Yates not guilty by reason of insanity

mpg82 · July 2006

By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer

HOUSTON - A jury found Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity in the drowning deaths of her young children in the bathtub of their suburban home.

Yates will be committed to a state mental hospital, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released. If convicted, she would have faced life in prison.

Yates' attorneys never disputed that she drowned 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah in their Houston-area home in June 2001. But they said she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and, in a delusional state, thought Satan was inside her and was trying to save them from hell.

This is the second trial for the 42-year-old suburban mother.

The jury had spent 11 hours Monday and Tuesday trying to determine if Yates was legally insane. Wednesday morning, they reviewed the state's definition of insanity and then asked to see a family photo and candid pictures of the five smiling youngsters. After about an hour of deliberations, they said they had reached a verdict.

In Yates' first murder trial, in 2002, the jury deliberated about four hours before finding her guilty. That conviction was overturned on appeal.

All I have to say is she has a great lawyer. They never let people off for insanity. But I guess that's what happens when you wait FOUR FUCKING YEARS to go to court. It's old news.

DeLukin · July 2006

I take it you disagree with the verdict? She's definitely got some mental issues and needs help, IMO.

Spartanacus · July 2006

DeLukin wrote:

I take it you disagree with the verdict? She's definitely got some mental issues and needs help, IMO.

IMO...you can fuck off too.

The only help she needs is a kick in the ass to the gas chamber...although a lifetime of hard labor and suffering in Siberia is what she really deserves.

May she suffer and rot in Hell for all of eternity (if there is a Hell).

mpg82 · July 2006

She'll be out in five years...and, God forbid, remarried.

NCfan · July 2006

mikeg19_82 wrote:

She'll be out in five years...and, God forbid, remarried.

LOL, that could be the most light-hearted thing I've thought about all day.... some dude that would marry that bitch after what she's done. The funny thing is, you know there are plenty of guys out there that would do it, ha ha ha!

JaneNY · July 2006

Its hard to fathom at all. But how could a sane mother kill her children, you know? What mother in her right mind would do this? To me the very act itself suggests insanity within. I love my children. I could NEVER EVER do this, no matter what. But she should be kept away from children, kept away from society, and never permitted to the possibility of reproducing again.

bryn_cmbs · July 2006

Spartancus wrote:

IMO...you can fuck off too.

The only help she needs is a kick in the ass to the gas chamber...although a lifetime of hard labor and suffering in Siberia is what she really deserves.

May she suffer and rot in Hell for all of eternity (if there is a Hell).

harsh

DeLukin · July 2006

Spartancus wrote:

IMO...you can fuck off too.

The only help she needs is a kick in the ass to the gas chamber...although a lifetime of hard labor and suffering in Siberia is what she really deserves.

May she suffer and rot in Hell for all of eternity (if there is a Hell).

Dude, take a pill or something. If ever there was a case for the insanity plea this is it. Her only motive for drowning her kids was that the voice in her head told her to??? You can't get more mentally disturbed than that... actually, you could - but it would involve telling people to fuck off on message boards while ranting about gas chambers, Siberia and hell.

IMF'ingO

suffragette · July 2006

bryn_cmbs wrote:

harsh

Very. An insane act by definition is insane. Insanity is not punishable by death as life is punishment enough. What about her husband? He seems to have moved on quite easily. Leave her to her own thoughts; punishment enough.

suffragette · July 2006

DeLukin wrote:

Dude, take a pill or something. If ever there was a case for the insanity plea this is it. Her only motive for drowning her kids was that the voice in her head told her to??? You can't get more mentally disturbed than that... actually, you could - but it would involve telling people to fuck off on message boards while ranting about gas chambers, Siberia and hell.

IMF'ingO

well said.

Rushlimbo · July 2006

Spartancus wrote:

IMO...you can fuck off too.

The only help she needs is a kick in the ass to the gas chamber...although a lifetime of hard labor and suffering in Siberia is what she really deserves.

May she suffer and rot in Hell for all of eternity (if there is a Hell).

Talk about disturbed. I laugh at your insanity as well.

