Archive through March 17, 2002
The ClubHouse: Archives: Andrea Yates confession:
Archive through March 17, 2002
Willsfan | Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 06:51 pm     Someone told me the doctor had taken her off the drugs he had prescribed for her. I haven't read what type drugs she had been taking, I imagine they must have been strong and it takes quite a while for some drugs to completely to leave your system. I know this for a fact. When my mother was dying they gave her some anti-depressants that made her personality change, for the worst and even after she had stopped taking them she exhibted some bizarre behavior for weeks. During this time she did things that later she did not remember and denied that she did them. Finally, the effects wore off and she was back to normal. But, she wasn't suffering from a mental illness. For some people these drugs might work wonders but for others it is a nightmare and you don't know until you take them what will happen. When you factor in mental illness then you have an Andrea Yates. Andrea Yates, in my opinion knew what she was doing but powerless to control it. |
Twiggyish | Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 08:00 pm     Ms. Bat, your post put a different light on it. I didn't think Andrea would choose death, but it makes sense. I also believe death is a graceful transition. |
Karuuna | Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 08:07 pm     Fruit - I have no problem with death, I've already done it twice. But I think if Andrea felt ready, she would have plead guilty. If she is back on medication, she may be trying to deal with the shock of what she's done, and she may have to reconcile her own faith and beliefs about spiritual forgiveness. But I think the bigger issues are the legal definition of insanity and whether that's still valid, or is antiquated with our greater understanding of biological mental illness. And the state of treatment and care for the mentally ill. That Andrea didn't get appropriate treatment is clear. That she was psychotic is clear. I don't think death is the correct answer in such cases. I think as a society we failed Andrea twice - first in not getting her the help she needed; and second in finding a psychotic woman to be sane. I hope that these are issues that get reexamined as a result of this tragedy; and perhaps then some good can be derived from something senseless and horrible. |
Whowhere | Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 05:28 am     I think she's guilty and insane. Regardless of her mental condition, she killed five innocent people. "Thou shall not kill" is not worded "Thou shall not kill when sane". Does she deserve the death penalty? I don't know - maybe life in prison without the possibility for parole. Texas doesn't have life without parole. She would have to serve 40 years max unless they make some sort of stipulation. But, I wouldn't feel bad if she did get the death penalty. If she would have been succesful one of the two times she tried to kill herself, those kids would still be alive. Rusty, on the other hand, should be tried as an accessory or for negligence, or both. There's no question as to his sanity.....or is there? I know they won't ever try him for anything, but that doesn't mean he's innocent. She was the fire and he provided the fuel. |
Oregonfire | Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 08:00 am     Because these crimes shocked and horrified everyone, I don't think the verdict could have gone any other way, and does not suprise me in the slightest. But the whole grisly story has left and indelible impression on the American psyche. I hate to say that it's a "feminist" issue, but for me, it is. I don't believe in the death penalty in all cases, maybe not this one, I'm not sure. For me, a more clear cut example of someone deserving the death penalty is the woman in Texas, Chante Mallard, who ran down a homeless man, and then left him impaled on the hood of her car in the garage to slowly die over the next two days. I hope she gets the chair. |
Whowhere | Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 08:04 am     I agree with that. |
Guinevere | Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 10:10 am     <"Thou shall not kill" is not worded "Thou shall not kill when sane".> Nor is it worded "Thou shalt not kill, unless you're the government". But I guess this isn't a capital punishment thread... I am just sad and sick about the whole thing, from beginning to end. |
Dahli | Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 02:20 pm     Willsfan <Andrea Yates, in my opinion knew what she was doing but powerless to control it.> That is exactly the way I was trying to say it... which points to the problem with the way the law is set up - she is I believe 'guilty by reason of insanity... Karuuna, Fruit, Oregon, Who and everyone, what compassionate, thoughtful and provocative posts, this is truly the only place I can come to have meaningful discussions regarding this topic. Thanks again |
