Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Andrea Yates gets 40 years for killing children

Our Lady of The Two Towers

06:58 / 16.03.02

It's in practically every news source on the net, but I'm interested in This Guardian report because of this paragraph a couple of paragraphs in;
quote: Prosecutors acknowledged she was mentally ill but argued that she could tell right from wrong and was thus not legally insane at the time of the killings.

Now, is this the first time that American prosecutors have actually stated that mental illness is not an excuse? The only similar case I can think of was the retarded man that killed a woman but in that case the prosecution made out that he was normal and knew exactly what he was doing. Prosecutors normally try to insist that someone was rational when they did the crime, is this a change of tack?

[ 16-03-2002: Message edited by: Loz' Sweet Exile ]

06:58 / 16.03.02

Surely mental illness is not a black or white thing and rather a matter of degree. So can't someone be mentally ill and still morally culpable.

10:10 / 16.03.02

I don't think it's a change of tack. From what I've heard on NPR, self-defense by reason of insanity hardly ever passes muster in U.S. courts. It has to be pretty rigorously proved that the person *did not know right from wrong* ...regardless of any other mental imbalance that may be apparent or obvious. Hence the term "legally insane."

Whether this legal standard makes sense is debatable, of course; but jurors are very specifically instructed as to the standard they are to apply.

[ 16-03-2002: Message edited by: Persephone ]

11:05 / 16.03.02

Legal and psychiatric definitions differ, and being mentally ill does not 'excuse' one's actions if one is considered (by at least one psychiatrist) 'sane and fit to plead' - the definition of which includes such criteria as being able to distinguish between pleas of guilty and not-guilty, being intellectually capable of accepting legal counsel, being able (morally) to distinguish the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong'.

So yes, it's quite possibly that she was mentally ill at the time she committed the crimes but her illness was not of sufficient degree or nature to render her incapable of being responsible for her actions.

[Edited to ask Loz to remove that misplaced apostrophe from the thread title; I'm feeling evilly anti-apostrophe today...]

[ 16-03-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]

14:18 / 16.03.02

I don't care how loony you are...You HAVE to know what you are doin when you kill 5 kids one by one. In trial they said her older son was running around the house screaming "mommie please don't kill me!!" I get chills when I imagine that. So IMO she is definatley guilty of murdering 5 people.
Depressed or not.

14:23 / 16.03.02

Ain't just about depression, though. If she were psychotically unwell, say, and believed her kids were, ooh, alien shapeshifters or robotic doubles, it might be easier to kill them one by one. Conventional wisdom just doesn't work in this sort of situation; there are no absolutes.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

16:06 / 16.03.02

quote:Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:
[Edited to ask Loz to remove that misplaced apostrophe from the thread title; I'm feeling evilly anti-apostrophe today...]

All right, but if it was anyone else but you I'd start a witch-hunt to have them banned from the board...

19:02 / 16.03.02

pimbot - i suffered from mental illness/depression/was certified insane some years back. i didn't kill or hurt anybody, but i did some incredibly wierd things because in that particular state of mind they seemed completely logical.

13:05 / 17.03.02

americans, unfortunately, collectively suffer from an INability to empathize with anyone except a few, beautiful, rich and powerful persons who they know only through highly mediated experience. Experts believe there may be some genetic factors involved, but most specialists see this as an acquired mental illness . . .

Ganesh, is there a name for this condition?

edited: ach! that made no sense first time around for lack of an "in" in "inability."

What I mean is: my country folk lack empathy for poor folks.

[note to self: stop trying to be clever.]

[ 18-03-2002: Message edited by: alas ]

15:39 / 17.03.02

In my mind, an ideal criminal justice system would treat most felons as somewhat mentally or emotionally <ill/broken/whatever.> A perfectly healthy person should always be incapable of murder. The idea that the best way to make everyone generally healthier is to throw the worst of them in a cage doesn't seem quite right to me. Let's put our base desire for vengeance aside, and focus on what we're really trying to accomplish: making the world a better place.

Putting Andrea Yates in prison doesn't do her children any good; it doesn't do her any good; it doesn't do her family any good; it doesn't do me any good. Putting Andrea Yates in prison only hurts our own understanding of mental illness, fuels our vengeful, spiteful, hateful emotion, and encourages us to treat the tortured souls of the world as monsters.

And what if she had been committed to a mental hospital for the rest of her life? What then? Would this teach all the people whose lives from day to day are a constant journey through hell that they might not go to prison if they go and kill their children? Sure, if you think these people are focused enough to even think about the criminal justice system. Would you think about the criminal justice system if you had a spear sticking out of your chest?

By the way, am I going off on the wrong crowd, here? I just hate this darned story.

[ 17-03-2002: Message edited by: SMatthewStolte ]

15:56 / 17.03.02

I know what you mean, but I think it's a mistake to label someone 'ill' because, philosophically, you cannot understand their actions. Just as there are 'rational suicides', there are rational homicides.

Having said which, it's extremely difficult in Andrea Yates' case to conceive of a 'rational' reason for what she did. She doesn't appear to have been a sadist a la Fred & Rose West, she had nothing to gain by killing her children, and it's hardly 'heat of the moment' stuff. I can only imagine her mental state was significantly disturbed; looks like those (presumably US psychiatrists) who examined her didn't agree. Pretty tragic for all concerned, really.

16:03 / 17.03.02

As far as I understood it, just being mentally ill doesn't cut it in Texas. You can be as mad as you like but if theres an indication that you knew what you were doing, you're guilty.

