateema on everything! That husband knew what was going on and still left those babies with her! He should go with her! My god! Can you imagine what was going through those babies heads, the last thing they ever got to see was the face of the woman who KILLED them! I think it's nonsense that she didn't know what she was doing. Okay, the first one maybe, but 5 times! Why should we feed and house her for 40 years when she didn't give her kids a shot at the same option. I'm sorry but I am pissed off, you don't mess with babies or old people! YA JUST DON"T!
UncleBill, Mensa? Gunna be a threeway arm wrestle to see who pulls the switch!
Mischka
Ms Snooby Pants
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2001
- Posts
- 15,820
She was found guilty of murder because she does understand the distinction between right and wrong. She twice filled that bathtub before, and when confronted, she refused to say why she did so, knowing full well that someone would try to stop her if her plan was revealed. Her crime was premeditated, and she was fully aware that what she was going to do to those children was wrong.Sateema Lunasi said:
However, the very act of systematically killing five children belies an extraordinarily disturbed mind. I do not know the difference between her mental illness and insanity, if there even is a difference. The legal definition of insanity is a mess. For many jurors, the idea of finding someone "innocent by reason of insanity" is unacceptable. Perhaps if the option was changed to "guilty but insane," with the sentence being served in a criminal asylum instead of a prison, more jurors would be willing to consider it as a viable alternative. [I know little to nothing about this area, this is just an idea that came to mind. I'm open to any and all informed opinions out there on this subject.]
As for her husband, everyone that is condemning him here has the benefit of perfect hindsight. Before Yates killed her children, there was absolutely no sign that she intended them any harm. She was self-destructive, not a threat to others. Her doctor took her off her anti-psychotic medication three days before she killed her children, believing that she was better. Obviously, she was far from better. How on earth is a father supposed to predict an event that we find too horrific to comprehend even after it happened?
