posted on September 9, 2001 03:04:13 PM new
See? No wonder Im so confused in what I think. Reamond makes good sense, as does Spaz. If this woman was so far gone mentally, why didnt she kill HERSELF instead of those 5 children? Puts another crook in the already wiggly line. If she was so miserable, why not end it with your own body? Why kill your children, then move forward to get "cured" and then have more? It just doesnt make sense thinking of it that way.
posted on September 9, 2001 03:17:40 PM new
reamond...
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.
No rational motive?? I believe that is the point. She's going for an insanity defense. You think old Dahmer had a rational motive?? Most people wouldn't...yet the lack of rationality didn't do much to save him from conviction.
posted on September 9, 2001 03:19:32 PM new
I agree about the accident thing. Accidents don't "just happen" they are "carelessly planned in advance" we do make poor judgement calls and drive when we shouldn't (like in snowy/icy conditions) and we shouldn't. Usually we don't have an accident but it COULD happen and that is why we should think things through more before doing something like that.
I also have some personal experience with mental problems, as my grandmother is very paranoid and flies into fits of rage for no apparent reason other than one in her own mind. She is not violent, just screams and carries on. She refuses any sort of treatment and insists that she is normal and everyone else is abnormal and out to get her. We try to help however we can but we can't force her to get the help she needs. However, although she seems no threat to others', she has attempted suicide on several occasions and so we need to keep an eye on her. I do understand that someone with these problems can think a certain way that is obviously wrong to us, but seems perfectly normal to them. My grandmother will attempt to convince you that she is right but her thinking is very incoherent at times but she completely understands the logic behind her way of thinking even if there is no logic there at all. Like she changes her phone number all the time because of wrong numbers and if she gets a wrong number right after changing her phone number she'll say, "I wonder how they got my number so fast? Why do they want to keep calling here to irritate and annoy me?" and finally she will not answer the phone for weeks at a time. When the phone rings she'll say, "There's the phone again, don't answer it. I know darn well that's them calling to aggravate me by asking for someone who doesn't live here!" Although she is very paranoid and gets depressed about things that aren't even happening to her, I don't believe she would ever try to kill anyone (at least I hope not). Unfortunately, my mother is taking care of her right now, as I live 3,000 miles away.
posted on September 9, 2001 03:32:54 PM newYou can not punish a mentally ill person in order to reform behavior.
The primary responsibility of society when faced with a killer is to potential future victims.
To the extent that we as society fail to protect such victims, and to the extent that we as individuals fail to vote to protect such victims, we are failures as a civilized people.
When we take that responsibility seriously, we see that it really doesn't matter whether the killing was delibrate or not.
It does matter whether people who have exhibitited one such killing have an increased likelihood of killing again.
Thus, drunk driving killers, serial murderers, and mentally ill killers are all in the same category: killers who will likely kill again if given the chance. They must be stopped.
Better that 100,000 such killers are isolated from society forever, perhaps by execution, than one more victim if some of them are released.
posted on September 9, 2001 03:37:11 PM new
Hepburn- the reason we have difficulty finding answers to this situation is that we are applying "normal" thought processes to a person with "abnormal" thought processes.
While many of us are capable of killing in a variety of "understandable" circumstances, such as for money, jealously, revenge, self protection, etc., looking for these motives in a mentally ill person is impossible.
There are miriad possible "reasons" why she did what she did, but they will not be the same as our thinking, nor readily understandable and therefore, as demonstrated by this thread, capable of our empathy.
Some mentally ill people will not kill themselves, but place themselves in situations for other people to kill them. Battered woman are an example.
Imagine if a person had a brain tumor that caused him/her to do things that were unacceptable, including murder. Now suppose that if we removed that tumor, all these actions by the ill person ceased to happen, in fact it is impossible for the person to even remember what they were capable of before. What "punishment" must society apply to this person ?
I was in a bar on evening when a female walked in stark naked. She was a "walk away" from a mental hospital. She acted as though nothing was wrong, and unexcitedly odered a rum and coke. The police came and took her away. She wasn't charged with anything.
