SBS 0 #51 January 7, 2005 She wouldn't be punished for being insane, she would be punished for KILLING HER CHILDREN!!! I'm sorry...I just think that some may not be familiar with this case...SHE KILLED HER 5 CHILDREN!!! She should be punished for her actions, and she should be removed from society for our protection. -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #52 January 7, 2005 QuoteI get that most people don't understand brain disease. I really understand that most people just don't understand what happens when the chemicals in the brain start doing funky things. What I dislike is that there is no intent to understand that at all. First of all, I think there are those of us who do not discount the fact that she has a disease...I just don't see it as justifying her crime, and don't look at her as a good person. I think that this whole situation is sad. I feel bad for her, I feel bad for her husband, for her kids, for everyone. I think that her husband has some sort of responsibility in this as well. But then on the other hand, we have people saying, "oh, poor her, she's really depressed now...she can't function." Um...boo hoo. Next time, don't kill your kids. BUT! She killed her kids. What do people not understand about this? What is going to stop her from killing other people in the future. Jail isn't just about punishment, but protecting the public from criminals as well. She committed a crime and is a danger. If she killed her own kids, what is to stop her from killing others? Is Charles Manson normal? Was Jeffry Dahmer normal? Was David Berkowitz normal? No, but they were and are considered criminals. Why is this so different? Why does she deserve special treatment? QuoteShould you be held to the same standards as others who do so with malicious intent? Who do it with an evil, black heart? This is the first time that I have ever heard anyone say anything remotely like this regarding murder...that apparently someone has a good heart and only "meant the best". I have heard people say that parents administer beatings out of love, but MURDER? There are really no words to describe how disturbing that sounds. -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #53 January 7, 2005 QuoteMental illness can cause a lot of strange behavior, but many with mental illness do stop taking their meds due to the feeling of not being themselves, being pharmaceutically altered. It isn't uncommon for this to happen. Just a random question, not directed at the poster... Should a person not be held at least partially responsible for taking their medication? If they are a part of their own treatment, and they understand that they need this in order to function semi-normally as a memeber of society, should they be allowed to and held unaccoutable for skipping their medication, "cause they don't feel like themselves"? It's not like this lady was in a coma and receiving the medication through an iv...she is an active member of her own life and wellbeing. As such, though, she also needs her husband to help keep her in check. That is why I think that he needs to be held to a certain account as well. While she was having her episode, she very well may not have known what she was doing. But, she also needed to be realistic about her illness and its treatment, preventing those episodes. It is said that alcoholism is a disease as well. When someone is sober, they know that drunk people can be dangerous to themselves and others. What if someone goes ahead and gets drunk, and harms someone. Should that person not be held responsible? I don't have any doubt that if a lady were to get on this site and post about her husband getting drunk and beating her that there would be discussion of having him drawn and quartered. It's a disease...why should he not be held to the same standard as you would like to hold Andrea Yates? The victim of a disease... And the wife? Clearly it's her fault for sticking around... Still disturbed, Steve_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #54 January 7, 2005 No, he didn't drown the children. He knowingly left them alone with a mentally unstable woman after contributing to her mental instability. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #55 January 7, 2005 I appreciate what you've said as well as the correction. It's sad, when things like this happen. It's shocking to a lot of folks. It seems to strike hard, especially when children are involved. It is rather obvious that she can not 'fit' in everyday society. I really don't believe prison would be the right thing for her. A place where she can get proper help, might. That's for the courts to decide. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #56 January 7, 2005 QuoteShe should be punished for her actions, and she should be removed from society for our protection. SBS - You've really got it completely if you take out the 'feelings' from it and think of it in terms of the "greater good". {{{God how I hate that term}}} For the CRIMES - She committed crimes and should be removed from society for our protection. Various forms of "punishment" is a deterent, so that aspect makes sense in terms of protecting society as well. I'd rather use consequences, but I will use the term punishment as a list of potential responses to deter the recurrence of crime - rather than the emotionally charge version more closely related to revenge. For the INSANITY - This is a separate thing. Treatment should be tried. The Insanity should be considered in the manner in how she is removed from society (For the public's protection). Insane - One thing Crimes - Separate thing If you break it down it is neither insensitive, nor cruel. Just actionable and practical. (Aside - I'd expect the blind jaywalker to get a ticket - It's not punishment, it's deterrent to protect the rest of us from the danger of jaywalking perceived by passing that law. His condition should be considered in the manner in which we try to ensure he doesn't do it again. Ron nailed it.) "Punishment" should be cold and logical, not this biased emotionally charged term. Either that, or we should really consider a different term. (Here, BillVon loves semantic arguments, this might draw him in) Insanity is not a get out of jail free card, it could be a contributing factor to bad behavior. It should be considered as a factor, not the entire truth of a case like this. