posted on September 8, 2001 05:19:19 PM newEllen1Ratza3: By no means keep your opinions to yourself. Speak out! I merely wished to show that what *we* view as logical thought processes do not hold true for someone in the grip of a mental illness.
posted on September 8, 2001 05:57:42 PM new
If chemical processes in the brain can produce different realities for people then that needs to be studied. Obviously, something goes wrong in the brains of anyone that kills, but the brain chemistry might be different in each case, and needs to be studied more.
posted on September 8, 2001 06:28:47 PM newKraftdinner There have been and continue to be lots and lots of studies related to the chemistry imbalances that cause mental illness. A chemical imbalance can even cause or escalate depression. Medications such as Haldol are able to adjust the imbalances to a point that the person can lead a somewhat normal life. In the patients I saw it did cause some lethargy in most cases - but, at least they weren't hearing voices, etc. and most functioned pretty well. I lost count of the number of people who checked into the psychiatric hospital believing that they were General McCarthy, etc. I'm not saying "wanting to believe." I'm saying actually 100% convinced that they were someone that they weren't or that they were receiving messages from God, Satan, etc. Within days of taking the proper dosage of medication they were no longer delusional.
I still question the type of care that she received - from a medical standpoint and from her husband and family members. I've seen too many spouses of mentally ill men and women who had a "get over it" attitude. That doesn't absolve her - but, she obviously needed help and it seems the mentally sane people around her - professionals and otherwise - didn't take her problems seriously enough. So, yes they all share the blame, imo.
It's easy to see why people who've never witnessed seriously delusional behavior can't recognize it as real when people actually live with it day in and day out and refuse to believe that it is real.
posted on September 8, 2001 11:19:05 PM new
Mybiddness,
If I understand what your position is, this person couldn't help developing this mental disease. While diseased, she couldn't make the rational choices the rest of us do. If that's true, why doesn't that absolve her?
posted on September 9, 2001 01:44:05 AM new
Something you said earlier struck a cord with me kraftdinner.
You questioned if women often have these feelings but don't express it because it is not socially acceptable. Made me wonder if that is true because I see a similar behavior everyday.
Quite a few of the general population claim in conversation "Oh I could never hurt someone."
Yet I see when they are inducted into the armed services they for the most part don't have any problem following orders to do so.
This denial worries me because I have no illusion that way. I have very systematically hurt several people who could not keep their hands off me and have no apologies to offer for it. But I do control when I apply it.
I consider these deniers to be condidates to be found with blood all over the walls and a knive in their hand saying "what happened?" with a funny smile. I don't believe them.
posted on September 9, 2001 09:49:41 AM newDonny Just because she had a history of depression and bouts of psychosis doesn't mean that she was having a full blown psychotic episode at the time that she murdered her children. I think it should be determined through the courts whether she was actually in a psychotic state at the time of the murders. IMO, it's dangerous to set a precedent of automatically absolving a person just because they have a history of mental illness. If she was in a full blown psychotic episode then murdering her children that morning would have been as natural and as necessary as you or I carrying out the garbage. Hard to believe, but she wouldn't have been able to differentiate. I'm not sure that that's the case with her. But, her history makes me give her the benefit of the doubt for now. The fact that she called her husband and the police could be a red flag saying she knew what she was doing - or it could have just been a part of the plan in a psychotic mind.
IMO, people like Gacy and Dahmer were in control of what they were doing. Murder was their lifestyle of choice. Did Yates know what she was doing? I don't think we know that yet.
posted on September 9, 2001 10:43:53 AM newIMO, people like Gacy and Dahmer were in control of what they were doing. Murder was their lifestyle of choice.
It's always been my understanding that serial killers are motivated by compulsion, not choice. Is there an element of choice present? Who knows. The killers realize that what they're doing is wrong (by society's definition anyway, maybe not their own), but that knowledge doesn't stop them. Are their attempts to conceal their crimes evidence of consciousness of guilt? Or are they simply trying to cover their tracks to keep from being stopped or punished?
But choice? I don't think so.
Say, what about alcoholics? Here in New York we have a cop who went on a drinking binge with his police buddies for 15 hours, got in a car to drive home and killed four members of the same family as they were crossing the street. Everybody wants his head on a platter. But if he's an alcoholic, doesn't he have a disease (for the record, I don't know whether this particular man is an alcoholic)? And if he has this disease, which is compulsive, and not fully in charge of his faculties, is he really responsible for running that family down? Shouldn't an alcoholic family killer receive sympathy similar to that being extended to Andrea Yates if he or she is totally blotto when the killing occurs?
posted on September 9, 2001 10:47:25 AM new
donny, that's an VERY interesting question. Let me think about it.
gravid, your post is soooo true. I believe if given the right circumstances, any of us could kill. Take this case....if you happened upon this mother drowning her children and you had a gun, wouldn't you at least try to shoot her in the legs? I bet nobody here would hesitate.
