posted on September 8, 2001 01:08:52 PM new
P.S. If the day ever comes that Andrea Yates is found not responsible for what she did, and is then treated and later diagnosed as "cured," the doctor who signs her release form should also be required to let Mrs. Yates babysit his/her children for a weekend.
posted on September 8, 2001 01:11:34 PM new
The difference between the crimes of this woman and the crimes of Dahmer & Gacy, were that these were not sex crimes. We're talking about 2 separate issues.
Women who murder, (if not in self defense), are rare. A woman that kills her children is an extremely rare event that's need to be studied IMO. Is it a defective gene? Protein? A chemical imbalance?
A man that kills for sexual pleasure is a totally different issue. Men that kill their children are usually looking for a way out. That's why the Susan Smith case was so unusual.
Trying to find out the why's of this case would be the best tribute to her dead children and any others that this might happen to.
Edited to add:
Your posts were very well said bunnicula and gravid
posted on September 8, 2001 01:16:12 PM new
Spaz...
Released...straight into the loving arms of her husband, to make more babies? I simply can't conceive the idea that any jury would allow that to happen.
posted on September 8, 2001 01:27:28 PM new
I agree with you, toke, that a jury might not like it. But the judgment would be "not guilty by reason of insanity." The "not guilty" part is clear enough in itself. And if she is "cured" of her (alleged) psychological demons, what reason can there be to hold her?
Now, if she were found incompetent to stand trial, that's another matter. Basically that means she's too far gone to responsibly enter a plea, or to understand or participate in her own defense. She may be committed for however long it takes to "cure" her, then sent to trial once she is judged competent. In that case, the jury would be able to impose restrictions on her with a verdict.
posted on September 8, 2001 01:38:01 PM new
So, are some of you saying that because she killed her children, she should just die and everyone should forget about it?
She now is helping other inmates in the mental-health wing of the Harris County Jail, calling relatives and even talking happily about reading the Bible, exercising and sweeping her shared cell, he said.
posted on September 8, 2001 01:46:50 PM new
I don't see where the fact that there was a sexual element to their crimes makes a difference.
If I were put in the position of having to respond to my own question, I would have said the difference is that Gacy and Dahmer both tried to hide their crimes, indicating that they had consciousness of guilt and thus knew the difference between right and wrong.
But at the same time, Andrea Yates isn't entirely clean on that score herself. She may not have tried to hide her evil deed, but when she called her husband to come home she certainly had the presence of mind to realize that she had done something terribly wrong.
posted on September 8, 2001 01:48:34 PM new
OK, my mistake. I see your concern lies with the possibilty if she's found insane, she could be let go if she gets better. I would personally hope that she would never be let out of jail, but might spend her sane time helping others.
posted on September 8, 2001 01:56:10 PM new"I've never seen her this happy — even 10 years ago, she wasn't this happy," said Kennedy, who has visited his sister in jail on most Sundays since her June 20 arrest. "Maybe it's a combination of the environment she's in and the treatment she's finally getting."
Happy? What a stupid, stupid thing to say. A woman who murders her 5 children -- for whatever reason -- has no reason to be happy ... unless she's happy that they're gone. Even if she's grateful to finally be getting better treatment, she still shouldn't be happy. If she's progressed from "insanity" to sanity, I would think she'd be more devastated than ever as she came to full and coherent realization of what she had done. Imagine you murdered your children while sleepwalking -- would you be happy when you finally woke up and discovered that they were all dead? And that they had died at your own hands?
posted on September 8, 2001 02:05:34 PM new
No kidding, I couldn't believe what I was reading. I thought "a very long life of complete sanity and mental clarity" would be punishment enough. Maybe not.
Susan Smith was reported to have adjusted well to prison life. It was a long time ago, but it seems to me I read she had a lover.
posted on September 8, 2001 02:06:06 PM new
Psychotic people can act a whole bunch of different ways. Could be, in her head, her depression was caused by her children. With them gone, her brain might be giving her signals that she's better, so she's acting happy, although still very much psychotic.
posted on September 8, 2001 02:12:38 PM newA woman that kills her children is an extremely rare event that's need to be studied IMO. Is it a defective gene? Protein? A chemical imbalance?
So the theory is if a woman kills her kids, she's sick and should be treated and studied, but if a man kills his kids, he's just a sick'o and should simply be locked up?
posted on September 8, 2001 02:27:11 PM new
she must truly hate her husband. she did away with his hold on her and is happy to be free.
the children were only things, symbols of her life with him. her depression over her prospect of life forever as it was drove her crazy to desperation to murder without guilt or feeling as the only way out and she is out.
posted on September 8, 2001 02:30:42 PM new"So the theory is if a woman kills her kids, she's sick and should be treated and studied, but if a man kills his kids, he's just a sick'o and should simply be locked up? "
Good question Microbes. Because women have children, I feel the chances of one even thinking about killing one or all of them signals a BIG problem that needs to bee looked at. How many women do you know that would be able to admit such feelings?? For all we know it could be because of a glass of wine she drank when pregnant....thing is, is that it's rare, but might not be rare in thought. That needs to come out.
With men that kill their children, just in the fact that they don't go through a pregancy makes them different, but they do it for different reasons......usually to escape the relationship or because of job loss, etc. NOT because they've lived with depression brought on or enhanced by pregnancy(s).