What if I did the same thing, but my motive was a political one to protest against having to wear clothes in public or as against the closing of a local strip club. I would be arrested and charged. Why ? Because my motive and intent were different than the mentally ill person.
When the menatlly ill commit a crime, it must be treated differently, because it is a different situation.
What could be a "normal" intent for her to kill her children ? The voice inside her head told her the children needed to be in heaven and then everything would be alright ? Killing the children would make her mind quiet ?
Killing goes on among the human race daily. Our govt executes people, police kill people, armies kill people. We use many different methods to determin if these killings are OK. Motives and intent are how we come to say if the killing is OK or not.
The motives and intent of the mentally defective can not be held to the same or higher standard than we accord the rest of us.
You can not punish a mentally ill person as they carry their prison with them wherever they go. You can't kill them because then we become no different than a herd of animals that kill because the victim looks or smells different.
We have 2 choices. Cure or warehouse them. There is no prison on earth worse than that which encages the mentally ill, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, no matter where they are. What every "normal" prisoner has learned is- prison is a state of mind, not a place, those that don't ascribe to this in prison, end up in the mental ward.
posted on September 9, 2001 03:54:13 PM newWe have 2 choices. Cure or warehouse them.
We can execute them. For many, it's the only thing that works as long term protection of other people.
What we cannot do is to look collectively at any grouping, knowing that that group as a whole is highly likely to repeat a murderous past, and release them.
If there is some subgrouping which can be shown to have an expected murder rate which matches the rate of people who have no violent episode, then fine, but even then we need to be careful that joining this group becomes a goal for those intent on further mayhem.
A naked woman walking into a bar ... now if only that was as bad as it got dealing with the mentally ill.
posted on September 9, 2001 03:57:52 PM new
roofguy- What do we do with governments that execute the wrong person, or imprison them ? What do we do with corporations that kill ?
Have we become so frustrated with our system that we will not hesitate a minute to bring about the execution of a mentally ill person ?
Where is the outcry for a death sentence for Ford executives or the tire company that killed and crippled all these people?
Why haven't you suggested that people from Ford and Bridgstone be executed or put away ? Remember the Ford Pinto- Ford is a repeat offender.
Why is it OK to knowingly continue to sell a defective vehicle that causes death ? Why is NO ONE in prison or on death row for it ? More than 6 were killed or crippled.
"The primary responsibility of society when faced with a killer is to potential future victims." This could only be a police state to be effective. The role of our society is supposed to maximize freedom.
We treat Ms Yates or any other criminal different from Ford/Firestone because she doesn't employ thousands of people, nor does she make huge political contributions.
We no longer have a criminal justice system, we have a political/economic criminal system.
We should all become corporations to dodge responsibilities and bribe govt officials.
[ edited by REAMOND on Sep 9, 2001 03:59 PM ]
posted on September 9, 2001 04:01:52 PM new
Spazmodeus,
"Maybe, just maybe, she wouldn't have murdered those kids had there been NO chance of an insanity defense or just a life sentence."
The possibility of capital punishment is not a deterrant, study after study has shown that. And that's nothing new. Even back when there were public executions of pickpockets in England, those events always brought with them a high incidence of pickpocketting. Lots of people turned out for the fun; some people turned out for the opportunity.
And, studies of today's American judicial systems show that jurisdictions with capital punishment have a higher rate of "capital" crimes.
posted on September 9, 2001 04:11:17 PM new
Well put, REAMOND. When you said, We no longer have a criminal justice system, we have a political criminal system, it really got me thinking. I hadn't thought of it that way before. I believe you are right.
posted on September 9, 2001 04:23:47 PM new
Antelope67- Just look at the Cases ! Take OJ Simpson for instance. I do not need to say if he is a murderer or not, all I need point out is that thousands have been sent to prison/executed on less evidence than was placed against him.
You can find many other cases of the rich and famous "getting away with murder".
Had the Yates woman been wealthy, she would have had 5 doctors, 6 lawyers, and a publicity agent on TV defending her. She would not be in public until she had been to the beauty parlor and dressed in a manner that evokes our sympathy. She would not have spent more than a couple hours in jail until she would have been sent to a private mental hospital.