Yes, if a mother truly had feelings about killing her young, do you you think she would admit it beforehand?...sane or not? I'm sure even if she did, or threw out lots of hints, nobody would take her seriously anyway because it's the worst taboo thought, not to mention taboo action. What if a friend came to you and told you she was thinking about killing someone?....someone you thought was normal since you met them? It's not hard to imagine thinking they were joking or dropping them as a friend because they were weird. It's something that's never talked about, but doesn't mean it's not there.
Even if you take away the psychosis part, can you imagine what it would feel like to be so depressed that you wanted to kill yourself? Would you think a person like that was thinking straight? Now add the psychosis and you can see why it's so hard to understand. It's beyond our realm like bunnicula and mybiddness have said.
posted on September 9, 2001 11:49:55 AM new
The problem I have with alcoholics is that yes when they are drunk they can do all these terrible things. But I keep coming back to the fact that they are dead sober when they decide to take that first drink. Tell me if I am wrong. Is the compulsion so bad they have to start drinking even in a sober state? If so how can we allow them to run around free and put everyone else at risk? Because it is economically difficult to lock them up?
Nobody seems to do a cost/benifit analysis of the drug war. So why favor drunks over doppies?
posted on September 9, 2001 12:00:45 PM new
That's a really good question spaz.
I think the "psychiatric" part of the medical field is directed at making you think you're sick so you will use their services to make yourself well. Everything is either labeled a disease or a disorder anymore, of which, have to be treated medically, so in theory, everyone is "sick" of something. If we're all being treated for something, then how easy can it be anymore to sort out who's TRULY sick?
To me, alcoholism is NOT a disease but a choice that becomes chronic. Same as any other addiction....smoking, eating, etc. These are NOT diseases IMO. If depression (which IS a disorder) caused these behaviours to progress, then depression is the disease they suffer from.
I see (like you're saying, I think) that it almost pays to be sick and labeled these days because it can get you off the hook for almost anything, including murder. There's no fine line, but there still are people out there who are VERY sick and REALLY need help. How can we tell anymore?
posted on September 9, 2001 12:10:32 PM new
Kraftdinner -
Mybiddness, thanks for your response, I think it's very sensible.
"If she was in a full blown psychotic episode then murdering her children that morning would have been as natural and as necessary as you or I carrying out the garbage. Hard to believe, but she wouldn't have been able to differentiate."
Yes, hard to believe, because we've never experienced anything like that ourselves. "I've never done that," or "I would never do that," etc. We take ourselves as the basis, and measure someone else against it, and find their situation inconceivable... because it's not ours. It's not how we respond.
Oliver Sacks (the doctor that the Robin Williams' character was based on in the movie "Awakenings" ), wrote a great little book 15 years or so ago entitled "The Man Who Mistook his Wife for a Hat." It was brief case histories of various patients with different neurological disorders. The man referred to in the title was a professor of music who had become (for some reason I can't remember) unable to properly recognize ordinary objects. At the end of Sacks' examination of him, the professor looked around for his hat, mistakenly recognized his wife's head as his hat, and tried to lift up his wife's head and put it on his head. Of course, that's not the same as the Yates thing, but offered as an example of how far off track perceptions can go.
To Spazmodeus' questions, I would say - yes. In my opinion the "classic" insanity standard, of not being able to distinguish right from wrong, and, further, not being able to realize that society will view an act as wrong (i.e. trying to conceal a crime is evidence that, even if the perpetrator viewed it as right, he recognized that the legal system would view it as punishable), is a bad standard. There should be a standard that recognizes that some mental illnesses really do cause irresistable compulsions. Sometimes, those compulsions involve annoying but relatively harmless actions, like washing hands over and over. I have a friend who has a friend whose compulsion is checking to see if she turned off the stove. She knows she did, and yet, while driving to work, she'll turn around, go back to the house, and check it again. And then, come lunch hour, although she knnows she turned off the stove, and knows she turned her car around and checked it on the way to work, she can't help but drive back to the house and check it again. It's not her "choice" to do this over and over, it's something she can't not do.
Yes, there will be killers and other criminals, who commit acts for gain or for other reasons, who would try to take advantage of a standard that recognizes that there are real compulsions, but there are also others, like my friend's stove checking friend, who truly cannot control a real compulsion. The law should recognize that.
(smiley)
[ edited by donny on Sep 9, 2001 12:12 PM ]
posted on September 9, 2001 12:29:38 PM newSpaz The very idea that the act of murder was a compulsion that had to be controlled indicates to me that there was a choice involved for Gacy or Dahmer... and for an alcoholic. These men made elaborate plans that allowed them to kill undetected for a very long period of time. Just because a person is mentally ill or depressed doesn't mean that they don't have control or knowledge of their actions.