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #57 January 7, 2005 QuoteNo, he didn't drown the children. He knowingly left them alone with a mentally unstable woman after contributing to her mental instability If I leave a alcoholic alone in a house with a bottle of Jack, is it my fault if he drinks it and drives? He should have known better. But he did not drown his 5 children."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #58 January 7, 2005 QuoteHe should have known better. But he did not drown his 5 children. The point here is: 1 - He did not drown those kids 2 - He did some pretty crappy stuff that helped to create that situation. Therefore: 1 - He should not be tried for murder - we know who the murderer is already. 2 - He should be tried for something else, I don't know what it is, probably criminal negligence at a minimum. Two completely separate cases. Related? Yes, but still separate. Let's try people for their actions, not because of misplaced sympathy for a disease. He's a creep and probably a criminal by some other definition, but not a murderer. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
slug 1 #59 January 7, 2005 QuoteI appreciate what you've said as well as the correction. It's sad, when things like this happen. It's shocking to a lot of folks. It seems to strike hard, especially when children are involved. It is rather obvious that she can not 'fit' in everyday society. I really don't believe prison would be the right thing for her. A place where she can get proper help, might. That's for the courts to decide. The courts did decide once, based on incorrect testimony by the prosecuter's one expert witness vs the defense's 5 expert witness's. The courts can't decide the merits of the case based on objective evidence, but had to rely on a paid Medical expert who was confused. R.i.P. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #60 January 7, 2005 QuoteIf I leave a alcoholic alone in a house with a bottle of Jack, is it my fault if he drinks it and drives? If it is your house and you have offered him the drink....you bet your bottom dollar you will be held liable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tigra 0 #61 January 7, 2005 No, but if you host a party and one of your guests gets drunk, gets behind the wheel of a car and gets into an accident, in some states, you would be held liable. Is he a murderer? No. Was he negligent? Yes he was! Does he bear some responsibility for the deaths of his children? Absolutely! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #62 January 7, 2005 QuoteIf it is your house and you have offered him the drink....you bet your bottom dollar you will be held liable. what if I just left him with it.... Its not like the husband drew the bath water"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #63 January 7, 2005 QuoteIf it is your house and you have offered him the drink....you bet your bottom dollar you will be held liable. Doesn't make it right. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #64 January 7, 2005 QuoteNo, but if you host a party and one of your guests gets drunk, gets behind the wheel of a car and gets into an accident, in some states, you would be held liable. That would be like him filling the bath tub and giving her the idea. If he just went to the store and she filled the tub and made the choice he didn't commit a crime. Was he stupid? Yeah, but he did not commit a crime. QuoteIs he a murderer? No. Was he negligent? Yes he was! Does he bear some responsibility for the deaths of his children? Absolutely! Where does that line of reasoning end? Is the Church responsible for saying that only the innocent go to heaven? Is the Doc at fault for not making her have an abortion? The faut ends with her. Other factors were in play, but NONE of the others in this told her, or helped her to kill her children. She did that all her own. The others will be looked at, but no one else held the children under water till they stopped moving."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Casurf1978 0 #65 January 7, 2005 I found a profile on her, hope you peeps find it intresting. http://crime.about.com/od/current/p/andreayates.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #66 January 7, 2005 QuoteI found a profile on her, hope you peeps find it intresting. http://crime.about.com/...nt/p/andreayates.htm Wow. What a fuck-up. If this had happened in the UK the Social Services departments would have been shat on from a great height for not identifying and dealing with the potential danger she and her children were in from her illness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #67 January 7, 2005 I think her and her husband should be put to death. He is clearly as twisted as she is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #68 January 7, 2005 QuoteDoesn't make it right. I think it does. If I would know that my wife has severe post-partum depression comined with other mental illnesses, I would not leave her alone with my son. If I have an alcoholic in my house, and I know he will drink whatever he can find. I do carry some of the blame for his actions. I think some if this comes down to reasonable expectations. Personally, I believe that those who are ill should not be held to the same standards as those who are not ill. Unfortunately, mental diseases are very much misunderstood and stigmatized by society. I think the treatment of those who are ill says alot about society. Not everybody can be held responsible for their actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #69 January 7, 2005 Quote I do carry some of the blame for his actions. That's where we disagree. I understand your point, but you are only responsible for YOUR actions. The other person is responsible for THEIR actions. Next you'll forgive the husband and blame his parents on his upbringing, etc. etc. etc. Here's a quote (ref the other thread on this activity) from Admiral Rickover - It's good "Responsibility is a unique concept: It can only reside and inhere in a single individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you. You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest yourseilf of it. Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it. If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else. unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible." ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #70 January 7, 2005 QuoteQuoteDoesn't make it right. I think it does. If I would know that my wife has severe post-partum depression comined with other mental illnesses, I would not leave her alone with my son. Right, you are not responsible for murder (her action), you are responsible for gross negligence (your actions) - it doesn't diminish her responsibility for her actions. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #71 January 7, 2005 QuoteThat's where we disagree. I understand your point, but you are only responsible for YOUR actions. yeah, your next point is more along the lines of what I was trying to say. In the drunks case, it doesn't mean he is absolved from any resposibility, just means I carry some of it as well. I, btw, only agree with this concept when it involved an illness. The difficulty becomes deciding when something is considered an illness and "proving" that this illness is present. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Casurf1978 0 #72 January 7, 2005 I dont think she should be put to death. She was cleary f-ed up mentally, haldol isn't given out unless you really, I mean REALLY need it. I would hope the state medical board sits down with her last shrink. She had a past history of severe mental problems, suicides attempts and he tells her to think happy thoughts, pulls her off meds and go see a psychologist. I would say that is beyond negligence, bordering criminal behavior. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #73 January 7, 2005 But I even used "quotes" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #74 January 7, 2005 This silly, but apparently true story was in Private Eye this week (a uk based satirical magazine). I was wondering if you would say the woman in this story was totally responsible for her actions... Quote"The husband was aware that his wife sometimes walked in her sleep," Dr Peter Buchanan told the annual scientfic meeting of the Australasian Sleep Association in Sydney, "and had sometimes awoken to find her absent from the bedroom. He had also discovered some puzzling circumstantial evidence, including the unexplained presence of condoms around the house. So one night he followed her when she went sleepwalking, and found to his horrer that she was leaving the house to walk the streets and engage in random acts of sex with total strangers." Giving further details of this unusual case, Dr Buchanan admitted that "incredulity is the first staging post for anyone involved in this, including medics. And one has to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism. But this was a respectible middle-aged woman, who clearly wasn't using sleepwalking as an ingenious excuse for clandestine sexual relations. She was baffled, and her partner was distraught. Of course, she may have been unconciously acting out some hidden adgenda, but brain tests taken while she was sleeping indicated that she usually awoke from deep sleep without first passing through lighter sleep patterns, and that's a phenomenon closely linked to sleepwalking. "I treated her successfully with psychotherapy, and diagnosed her condition as a form of parasomnia, known as "sleep sex" to be included in the next revision of the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, which will give it the final stamp of legitimacy." (The Age [Australia], 14/10/04 Freaky if its true! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites FlailingJohn 0 #75 January 7, 2005 Can anyone clear something up about the texas insanity law. is the law Innocent by reason of insanity -- or Guilty by reason of insanity. From my limited understanding the first one would still send them to a mental hospital but after a time of evaluation of doctors the person could be released from state care and walk free without any jail time. if it is guilty by reason of insanity then they are committed the rest of their lives? http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=XTKIICLJQJBS&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=124819&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=3&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES john Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
SkyDekker 1,465 #60 January 7, 2005 QuoteIf I leave a alcoholic alone in a house with a bottle of Jack, is it my fault if he drinks it and drives? If it is your house and you have offered him the drink....you bet your bottom dollar you will be held liable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #61 January 7, 2005 No, but if you host a party and one of your guests gets drunk, gets behind the wheel of a car and gets into an accident, in some states, you would be held liable. Is he a murderer? No. Was he negligent? Yes he was! Does he bear some responsibility for the deaths of his children? Absolutely! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #62 January 7, 2005 QuoteIf it is your house and you have offered him the drink....you bet your bottom dollar you will be held liable. what if I just left him with it.... Its not like the husband drew the bath water"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #63 January 7, 2005 QuoteIf it is your house and you have offered him the drink....you bet your bottom dollar you will be held liable. Doesn't make it right. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #64 January 7, 2005 QuoteNo, but if you host a party and one of your guests gets drunk, gets behind the wheel of a car and gets into an accident, in some states, you would be held liable. That would be like him filling the bath tub and giving her the idea. If he just went to the store and she filled the tub and made the choice he didn't commit a crime. Was he stupid? Yeah, but he did not commit a crime. QuoteIs he a murderer? No. Was he negligent? Yes he was! Does he bear some responsibility for the deaths of his children? Absolutely! Where does that line of reasoning end? Is the Church responsible for saying that only the innocent go to heaven? Is the Doc at fault for not making her have an abortion? The faut ends with her. Other factors were in play, but NONE of the others in this told her, or helped her to kill her children. She did that all her own. The others will be looked at, but no one else held the children under water till they stopped moving."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #65 January 7, 2005 I found a profile on her, hope you peeps find it intresting. http://crime.about.com/od/current/p/andreayates.