posted on March 15, 2002 11:44:34 AM new
Just heard it live. 10 jurors apparently dont think she would a threat to society. I guess her children were not considered part of society?
MEOW
posted on March 15, 2002 12:14:38 PM new
She was given life without possibility of parole for 40 years. By the time she's eligible for parole she'll be 77 years-old. And it could well be that, like Manson, although *eligible* she will never get said parole.
And since she *will* be locked up for at least the next 40 years she won't be a danger to society. Assuming she survives--the other inmates may take that into their own hands...
posted on March 15, 2002 01:57:56 PM new
While I believe you do not execute an ill person, I also don't believe you let them out in 2 years because "they're well now". It's the right sentence.
posted on March 15, 2002 02:14:56 PM new
It's odd that people actually believe that these mandatory minimums will stand up over 10,20, or 40 years. Public opinion can and does change over time. She may get out in 15.
posted on March 15, 2002 02:46:47 PM new
Yea. Probably some young reporter will give an in-depth interview, 1/2 hour special on TV with her in 15 years. Public sympathy will be drawn on to get her a pardon. It's happened.
posted on March 15, 2002 03:20:17 PM new"And since she *will* be locked up for at least the next 40 years she won't be a danger to society."
I live about 110 miles from Houston and our local cable carries the local Houston News channels. Most of what the rest of the country is getting is the "readers digest" version of the case.
She was given life not death because 10 of members of the jury panel believed she would not pose a threat to society. Under our current state law, a person can be put to death only if the jury feels they would continue to be a threat to society (strange as that seems since they would be in prison for life-the only other option in a capital murder trial in Texas if found guilty of capital murder).
Her husband held an interview afterwards and we have not seen/heard the last of this case.
He had a gag order placed against him early on and he feels his constitutional rights were violated and ultimately that gag order resulted in his wife being "prejudged" without all the facts made know to the public only the negative ones. He feels he and his family was let down by the medical profession and the judicial system.
The proscecution team had stated early on in an interview with the media (several weeks after her arrest) that when she was first arrested, she was practically catatonic and really not able to appear in court, but since she had been in jail and receiving the "proper treatment" she had improved enough for them to go ahead with charging her with capital murder.
Not once did she ever state that she felt what she did was "wrong" . She stated she did what she believed she had to do even though she knew that her husband, the police and God would be mad at her and think she had done something bad.
The jury decided that knowing she had done something illegal, meant she had to know what she did was wrong and under Texas' current definition of insanity, they had no choice but to deliver a guilty verdict.
Already there is speculation that this will cause a push for changing the legal definition of "insane" in the State of Texas.
I believe the husband is also gearing up to bring suit against his HMO, the doctors and maybe even the State itself!
The prosecution kept making a big to do about Yates having access to insurance, doctors, hospitals and family help but she refused it all....
Her husband maintains she/he did not refuse anything. He stated he took her to a doctor and she was placed in a hospital and placed on a drug that actually ended up making her psychotic and ultimately led to her doing what she did. He said he foolishly believed his wife was OK because she was released from the hospital and he was told she would be fine. He had no reason at that time (or even after her two subsequent suicide attempts???) to feel the doctors might be wrong and that his wife might be a danger to herself or the children, because they were "professional" and he was not. Now, he is convinced they were wrong and ultamately responsible for what happened.
If anything this trial has made me realize just how little most of us know (layman and professional) about mental illness and just how inadequate or current methods of treatment are.
I have a friend who has been in and out of mental hospitals for the last 40 years and is no better today than she was when she was originally diagnosed. In all, she has spent almost 1/2 of her adult life in a mental institution. When she is out, she lives on the street (by her "choice" ) until she ends up getting picked up for shoplifting or some other "crime" and then she is dropped back into the legal system which will send her to a hospital for 90 days (the max in Texas for involuntary commentment), then to a half-way house with supervision for up to 90 days and then on to the street where she will survive for usually 6 months before being picked up and starting the process over again.
She maintains she is normal it's just the government that's out to get her and the hospitals drug her and play games with her mind and try and drive her crazy, but she resist them and as soon as she is free she can get rid of the poision they pumped into her system and forced her to swallow and she'll get well......same scenerio over and over and over......
edited to try and get rid of the smiley that wasn't intended to be there.
[ edited by sulyn1950 on Mar 15, 2002 03:26 PM ]
posted on March 15, 2002 03:25:01 PM new
I hope I'm not too far off topic, but I read an article last month about 2 men convicted of murder.
One executed another man in a drug deal- made the victim get on his knees and shot him in the back of the head, the other I believe killed a man in a hold up.
What's so special about these two? Both were admitted to and graduated from law school after serving prison terms for murder, and received their undergraduate degrees while in prison. Now both have been admitted to the bar and practice law in two different states.
posted on March 15, 2002 03:31:21 PM new
I don't feel the need for revenge against Andrea Yates. I feel that if she recovers her mental health while imprisoned, she will live with a horrendous guilt that I would wish on no one. We are just beginning to get a grasp on how our biology influences our mental well being. We wouldn't call for the death penalty if a mother with diabetes passed out while driving her car and killed her five children. But we still demonize the mentally ill.
posted on March 15, 2002 03:38:05 PM new
I read today some more things that were not allowed at trial.
It seems the prosecution produced testimony to the effect that Yates watched a Law and Order episode two weeks before she killed her children. The show was about a mother who kills her children and fakes mental illness and gets away with it.
However, the defence found out that there never was such a show on Law and Order and proffered to have the show's producers fly to Texas and testify to this. The judge would not allow it.
In Texas, the jury is also not allowed to know that if they give a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, the judge can put Yates into a secure mental institution until she is cured and deemed not a threat.
Her action were horrible, but I believe she was insane at the time. In any event, she seems to have been railroaded at every turn.
posted on March 19, 2002 08:30:07 AM new
I've said it before on here: I do not believe in the concept of punishment. I believe that if a person is a danger to themselves or to society, they need to be incarcerated for however long it takes for them to stop being a threat, no matter what the crime was.
Andrea Yates likely has a condition that makes her a danger for the rest of her life. If, in 10 or 20 years, a miracle drug or operation appears that who make her totally safe and she successfully availed herself of it, I'd support her reemergence back into the community. But not a minute before then.
posted on March 19, 2002 08:59:08 AM new
Plsmith, that's a Texas Longhorn.
Not once did she ever state that she felt what she did was "wrong" . She stated she did what she believed she had to do even though she knew that her husband, the police and God would be mad at her and think she had done something bad.
That says it all for me. I do believe the husband shares culpability.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