A psychotic person in the middle of a psychotic episode has no control over the onset of the episode and they are 100% convinced that the voices are real. Did Yates make a choice to kill her kids? Or, did she just do what the voices (her reality) told her to do?
It's entirely possible for a person to do something - even as heinous as murder - and truly not be cognizant of the impact or consequences of what they're doing. not because they're mentally ill - but because they're psychotic.
posted on September 9, 2001 12:36:56 PM newDonny We had a patient who had such an uncontrollable compulsion to wash her hands that she would use brillo pads and lysol and literally scrubb her skin off. She would take her meds and all would be well. She would then convince herself that she was all better and would quit taking her meds. Then, she'd scrub her skin off again. The sweetest little lady in the world. I often wonder about her.
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
[ edited by mybiddness on Sep 9, 2001 12:37 PM ]
posted on September 9, 2001 12:49:55 PM new The very idea that the act of murder was a compulsion that had to be controlled indicates to me that there was a choice involved for Gacy or Dahmer... and for an alcoholic. These men made elaborate plans that allowed them to kill undetected for a very long period of time. Just because a person is mentally ill or depressed doesn't mean that they don't have control or knowledge of their actions.
From what I have read, Andrea Yates was aware that she was having serious psychological problems and posed a danger to herself and others.
Yet she remained within harm's reach of her children.
Sounds to me like a choice. Maybe the same sort of choice a serial killer or alcoholic makes, the kind of deluded choice that they can control the beast within.
Just because a person is mentally ill or depressed doesn't mean that they don't have control or knowledge of their actions.
posted on September 9, 2001 01:01:47 PM newMicrobes One trait that I saw over and over again with patients that were inclined to having psychotic episodes was that they more often than not really wanted to believe that they were cured and that they didn't need the meds that kept them from having the psychosis. So, if a person proves even once that they can go so far off the deep end that they will act out on what the voices tell them then I wouldn't want that person to go without any kind of close supervision. Even if they seemed under control with medication. It seems cruel to keep them locked up but I sure wouldn't want to have someone like that living next door... so, I don't think we have a choice but to keep them locked up.
Spaz Do you believe that Andrea Yates was mentally ill or psychotic?
From what I've read she kept telling people that she thought something was wrong with her... If she was psychotic then she wouldn't have been sure of that - although she might have had moments that were lucid enough to question whether her thinking was rational or not.
I met a lady once through the psychiatric hospital that was convinced that I must have been crazy. In her mind the fact that I didn't use my necklace as a secret microphone to God (like she did hers) was a clear indication that I didn't have a grasp on reality. But, she would still ask me sometimes if she was crazy - or was I the crazy one... all she knew for sure was that one of us was. Their thought processes aren't always muddled or always clear - and soon they're not sure which is which.
edited for sp.
Not paranoid anywhere else but here!
[ edited by mybiddness on Sep 9, 2001 01:03 PM ]
posted on September 9, 2001 01:16:07 PM new"The real question is "what should the law do with a person that can't control a compulsion to kill"?"
I think that's why it needs to be researched and studied Microbes. The problem is, is that everone's brain chemistry is different. That's why there are no cures or reliable controls for schizophrenia, OCD's, etc, yet.
I was just wondering.....is her husband supporting her or what? I haven't read anything about how he's doing.
posted on September 9, 2001 01:42:09 PM new
I think as the study of brain chemistry progresses, we will find, much to our horror, that "free choice" is a delusion.
Many do not realize it, but some have already discovered this. Ever wonder why all resturants have a red color motiff ? The color red stimulates our appetite, we have no choice in this stimulation. We don't realize it but in study after study this has been the case. The fast food industry knows it and uses red in every color scheme possible in resturants.
posted on September 9, 2001 01:49:07 PM newSpaz Do you believe that Andrea Yates was mentally ill or psychotic?
I believe that she murdered 5 children. I believe that one by one, no matter how hard they fought, she forced their heads under the water and didn't let go until the thrashing and screaming stopped.
posted on September 9, 2001 02:04:55 PM new
Any time there are so many elements in the equation to consider, it is hard to see it in black and white. I think there should be a penalty/punishment because what she did was definitely wrong and you can't go back and bring back those kids. On the other hand if she really does have some kind a mental problems she should have treatment. Prison does not usually give treatment and yet mental hospitals may not seem like punishment. I'm unsure where I stand at this point concerning the death penalty. I do not consider myself mentally disturbed and neither does anyone who knows me. I however, have experienced various levels of depression that were brought about by various circumstances beyond my control, as I am sure others have (the death of someone close to you, for example). I can't understand why even while depressed, someone could even think of hurting their children or family, though. I'm just stunned by the stuff I see on the news or in the newspapers of what people do. Maybe I just never got depressed enough to have those kinds of thoughts come into my head, let alone act on them. I am also not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so there is probably much I do not know about this subject. I just thought I'd be sociable and add to the conversation.
posted on September 9, 2001 02:08:57 PM new
I had a very close family member who was a paranoid schizophrenic. I have a good deal of experience with psychosis...though strictly as a layperson.