Firebird05 | Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 02:55 pm     until now I have only read the post here and have not contributed. Like many others here I was hoping at the very least this tragic episode would shed some light and understanding on the horrible circumstances people with mental health issues live with. Unfortunatly that is not to be. I agree with her lawyer that said "if this woman does not meet the standards of insanity, we might as well wipe this law off the books". I really don"t understand how a jury of non-professionals can determine if a person is sane or not when the doctors themself are contradictory.. Mental illness is a dark secret that most people want to look away from. I suppose that is because it is the most frightning thing we can think of happening to us. But until we are able to look at the problem these tragic events will continue. It has been my experience that most people who have not dealt directly with this subject do not understand it. In fact many people feel the person afflicted should "just get over it". Most people with mental illnesses can not get the help they need. It doesn't exsist. Even if you can get treament it usually only last as long as your insurance. If you don't have insurance forget treatment. I was hoping that the sheer sadness and horror of this would focus people on the lack of care. But from reading some of the polls about the verdict it seems people will only be satisfied when Andrea is dead too. Problem solved. But the problem won't be solved and this verdict shows that most don't even understand what the problem is. . |
Moondance | Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 02:59 pm     I completely agree Firebird! |
Lancecrossfire | Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 05:07 pm     In reading the first post and hearing what has transpired, I have to think one of the things that hurt the defense's case was her saying she did it so she could be punished. One of the points that must be met to have a person not guilty be reason of insanity (or whatever the correct technical term is now) is that the person not be aware of the right/wrong issue. By saying that if she did this, she would get punished, that shows she was aware that it was wrong. At least it sure seems that way (I say this without regard to what I think of the final verdict--just trying to analyze why the choice was reached, and reached so fast. As to what to do with/to her. For me, it isn't just an issue of Ms. Yates--it's an issue of al who do things like this. As much as it's caused us to advance because we can think to do things beyond our at-the-time- boundaries, we as humans seem to be able to do things to each other that exceed the boundries of what is thinkable (well, until it's done). It seems that there are certain things we haven't come up with the "punishment" that fits the crime. People do things so horrific (for whatever reason) that we just don't have the current ability to match an appropriate action. That includes rehab. Can anyone know that rehab will work better than a punishment? Is anything really fair to everyone in cases like this and others?? How do you punish a person but not the system that assisted the person to get to a point where they had no control of themselves? There are lots of people who are a danger to others, yet until they actually do something to another, can't be put away. There are 2 sides to changing how that works, and that is for another discussion. In these kinds of cases, or cases like terrorism--something so far out of our understanding of what could truly cause it, can there ever be complete justice for all? |
Karuuna | Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 05:53 pm     I'd like to offer a contrast. I think that there are several reasons Andrea Yates was found guilty. Another similar case -- in 1998, a Denver mother killed her 3 yr old and 3 month old. She had suffered from severe post partum depression. She had told her husband she had thoughts of killing the children. She was hospitalized for several days, and then sent home!! So she gave her children narcotics and then suffocated them. She was quite aware of what she had done, and admitted it. However, she spent one day in a Denver court. The judge declared her not guilty by reason of insanity, however, he also ordered that she be remanded to the State Mental Hospital, and kept there "until she was no longer a danger to others." After about 4 years, she is now allowed to live at home, with monitoring and continuing to see a court-ordered psychiatrist 2 days a week. Andrea Yates, however, had the misfortune of living in Texas. Her mental illness was far more severe. Yet she was found guilty because of a strict adherence to the "knowing right from wrong" criteria. It's my opinion that the difference in these cases are the judges and the culture of the states in which they resided. A judge has tremendous influence over how the jury interprets the law. And depending on how the judge instructs the jury, can make a huge impact in how the jury comes to a verdict. Colorado has a far more progressive attitude toward mental illness. And in my opinion, re the death penalty. Texas is quite a different political climate, with an attitude of someone has to pay for any life taken, no matter the circumstances. So we have two women, living in the same country, doing the same thing, both extremely mentally ill at the time. Two very different outcomes. How is that justice? |
Buttercup | Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 08:22 pm     Firebird--VERY well said!!! Karuuna, it is sad that you can live in one supposedly fair country, but the state where you live and its politics is what is going to decide your fate.... Buttercup sadly shakes her head. |
Fruitbat | Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 04:24 am     Firebird and Karuuna, I agree and I am against the death penality. My post reflected the horror I would feel if any degree of sanity would be regained during treatment. I cannot fathom the pain she would experience if she emerged and even for a moment "got" what she had done. |