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #66 January 7, 2005 QuoteI found a profile on her, hope you peeps find it intresting. http://crime.about.com/...nt/p/andreayates.htm Wow. What a fuck-up. If this had happened in the UK the Social Services departments would have been shat on from a great height for not identifying and dealing with the potential danger she and her children were in from her illness. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #67 January 7, 2005 I think her and her husband should be put to death. He is clearly as twisted as she is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #68 January 7, 2005 QuoteDoesn't make it right. I think it does. If I would know that my wife has severe post-partum depression comined with other mental illnesses, I would not leave her alone with my son. If I have an alcoholic in my house, and I know he will drink whatever he can find. I do carry some of the blame for his actions. I think some if this comes down to reasonable expectations. Personally, I believe that those who are ill should not be held to the same standards as those who are not ill. Unfortunately, mental diseases are very much misunderstood and stigmatized by society. I think the treatment of those who are ill says alot about society. Not everybody can be held responsible for their actions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #69 January 7, 2005 Quote I do carry some of the blame for his actions. That's where we disagree. I understand your point, but you are only responsible for YOUR actions. The other person is responsible for THEIR actions. Next you'll forgive the husband and blame his parents on his upbringing, etc. etc. etc. Here's a quote (ref the other thread on this activity) from Admiral Rickover - It's good "Responsibility is a unique concept: It can only reside and inhere in a single individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you. You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest yourseilf of it. Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it. If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else. unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible." ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #70 January 7, 2005 QuoteQuoteDoesn't make it right. I think it does. If I would know that my wife has severe post-partum depression comined with other mental illnesses, I would not leave her alone with my son. Right, you are not responsible for murder (her action), you are responsible for gross negligence (your actions) - it doesn't diminish her responsibility for her actions. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #71 January 7, 2005 QuoteThat's where we disagree. I understand your point, but you are only responsible for YOUR actions. yeah, your next point is more along the lines of what I was trying to say. In the drunks case, it doesn't mean he is absolved from any resposibility, just means I carry some of it as well. I, btw, only agree with this concept when it involved an illness. The difficulty becomes deciding when something is considered an illness and "proving" that this illness is present. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #72 January 7, 2005 I dont think she should be put to death. She was cleary f-ed up mentally, haldol isn't given out unless you really, I mean REALLY need it. I would hope the state medical board sits down with her last shrink. She had a past history of severe mental problems, suicides attempts and he tells her to think happy thoughts, pulls her off meds and go see a psychologist. I would say that is beyond negligence, bordering criminal behavior. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #73 January 7, 2005 But I even used "quotes" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #74 January 7, 2005 This silly, but apparently true story was in Private Eye this week (a uk based satirical magazine). I was wondering if you would say the woman in this story was totally responsible for her actions... Quote"The husband was aware that his wife sometimes walked in her sleep," Dr Peter Buchanan told the annual scientfic meeting of the Australasian Sleep Association in Sydney, "and had sometimes awoken to find her absent from the bedroom. He had also discovered some puzzling circumstantial evidence, including the unexplained presence of condoms around the house. So one night he followed her when she went sleepwalking, and found to his horrer that she was leaving the house to walk the streets and engage in random acts of sex with total strangers." Giving further details of this unusual case, Dr Buchanan admitted that "incredulity is the first staging post for anyone involved in this, including medics. And one has to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism. But this was a respectible middle-aged woman, who clearly wasn't using sleepwalking as an ingenious excuse for clandestine sexual relations. She was baffled, and her partner was distraught. Of course, she may have been unconciously acting out some hidden adgenda, but brain tests taken while she was sleeping indicated that she usually awoke from deep sleep without first passing through lighter sleep patterns, and that's a phenomenon closely linked to sleepwalking. "I treated her successfully with psychotherapy, and diagnosed her condition as a form of parasomnia, known as "sleep sex" to be included in the next revision of the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, which will give it the final stamp of legitimacy." (The Age [Australia], 14/10/04 Freaky if its true! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlailingJohn 0 #75 January 7, 2005 Can anyone clear something up about the texas insanity law. is the law Innocent by reason of insanity -- or Guilty by reason of insanity. From my limited understanding the first one would still send them to a mental hospital but after a time of evaluation of doctors the person could be released from state care and walk free without any jail time. if it is guilty by reason of insanity then they are committed the rest of their lives? http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=XTKIICLJQJBS&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=124819&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=3&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES john Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