Spartanacus · July 2006

I'm sure she was insane...but so what? The insanity defense is one of the biggest crocks of shit in this country. Most violent criminals are insane to some extent. Oh sorry...she's not a "criminal" is she? She's only a mental patient because she was hearing voices when she did it. Yeah...fucking prove it. And even if she did hear voices, who cares. You're done on this Earth. But you know what my fellow sickos...to be "nice" I'd even give her a choice...A lifetime of hard labor or instant death Ms. Yates?

And if you think that's too harsh...fine. But at the very least I'd want her locked up for life. But then why should I pay for her rehabilitation if she's never getting out again? Prison, "hospital", country club, whatever you want to call it...keep her out of society.

And sorry, but anyone who thinks she should be a member of society again is is clearly naive, weak minded, pitiful, and stupid.

So she might be out in a few years, but a guy who was drunk "out of his mind" at a bar, who got into a fight with another drunk out of his mind guy, who he hit one too many times should be in jail the rest of his life, but she shouldn't...BECAUSE SHE WAS INSANE???

Give me a break.

know1 · July 2006

The insanity defense is laughable. Of course she was insane. In my opinion, ANYONE who kills someone else is insane.

_Crazy_Mary_ · July 2006

know1, you took the words right out of my mouth - of course she's insane. No sane person would drown her children!

This is not excusable. She should be put to death, crazy as she is. We don't need that kind of person to be a part of society. Put her down!

know1 · July 2006

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

know1, you took the words right out of my mouth - of course she's insane. No sane person would drown her children!

This is not excusable. She should be put to death, crazy as she is. We don't need that kind of person to be a part of society. Put her down!

I don't believe in the death penalty, but she should be found guilty in my opinion.

_Crazy_Mary_ · July 2006

know1 wrote:

I don't believe in the death penalty, but she should be found guilty in my opinion.

of course you don't, and I know that.

know1 · July 2006

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

of course you don't, and I know that.

I will say that Ron White has some pretty funny commentaries on the death penalty that I do not agree with but I appreciate the humor of. Here's one (paraphrased):

"A group of people protested on the killer's behalf saying that we shouldn't kill him because he's too crazy to know we're killing himl"

"Hmm..if he's too crazy to know we're killing him and it makes me feel good......what's the problem?"

JaneNY · July 2006

_Crazy_Mary_ wrote:

This is not excusable. She should be put to death, crazy as she is. We don't need that kind of person to be a part of society. Put her down!

What about this thought - insanity is an illness. An ill person that might harm others would be kept separate, like a quarantine. There use to be leper colonies because this disease was contagious, and probably there were taxes involved in the maintenance of the lepers. Authorities didn't just kill the lepers even though they might harm others by the fact of the disease they carried. Why wouldn't that logic apply here? Yates could be looked at in some capacity as a leper - capable of harming others due to her illness. Should we kill all who are ill because their illness might harm others?

_Crazy_Mary_ · July 2006

JaneNY wrote:

What about this thought - insanity is an illness. An ill person that might harm others would be kept separate, like a quarantine. There use to be leper colonies because this disease was contagious, and probably there were taxes involved in the maintenance of the lepers. Authorities didn't just kill the lepers even though they might harm others by the fact of the disease they carried. Why wouldn't that logic apply here? Yates could be looked at in some capacity as a leper - capable of harming others due to her illness. Should we kill all who are ill because their illness might harm others?

If you have to tell yourself this to feel better, go ahead. Yates isn't just "capable of harming others due to her illness." She murdered her children. She knew what she was doing, crazy or not.

moeaholic · July 2006

know1 wrote:

I don't believe in the death penalty, but she should be found guilty in my opinion.

and have her reproductive organs removed. hollow her out like a jack-o-fucking-lantern.

Uncle Leo · July 2006

mikeg19_82 wrote:

She'll be out in five years...and, God forbid, remarried.

She will NOT be out in five years. She will probably never be out.

That said, you could argue anyone that commits a violent crime is "insane." I always kind of fear the slippery slope. I think she's guilty of five murders.

Yates not guilty by reason of insanity

Comments

Categories