Instead we seen a harried, dishoveled woman in hand cuffs led before cameras.
We have the justice system we deserve because too many of us make decisions about people without pealing through the veneer of the media or because what a person looks like. Even worse we fail to see through the facade placed by a battery of lawyers put before us by wealthy people and corporations.
Give me $10 million dollars and Ms Yates will never go to trial and she will spend at least some amount of time in an exclusive private mental hospital.
Remember the millionaire DuPont that killed the Olympic wrestler in cold blood on his estate ? What happened to him ? He is in a private mental hospital.
posted on September 9, 2001 04:48:30 PM newThe possibility of capital punishment is not a deterrant, study after study has shown that
Too bad nobody ever gets to poll executed people after they're dead, to get their thoughts on capital punishment as a deterrent. It sure seems to deter them from future crimes.
posted on September 9, 2001 04:58:16 PM new
"Too bad nobody ever gets to poll executed people after they're dead, to get their thoughts on capital punishment as a deterrent. It sure seems to deter them from future crimes."
Which point are you trying to make, that one, or your other one:
"Maybe, just maybe, she wouldn't have murdered those kids had there been NO chance of an insanity defense or just a life sentence."
If you're switching to a different rationale, the first quote here, we can execute everyone, whether they've commited a crime or not. That would "deter" any and all future crimes.
posted on September 9, 2001 04:58:21 PM newWe have 2 choices. Cure or warehouse them
Since you won't convince most of us that you can guarrenty a cure, then the choice is "warehouse them". Now, where do we warehouse them? Some Fancy Smancy Hospital, where they just might manage to escape or kill someone, or in 6X8 cage in a high security prison?
posted on September 9, 2001 05:17:51 PM new
Good grief.
This is not complex.
Either she should be excused because of presumption of insanity...or not. As we now know...she's quite "happy" in jail...with her meds.
I say...insane or (as I believe) not...no excuse. The children are dead, by their mother's hand...and not painlessly, either...she chased down the oldest boy, who fought and tried his best to save himself. Please remember them, as you debate the fate of the mother who drowned them. The fine points of law and conscience, all leave them as they are.
posted on September 9, 2001 05:49:13 PM new
Reamond, what you said has alot of merit. Thank you. But no matter how hard I try, I just cant get the image out of my head what Toke described: Her chasing down the last one, and him pleading and fighting for his life, only to be put in the same death chamber his siblings died in. She CHASED HIM throughout the house. Yes, I am judging her by my own thoughts and what is right and wrong, and God help me for maybe not being fair in what I think, but that woman KILLED her children and I cant get it out of my mind. I just cant. All my sympathies are on the children. It haunts me, the terror they felt, the tears and cries, the seeing mommy thru the thrashing water or worse yet, the cold white bottom of the tub, and her hands holding them down. Its awful. And yes, being human, I feel anger and despair and disgust and I cannot stop thinking of her smiling, and laughing and breathing in air and knowing help is in her meds but her CHILDREN who didnt have a chance are dead and the way they died was horrendous. So should she be killed? Im at war within myself about that. Part of me says YES YES YES, kill her like she killed her kids...drown her sorry self. The other part says have compassion, because I dont know what is in her head. So there you have it. One totally confused Hepburn.
posted on September 9, 2001 05:55:50 PM newwe can execute everyone, whether they've commited a crime or not.
Now that's just silly.
I remember some time ago I was watching a news program or something on TV. Anyway, they did a story about this serial killer who had killed four or five people, partially devouring the victims. He didn't get the death penalty. Instead he was kept in one of those so-called maximum security asylums for the criminally insane. Well they had him in there for about ten years. But guess what happened? One day they got sloppy and he broke out using nothing but a pen for a weapon! He killed the policemen guarding him and escaped in an ambulance. At the conclusion of the program he was still on the loose (a follow-up to this story revealed that he killed more people afterward, including a detective in Italy). So thanks to our "merciful" laws, he was kept alive only to kill again. But here's the real kicker -- this psychokiller who benefitted from the insanity defense was a trained psychiatrist himself! That was his profession before he was caught!
posted on September 9, 2001 05:56:11 PM new
You're right toke. It does boil down to one of the two scenarios. Let's say she's found guilty. What do you think should be done with her? If she gets the death penalty, for sure we will learn nothing from this, but if she gets life, I think she owes that life to society and should allow herself to be studied, even used a guinea pig until she dies herself. If she was TRULY sick, I think she would be more than happy to be a subject for study, if not for her children, at least for other women with the same M.O.
