billvon 3,132 #126 July 27, 2006 >Having a heart attack while driving is an accident. Continuing to drive while impaired is negligent. If your doctor told you "your cholesterol is very high, and you are at risk of a heart attack" would you stop driving? If you did have a heart attack and got into a fatal accident, even after that advice, would you be guilty of negligent homicide? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #127 July 27, 2006 Quote They're capable of murder. That's clear. Maybe not so clear. Murder is defined in the legal dictionary (and most states use the same or very similar definition) as the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime), and with no legal excuse or authority. The problems you run into in trying to claim murder are 1. the person must be sane. 2. the person must be capable of forming intent 3. the person must have malice aforethought It's #1 and #3 that are the hinges in the Yates case. The jury found that Andrea Yates was not sane. A person who is legally considered insane cannot form the required intent and malice aforethought to commit murder. So, can an insane person kill? Absolutely. Can they murder? maybe not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #128 July 28, 2006 QuoteIf your doctor told you "your cholesterol is very high, and you are at risk of a heart attack" would you stop driving? If you did have a heart attack and got into a fatal accident, even after that advice, would you be guilty of negligent homicide? I don't think so. If you had, say a 1 in 84 chance of being involved in a car wreck, but chose to drive, does that make you negligent? I'd say if someone was impaired due to a heart attack and they didn't stop and purposely kept driving, they'd be negligent. I mean, if we can determine intent in court, we can determine if someone continued to drive while impaired or not, can't we?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #129 July 28, 2006 QuoteSo, can an insane person kill? Absolutely. Can they murder? maybe not. So if they can kill and have done so... should they be treated and let back into the populace? That's what I think a lot of people are worried about in this case, even though there's 2 more charges waiting for her when/if she is "cured". I'd say the propensity and liklihood of someone losing their shit and killing again is enough to keep them out of society... like I said, behind bars or in a padded cell. Someone said it here already, how can you expect a person, who is maybe now sane, to be a productive member of society when they have to live with the guilt that they killed their children? Is there a chance that they'll do it again unless they're under constant supervision? Only one way to ensure they get that supervision really.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,610 #130 July 28, 2006 QuoteMy question to the lawyer types... why not convict as "guilty" if indeed the crime was committed by the accused (crime meaning, non self-defense, good samaritan, etc etc), then take all the whining about mental states and other excuses to the punishment phase where they could be sentenced to psychiatric care prior to life in prison or whatever? I think it might go a long way to satisfying those that see here as "getting off" with the insanity excuse. Satisfying the peanut gallery has bugger all to do with what makes a fair and effective criminal justice system.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #131 July 28, 2006 QuoteThe bitch knew what she was doing. I'm watching her lawyer hugging other peoplw and smiling at his victory. She should've recieved the death penalty. She was lucid in court when the verdict was read. Must be nice to have all the answers. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #132 July 28, 2006 QuoteSatisfying the peanut gallery has bugger all to do with what makes a fair and effective criminal justice system. If laws don't somewhat do justice in the eyes of the people, they're useless. So at some point and to some degree... the peanut gallery MUST be satisfied. Not necessarily in this case, but in general.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #133 July 28, 2006 QuoteNot guilty on 3 of 5 counts of murder by reason of insanity. Just to go back to the first post. So what is the criminal penalty for being guilty on the remaining 2 of 5 counts of murder? Or was she 'no guilty' by some other reasons? Just little simple math for a Friday morning. ... 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
wmw999 2,602 #134 July 28, 2006 I think the other two are being held in reserve, as it were. Given the nature of the crime, not an unreasonable thing to do, frankly. I have every sympathy for Andrea Yates; she was so ill-equipped for where she ended up. But this was a horrible event, too. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