Whowhere | Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 05:36 am     I honestly think they'll give her life and not the death penalty. I suppose we'll find out today. The jury is composed of 8 women and 4 men and even though they found her guilty, I seriously doubt that they would impose such a harsh penalty. That's one of the things that's so compelling about this whole case. Even though she committed the most horrible and unbelieveable crime, we still feel compassion for her. I believe that will have some influence on what they decide. |
Scooter | Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 05:54 am     I do believe she is mentally ill. The hardest thing for me to get past, however, is that she and her husband were warned not to have more children after her previous bout with post-partum psychosis, and yet they went ahead. I truly believe old Rusty ought to be looking at some child endangerment and child neglect charges - he left those kids alone with a woman he knew was pulling out her hair and sitting in a trance for hours. |
Whowhere | Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 07:03 am     You're right Scooter, but I doubt we'll see him charged with anything. He, IMO, could have prevented this from happening, regardless of the fact that the doctors sent her home. His actions don't make any more sense than hers. |
Twiggyish | Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 07:15 am     Bat, I can't either. |
Karuuna | Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 08:22 am     Ms. Bat, I can understand that. That would be far worse punishment than death, wouldn't it? I've tracked the story of the Denver woman for four years, since a friend of mine knows the psychiatrist who misdiagnosed and mistreated her before she killed her children. It's clear that this mother feels a pain that none of us can comprehend and that will never end. On the other hand, she also understands at some level that her actions came not out of willful malice, but a brain chemistry gone awry. And, her husband has taken complete responsibility in many ways. Four years later, he still tearfully blames himself for listening to the docs, and not what he thought himself - that she was too ill to be left alone with the children. I post this so that others can see that other resolutions to this kind of tragedy can be achieved, that are more compassionate and that are respectful of not only the children, but of the very real pain of the parents. |
Whowhere | Friday, March 15, 2002 - 11:50 am     Andrea Yates gets life in prison By CAROL CHRISTIAN Copyright 2002 Houston Chronicle Andrea Pia Yates received a life sentence in prison at the end of her capital murder trial today. Jurors reached the verdict within 40 minutes. Yates will serve a minimum of 40 years with no parole. In arguments that avoided asking for execution, prosecutors had the last word this morning before jurors began deliberating her sentence. The 12-member panel who convicted Yates of capital murder Tuesday must now decide whether to sentence her to life in prison or death. Final arguments began about an hour late, while the defense prepared a request for a mistrial based on testimony concerning the television drama Law and Order. State District judge Belinda Hill denied the request. Dr. Park Dietz, the state's expert psychiatric witness, testified during cross-examination by defense lawyer George Parnham that he had served as the show's consultant for an episode in which a woman drowned her children in the bathtub and then was judged insane. In reality no such episode of Law and Order was ever produced. In requesting a mistrial, Parnham and co-counsel Wendell Odom said the jury had been misled by testimony about the program and by prosecutor Joe Owmby's closing argument in the trial's guilt/innocence phase. In those closing remarks, Owmby sought to draw a connection between the fact that Yates said she regularly watched Law and Order and that she had alluded to finding "a way out" when Dietz interviewed her in November at the Harris County Jail. Parnham said a Law and Order producer had been prepared to testify this morning that the episode did not exist and that Dietz also had said he was mistaken about being a consultant for that particular episode. Rather than having the producer and Dietz testify today, both sides agreed to what they would have said. Although Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal had announced in August that the state would seek the death penalty in Yates' case, prosecutors did not press hard for it in closing this morning. "Whatever you decide, the state will accept," said prosecutor Kaylynn Williford. Owmby said that if the jury decided there were mitigating circumstances that lessened Yates' culpability for the crime, he would not view that as the jury saying it's permissable to commit murder. "We won't interpret it that way," he said. "If you find there are not, that is your decision." Parnham reminded the jury of Yates' family and friends who testified about her character and of family members who sat through each day of the trial. "Isn't it remarkable that those five kids who met tragic deaths ... have been able to forge a family united ... to come down here for the woman who took their lives," Parnham said. As lawyers left the courthouse before lunch, they passed a small group of demonstrators with placards supporting Yates. "Because of her mental illness, Andrea Yates should not have been found guilty of the murder of her five children," stated a flier from