What do you think about what Microbes and some others suggested? Do we lock the sicko's and potential sicko's up until we find a better solution or cure, or what? That's a pretty tough question (for me anyways ).
P.S. Nice to meet you Antilope67 . You've made some pretty good point too!
edited for clarity
[ edited by kraftdinner on Sep 9, 2001 06:06 PM ]
posted on September 9, 2001 06:13:26 PM new
" "we can execute everyone, whether they've commited a crime or not."
Now that's just silly."
Yes, it is silly. But what you're advocating is just as silly. No matter how you slice it, what you always come back to in this instance is that regardless of whether or not she was psychotic she should be executed. You focus completely on the resulting act, and, for you, that's all there is to it.
The idea of personal responsibility can't only include automatically taking responsibility for every action. It has to include the realization that there's a difference between what we can control about our actions, and what we can't. Or else, what is the point?
posted on September 9, 2001 06:16:53 PM newSpaz: Uh-no offense but you just described Hannibal Lechter...
The sad part about all this is that those kids didn't have to die. All the warning signs were there-after one suicide attempt she told a health worker that she decided to kill herself because she was afraid she would hurt someone-yet only stopgap measures were taken to help her.
In one article I read, a psychologist admitted that the mental health community dropped the ball bigtime in their treatment(and I use the term loosely) of Andrea Yates. Yet instead of treating her properly, they medicated her and sent her back to the same situation that was exacerbating her mental illness.
She is responsible for what happened to her children but AFAIC her husband and those who offered her such slipshod treatment should be held accountable as well.
posted on September 9, 2001 06:53:27 PM newShe is responsible for what happened to her children but AFAIC her husband and those who offered her such slipshod treatment should be held accountable as well.
I don't see it quite like that. Did her Husband ask, pressure, or tell her to drag the kids into the bathroom, and drown them?
Was he a trained psychologist?
As for the mental health community it's self, they can't agree among themselves what is the best way to treat a person like this. Ask 6 psychologists, and get at least 3 different opinions. Mental health is not an exact science.
It maybe simpler than everyone is making it out. Maybe she's just an evil person. Like Frued said, Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
In any event, she did it, all by her self, no one helped hold the kids under water, no one has said the Father would have helped if he had been around, and my guess is if she had tryed this while he was around, the kids would still be alive.
posted on September 9, 2001 07:16:29 PM newWhy haven't you suggested that people from Ford and Bridgstone be executed or put away ? Remember the Ford Pinto- Ford is a repeat offender.
Consider the safety vs manufacturing cost vs subsequent litigation costs triangle. This equation seldom if ever involves murder. I'd say never involves murder, but hypothetically one could imagine scenarios. We've never seen one. They go nothing at all like the Ford/Bridgestone fiasco.
If every decision were to be made in favor of safety, no one could afford an automobile, or maybe there could be no automobiles at all. Thus, a decision to make an automobile more affordable or buildable at all at some lower safety level is something which is done of necessity by every automobile manufacturer. To attack such decisions by lawsuit is the third leg of the equation. Companies must analyze each decision in light of expected litigation. That is good.
posted on September 9, 2001 07:48:30 PM new
Knowingly producing a product that is defective and will kill people IS PREMEDITATED MURDER. Just because it is an inpersonal act does not relieve the criminal action.
There is no moral difference producing a Ford Pinto, knowing that it will explode and kill people, and deciding that it is cheaper to pay off lawsuits than to fix the problem, is no different than killing someone for an inheiretence or to collect insurance money.