Rowe is the second former guard to admit having sex with Smith. Houston Cagle pleaded guilty last month and is awaiting sentencing.
Guess a lifetime of contemplating evil deeds needn't include the suffering of sexual deprivation. Maybe life imprisonment is not the horror for everyone, that we'd think it might be.
posted on September 8, 2001 03:13:40 PM new
A woman takes her child and holds the child under water till they stop struggling. That's hard to imagine. Then she repeats this process 4 more times? That's impossible for me to imagine (I thank God for my limited imagination at times.)
Since the children are gone and can't be brought back the only person left to supply compassion to is the woman that did this act that is impossible to visualize.
I'd prefer to think that anyone capable of such an act is beyond help, spiritual, or medical. I need to think that about people. Yes, we all go a little mad sometimes (as Norman Bates said.) We don't go berserk to the lengths others have. I think Jeffrey Dahmer was mentally ill, but still a monster, I think Susan Smith was mentally ill but still a monster, I think Andrea Yates was mentally ill, but still a monster.
For me to excuse her actions I'd have to excuse the actions of all other hideous crimes that could only be performed by someone with a damaged mind.
posted on September 8, 2001 03:41:48 PM new
I understand that feeling you have uaru. I am just trying to look at this a bit differently. If the value of her whole life has come down to this act of murder but could have been because she was suffering from deep depression or worse, then is she truly a monster?
If you can bare with me, let's say you (whoever's reading this) took LSD. Your reality became totally different to you. You heard voices from God or the devil, etc. that overpowered your common sense, telling you to do something wrong. You did it, came down from the LSD and there you sit, a muderer (or whatever), with no conception about what you just did. I feel the mind of a psychotic person is in a totally different reality than ours, which is why we have such a difficult time understanding this stuff.
I have the worst nightmare-ish thoughts about what I would do to any person that has hurt or murdered a child. To me, this is the worst possible crime. But there is another side of me that craves for understanding of this type of thing while, I hope, not pushing aside the repulsiveness of the crime itself.
posted on January 11, 2001 10:05:12 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing beats what I saw in The Enquirer last week (and yes, while I won't buy the thing, I will read it if it's in front of me). It was the issue with Matt Lauer on the cover. Anyway, an article near the back was all about Susan Smith, who murdered her two little boys, ages one and three, by drowning them in a car (I saw a reenactment of the drowning recently. It took the car six minutes to fill up with water and go under. Six minutes that those little boys were screaming and crying in pure terror). Apparently Susan Smith fell in love with another woman in prison and married her in a little ceremony. The article even had a photo from their wedding day, while the text provided details about their sex lives. It was the photo that got me. Susan Smith, with this other woman, looking like the happiest girl on the planet. She ought to be in leg irons, with insects chewing on her flesh (actually I think she should have been drowned exactly the same way her kids were, even though it still wouldn't be as awful a death because she would be able at least to understand what was happening to her and why). Instead she's having hot lesbian sex behind bars.
Reminded me of the video footage of Richard Speck that came out after he died. Speck beat a houseful of nurses to death, was sentenced to death, but then commuted to life in prison after the death penalty was abolished in that state. Anyway, behind bars, Speck got hold of some female hormones, grew himself a pair of breast and became the love-toy of another convict. The video footage was apparently shot by still another convict -- yes, convicts with video cameras -- and it shows Speck exposing his boobs, being fondled by his boyfriend, doing coke and flashing a wad of cash. In prison. The video was exposed on Investigative Reports on A&E.
Somehow I think this stuff is allowed to happen because most of us don't want to know what's going on in our prisons. We want to throw these monsters in there and forget about them. The thing is, they are taking advantage of our willing blindness, and getting away with stuff that no judge or jury ever had in mind when they sentenced them.
-------------------------
Caught some flack because it was an Enquirer story, but who cares.
posted on September 8, 2001 03:50:29 PM newChilling... IMO, her husband is as responsible or moreso than she is.
Be careful what you wish for here. If this theory flys, the Women's movement will be set back 1000 years. Make the husband (no matter what he did, he didn't drown the kids) responsible for the wife's actions, you make wives property.
posted on September 8, 2001 03:51:54 PM new
Of the utmost importance to me, and to society, is that a person proven capable of such a monstrous act, is forever deprived of the slightest possibility of hurting anyone, ever again.
posted on September 8, 2001 03:59:57 PM newThat's what I read, Spaz...your post. I thought it was another woman...but, when I did a search, I found the two prison guards. She's having quite a time for herself, isn't she? A living argument for the death penalty, as it were...
posted on September 8, 2001 05:12:07 PM new
Ellen1Ratza3...
I fail to see what Bunnicula's sister has to do with Andrea Yates. I imagine many of us have had mentally ill family members (I have)...none of whom have killed their children. Our opinions of this woman cannot possibly reflect on any poster (or their family members) here.
posted on September 8, 2001 05:12:40 PM new
Many accept alcoholism as an illness. If a drunk driver kills your loved one but is cured of alcoholism is it acceptable to set them free?
A particularly touchy point with me, a drunk driver killed my sister-in-law's husband, he served about a month in jail and was released on probation. Then to top it off he then proceeded to making harrassing phone calls to my sister-in-law. Old west style justice was employed to see he stopped that (she had 4 big brothers.}