Presumably this means if you hallucinate that your kids are aliens and kill them, that counts, but if it's a deeper delusion or thought defect (say, having developed the idea that they are better off dead, though that's not specific to this case, I don't know the details) it doesn't.

At least she didn't get the death penalty.

17:25 / 17.03.02

She just gets the next 40 years - the rest of her life. to think about what she did.

I'm not big on the Texas Prison system but it seems to me that the chances of rehabiltation are pretty slim. If the state wanted to fry her in the first place.

The faliure here is that someone somewhere, her husband perhaps didn't spot the depths of her Depression/mental ilnes.

[ 17-03-2002: Message edited by: Baron Caddilac ]

17:34 / 17.03.02

quote:Originally posted by Baron Caddilac:
.

The faliure here is that someone somewhere, her husband perhaps didn't spot the depths of her Depression/mental ilnes.

Definitely some truth there. You do have to wonder how out of touch with one's wife do you have to be to not have a clue she might harm herself or her children. I haven't followed this case as much as is probably necessary to truly debate this but I do wonder where her husband was.

18:11 / 17.03.02

From what I read about her husband he was an unpleasant fundamentalist authoritarian, who discouraged and actively prevented her from receiving proper treatment.

It's easy for me to say that of course.

19:47 / 17.03.02

Is "complicity" a recognised legal argument in the USA.
Oh sorry forgot he's a man.

09:57 / 18.03.02

i heard an interview with a woman who is studying mothers who kill their children: if a male-partner in a married or unmarried relationship kills the child, the female partner is viewed as responsible, at least partially. "She should have protected them!"

If a female partner kills a child, the man is typically let off the hook, even if, as aparently was true in this case, his actions likely contributed to the crime.

my people!

(note: my earlier statement on this thread made no sense. I've edited it, and realized that what I should've said was:

Americans can't, or don't, empathize with poor folks.

Mostly, anyway. That's how I feel when I'm feeling particularly unpatriotic, as stories such as these make me feel.

09:57 / 18.03.02

from what i read, she was undergoing psychiatric treatment for years but kept her constant murderous impulses deliberately well hidden from both therapist and husband.

i've spent a lot of time with schizophrenics who have been dear, close friends. when they are acting crazy it takes about 5 minutes to become completely exhausted and unable to deal with them, it takes another 3 minutes to stop making excuses about how they are crazy and start feeling like you have no choice but to react reasonable. if the husband stayed with her all these years and didn't abandon her even though she was totally nuts, i think we should think about empathy towards him.

alas, i don't entirely understand the relation behind your sentiment to this case, no matter how many times you repeat it. are you saying that if andrea yates was rich, people would have a better understanding of why she murdered her 5 children?

09:57 / 18.03.02

quote:Originally posted by Baron Caddilac:
The faliure here is that someone somewhere, her husband perhaps didn't spot the depths of her Depression/mental ilnes.

I don't like this sentiment at all. The general 'who's to blame' witch-hunt which follows every high-profile homicide (who should've predicted it? Her husband? Her psychiatrist? Marilyn Manson?) seems, to me, both misguided and unhelpful.

12:55 / 18.03.02

quote:Originally posted by alas:
Americans can't, or don't, empathize with poor folks.

ah, yes, america - where the population is comprised wholly of the rich, powerful and beautiful

watch television soaps much?

13:05 / 18.03.02

I'm just thinking it's a bit tragic that her husband was that out of touch. Or really ANYONE for that matter. She is ultimately responsible for her actions, yes. But I do think it's sad that there was nobody around her who sensed danger. Or did they? And do nothing? Does that make them responsible as well? Hmmm... don't think so - you really can't save people from themselves, I suppose.

Alas, I do think there are plenty of americans who see the poor, and who want to help. The problem, of course is that poverty is invisible. And of course, in this vein, one has to be willing to open their eyes beyond one's community and truly see the world as it is. Which as we know can be exceedingly difficult.

"You are sleeping, you do not want to believe.."

13:26 / 18.03.02

ah, that came off as bitchy when I was going for silly. sorry

Im not sure how I feel about this - who knows what would make a woman do this to her kids?

Im back and forth. but I dont think it would be very sensible to see her as anything other than dangerous - I think history has to make us wary. how they should treat her, I dont really know. neither option (basically locking her up) is going to be helpful. but what are the alternatives, knowing what shes very capable of?

18:40 / 18.03.02

im still not getting this business about empathy for the poor and it's relation to this case. prosecuting someone for quintuple murder is yr example of "not empathisizing?" furthermore, mr yates is a nasa engineer, so i don't know what you mean by "poor" in this thread either.

18:55 / 18.03.02

quote:Originally posted by Cherry Bomb:
I'm just thinking it's a bit tragic that her husband was that out of touch. Or really ANYONE for that matter. She is ultimately responsible for her actions, yes. But I do think it's sad that there was nobody around her who sensed danger. Or did they? And do nothing? Does that make them responsible as well?

It's quite possible for one to sense danger, to get a feeling of 'hmm, something might happen around this woman'. It's the specific that's difficult: nobody's yet perfected a mechanism for eliciting those 'hmm, this woman will murder all her children imminently' warnings. Not accurately, anyway.

And how does one go about 'helping'? Take her to a psychiatrist? Admit her to hospital? Psychiatrists are fallible, hospital stays are finite. The future cannot be accurately predicted.

So 'why was this allowed to happen'? Because, much as we'd like to think otherwise, there was no failsafe way of predicting - much less preventing - it. No-one was sleeping at the controls; shit - even really bad shit - sometimes just happens.

08:13 / 20.03.02

Yes, good point, 'Neshy. It's a bit of a fine line between "helping" and "being all up on my business," as it were.