Suggesting otherwise is baseless.
The cost accounting/civil penalty angle does not address criminal aspects. The bottom line is that corporations escape criminal liability. The argument that safe cars are unaffordable has been shown to be false.
posted on September 9, 2001 08:17:10 PM new
"Companies must analyze each decision in light of expected litigation. That is good."
Nope, not good.
If you think the impetus is here -
"If every decision were to be made in favor of safety, no one could afford an automobile, or maybe there could be no automobiles at all."
that is, on the "consumer availability" side, you're wrong. The motivation is on the other side, the "profit to company" side. How many consumers will be able to afford to buy a product can figure into the equation, but only from a standpoint of company profit - i.e. Is it more profitable to make a product only 10,000 people can afford at X dollars per, or more profitable to make a product 100,000 can afford at X minus dollars per?
Don't think that companies don't realize that death is one of the certainties in some product designs, or that predictable deaths aren't carefully calculated. If every 50th use will be likely to cause a death, and the resulting action will likely cost 1 million in litigation cost, and the profit loss is 1 milliion and 1 dollars to prevent that death, make sure you're the 49th or 51st user. And what makes the difference doesn't have to be something that would make a car unaffordable. It can be something as relatively inexpensive as.. say... rear seat seatbelts, or a slightly longer bolt. If a dollar profit is the difference, that's the criterion.
posted on September 9, 2001 08:43:32 PM new"There is no moral difference producing a Ford Pinto, knowing that it will explode and kill people, and deciding that it is cheaper to pay off lawsuits than to fix the problem, is no different than killing someone for an inheiretence or to collect insurance money."
I don't know if will (my bolding) is the correct word.....maybe could would fit better, but I agree with your sentiment 100% Reamond. Unfortunately, like donny and roofguy point out, that's not the reality. Money is the bottom line with EVERYTHING. If you believe otherwise, you must be in a trance (not you personally Reamond!).
posted on September 9, 2001 10:28:00 PM new
Kraftdinner- It is a fact with the Ford Pinto case. A memo was produced that stated the cost benefit in adding a $2 part ( a rubber bladder) or redesigning was more costly than paying anticipated lawsuits.However, the jury made their cost analysis very wrong. The verdict was huge.
How is this different than driving drunk ? You're not going to kill someone every time you drive drunk, but you have knowledge of the heightened probability present, and do it anyway. Why does the drunk go to jail but not the executuives at these companies ? Because the executives are the same guys funding the judicial, legislative, and executive political races. They also have an army of lawyers and public relations people swaying public opinion to allow elected officials to favor them either in the courts or by special legislation.
If a person acted with this reckless disregard, we would face criminal as well as civil penalaties. Why ? Because we do not have the capital that a corporation does.
Call your Congressman, see if he returns your call. He is too busy returning calls to corporate lobbyists. Lobbyists line the halls of Congress.
Cheat on your taxes and you face criminal prosecution, but do it as a corporation and the most that can happen is a fine.
Be the agent in the death of another, you go to jail or are executed. Do it as a corporation and you pay civil penalties. With the costs spread over the lifetime of a corporation, the fines actually amount to very little.
As I said before, if this Yates woman were wealthy she would enjoy a far different outcome. Put a face on a criminal and we want blood ( perhaps it is because we see ourselves ?), put a faceless corporate logo on the criminal act and we wouldn't even think of placing any criminal responsibility on the people who run the corporation.
posted on September 9, 2001 11:06:05 PM new
Reamond - "How is this different than driving drunk ?"
If a person doesn't know that driving drunk is bad, then they should be put in jail just for being stupid. That's an option that's chosen. With mental illness, you have no choice.
And I understand what you're saying. It's called corruption and it's everywhere. But at what point do we accept some of the responsibility ourselves?
If you bought a new car and got into the habit of slamming the door, got into an accident and the door popped off because the hinges weren't built for that type of slamming, and you were hurt, who's fault would that be? There are so many variables that might possibly never occur, making that kind of testing unreasonable and unprofitable.
. You've made some pretty good point too!