No...from what I've read, Andrea Yates doesn't sound like a psychotic...at least as I knew one. She sounds like someone who really wanted out...and had an overwhelming desire to kill her children, as the only way of escape she could see. She knew that was wrong and cried out for help, intermittantly. Her husband seemed in total control...witness the continual pregnancies, and the mental health professionals comments on her future prospects.
My feeling is...she knew it was wrong, yet finally did it anyway. She couldn't succeed in getting someone to stop her. Doesn't sound like a psychotic episode...more like giving in to an overwhelming urge.
At the very least, society needs to be protected from her, for the rest of her life. If meds are all that keep her in check, I know from personal experience, it is more than possible she will manage not to take them.
posted on September 9, 2001 02:23:58 PM new
I keep thinking about what spaz just said...about her holding them under, one by one, until the thrashing stopped. Is it possible she zoned out while doing that, that it wasnt HER that was holding down her children, but someone else and she removed herself so far from it that she doesnt connect it was HER that did it? Not being in that situation, nor being expert enough or have a degree in mental illness, it is very hard for me to understand how someone can do such a thing. This whole case has me so confused and twisted in my own thinking, that I dont know what to believe anymore. How can someone sweep their cell and act happy, when not long ago they were holding their own children under water until they were dead? Again, that is putting my thoughts and beliefs unto her, which is what all of us do from time to time, hence judgements of what we perceive to be right and wrong. Should she die for what she did? Maybe not. Should she be locked up forever, definetly. Like someone else said, what happends when she is deemed "cured"? Let her go to start a new family? Heaven forbid.
I still think her husband should be sitting next to her. Locked up.
posted on September 9, 2001 02:29:15 PM new
Oh, yes. That fellow has a chill factor of minus 40. Don't know if he wanted to procreate unto her maximum for himself or for the lord...but it hardly matters which.
posted on September 9, 2001 02:41:08 PM new
Why lock her up forever? What's the point of that? It's perhaps even more cruel than executing her.
Maybe, just maybe, she wouldn't have murdered those kids had there been NO chance of an insanity defense or just a life sentence. No one can say for sure, but if somewhere among the toys in Andrea Yates' attic there had existed a certainty that she herself would be uncompromisingly put to death, with no way out, maybe those kids would have had a chance. Maybe her instinct for self-preservation would have carried the day. It sure kept her from killing herself, didn't it?
How can someone sweep their cell and act happy, when not long ago they were holding their own children under water until they were dead?
Because she's free of her perceived burden? If it's some kind of religion that held Andrea in thrall...maybe she thinks they're safe and sound in heaven?
posted on September 9, 2001 02:50:13 PM newBecause she's free of her perceived burden? If it's some kind of religion that held Andrea in thrall...maybe she thinks they're safe and sound in heaven?
I think this was one of the scenarios on Law & Order a couple seasons ago.
posted on September 9, 2001 02:55:55 PM new
Execute or punish the mentally ill ? My what a fine social and cultural program.
You can not punish a mentally ill person in order to reform behavior. It is not only cruel, but ineffective.
If she is "cured" there is no reason she should not be allowed to have more children.
For those that think that mental illness or addiction are choices or states of mind that allow choices, and these folks should be punished for those choices, wait until it is your turn.
Suppose you "choose" to drive your car in bad weather and your vehicle slides on the ice and kills six children on a sidewalk. YOU made the choice to drive in these conditions, so YOU should be punished to the fullest exrent of the law. But we accept these situations as "accidents". Yet you drove your car right through 6 children and killed them. Every act leading up to the "accident" YOU had "control" over. Your intent was not to kill anybody, but to go the grocery store.
Having a mental state that is defective and doing a criminal act is no different than an "accident" by a "normal" person. Having criminal intent and the capacity to fully form criminal intent as it applies to criminal law is the difference. Holding the menatlly ill to a higher standard than an "accident" is a political decision and not a just result.
Why don't we hold criminally liable the tire company and Ford that produced a product that killed and crippled all these people ? Every act in the chain of events by these entities was intentional, only the outcome was not intended.
I find that this woman did not have the mental intent. The mechanics of the crime do not always mean that the mental capacity is there, regardless of how she killed her children. Motive is also an issue for murder. This woman had no rational motive, such as insurance policies, just as Ford had no motive to kill and cripple its customers.