the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition. "We are particularly critical of the Harris County District Attorney's office for seeking the death penalty in this case. Many district attorneys would have tried to achieve justice in another way." Associated Press Russell Yates, husband of Andrea Yates, arrives at the Harris County Courthouse today. Jurors surprised many on Tuesday when, after just 3 1/2 hours of deliberations, they convicted Yates of drowning Noah, 7; John, 5; and Mary, 6 months. Although Yates also confessed to drowning Paul, 3, and Luke, 2, she was not charged in their deaths. Yates told psychiatrists she drowned the children because they were not "righteous" and would burn in hell if she did not take their lives while they were still innocent. The eight women and four men rejected the defense team's argument that Yates was so mentally ill when she drowned her five children last year that she was unaware her conduct was wrong. In determining Yates' sentence, jurors are asked to decide two questions. They must agree unanimously on both to sentence Yates to death. The first issue is future dangerousness -- whether it is likely Yates would commit future violent crimes, posing a continuing threat to society. If jurors agree Yates is likely to commit future violent crimes, they move on to the second issue -- mitigating circumstances. On this issue, jurors are asked to consider all the evidence -- including the crime, Yates' character and background and her culpability -- and decide whether there is anything that reduces her "moral blameworthiness." If they find there is not, Yates would be sentenced to death. But if 10 or more jurors agree there is at least one mitigating circumstance, she would be sentenced to life in prison and would become eligible for parole after 40 years. Dr. Lucy Puryear, a Houston psychiatrist who interviewed Yates in the Harris County Jail after her arrest, testified Thursday that Yates poses no future threat because her mental illness was triggered by childbirth. According to other testimony, she is unlikely to give birth in prison. "I've seen lots of people with mental illness and lots of people with antisocial criminal backgrounds," said Puryear, former director of the Baylor Psychiatry Clinic at Baylor College of Medicine. "Mrs. Yates is a woman who has severe mental illness and does not have the personality of someone who commits crimes, except as a result of the illness." Puryear said that working on Yates' case for eight months had been emotionally draining. "I spend a large part of my time trying to prevent what happened," said Puryear, who specializes in women's psychiatric problems related to childbirth. "As a mother of four, I find it almost unimaginable to think about what happened." |
Twiggyish | Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 07:07 am     Rusty Yates said on the news that he wanted another wife and possibly more children. This means he may be divorcing Andrea. He says he needs a companion in his life. There is something cold about this man. |
Labmouse | Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 10:30 am     In this country justice differs from City to City, County to County, State to State. Commit a crime in one locale and receive a warning, commit the same crime in another locale and get 5 years. Considering "Texas Justice", Andrea was lucky to get 40 years with the possibility of parole. Most people already know how power and money can influence justice. I just wish the playing field was a little more level for everyone. |
Karuuna | Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 10:34 am     Absolutely agree, Labmouse. On Russell Yates, he has already let everyone know he plans to have more children. Previous to the verdict, he had tried to figure out ways to have more children with Andrea, including considering having another woman ariticially inseminated, so she could bear chldren that he and Andrea would raise! He just can't get over the idea that there "won't be anyone to carry on [his] name". Now that Andrea's going to be in jail, I have no doubt her "loving" husband will abandon her and find someone else. The man just doesn't get it. But then narcissists rarely do. |
Grooch | Saturday, March 16, 2002 - 11:42 am     Karunna, I think he needs a serious head check too. I can understand people saying he should be charged with contributing to the crime. And I partially agree. But then that would be setting a precedent and then anybody at anytime could be charged with the something similiar in the future where they had no choices. And I am postive that he is already getting tons of mail from women who are more than happy to be his wife and give him kids. One of the many sad things about Andrea is that she is going to prison instead of a mental health facility. She won't get any help there and can become worse and can be a danger to herself, other prisoners and the people who work there. |
Sabbatia | Sunday, March 17, 2002 - 09:39 pm     I don't get the whole thing. First of all, in order to kill someone, you have to be somewhat insane. Second, why the heck did she continue to have babies if her postpartum depression was bad all along? Karunna, I'm in Texas, and in this case I wasn't for the Death penalty. Sometimes, you do something so horrible, living can be worse than death. Besides, anyone remember Jeffrey Daumer? How long did he last in prison? Someone will have this woman's head underwater on a regular basis while she is locked up. I do agree with you about the husband though. He'll have a new wife and more children in no time. |
|