Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB73 on March 17, 2005, 02:16:47 PM
-
from her now ex-husband:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=718&e=9&u=/ap/20050317/ap_on_re_us/andrea_yates
Andrea Yates' attorney, John O'Sullivan, told The Associated Press that his client wasn't happy about the divorce but "she has come to terms with it and knows Rusty needs to go on with his life. She just wants to get it behind her."
ohhhh poor woman.
O'Sullivan said she is mentally stable but "forever scarred."
so sad i single tear rolls down my cheek.
this lawyer sounds like a charecter from the movie the devil's advocate. what a scumbag.
-
Has Yates been convicted of a crime?
-
I thought so tho she successfully appealed part of it
-
Andrea Yates, 40, was sentenced to life in prison for three of the 2001 drowning deaths,
-
The greatest danger to children birth-7 years is their mother. Accidents, rage, and depression. United States has roughly 60 or so children in that age group who die from firearms related issues per year. Last time I looked, mother related deaths for that age group were close to 40,000 per year in the US.
Sounds like US mothers need to be registered, required to pass motherhood tests, licensed and closely monitoring by the state untill their children reach 10 or 11....................there is no amendmant to the US Constitution protecting the right to be a mother.
-
The scary part about all this...it happened just down the road from my house.
:(
-
Not guilty (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/26/yates.trial.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories)
-
The woman was obviously deranged. I don't know how she'll ever be able to live with herself.
-
Get a rope.
-
return of the living dead topic :O
saw my name and thought, WTF? who the heck got the password and posted something!?1 :mad:
let it be known i had zero involvement in the booting of this.
sandy, you a bit on the agressive edge today? seem to be wanting to turn the screws a bit and start controversy?
on topic, i think it is a totally wrong verdict IMO.
-
Originally posted by Mustaine
sandy, you a bit on the agressive edge today? seem to be wanting to turn the screws a bit and start controversy?
I didn't create the story. Just updating an old thread on this topic before someone creates a new one.
-
she was crazy??? no ... I always thought sane ppl drown their kids in a tub...
may God have mercy on her soul
-
She has a reversal of a legal conviction. So far as I know no one has denied that she did in fact murder her kids. While you can claim that she wasn't in her right mind about it for the purpose of assigning legal guilt to it, the fact of the matter is she killed her kids who did not do anything to deserve to die other than have the freakingly bad luck to be born to her. There is no reason in my mind she needs to be considered for freedom, ever. As long as her kids remain dead she should be incarcerated. I think she should be in solitary and the only decorations in her cell should be photgraphs of her children in their caskets.
-
Hi Guys,
This was terrible, heartbreaking, case. I read the details of the actual murders several years ago, and remember being horrified at the time. Yates systematically drowned her five children one by one, then laid them out on the bed in their bedroom. She had to struggle to drown the older ones, and had to hunt down and fight several of them. She then called her husband at work and told him to come home telling him specifically that she had done something bad to the children, and then she also called the police telling a detective that she called them because that's who you call when you've "done something wrong." Yates also told police that the final decision to drown her children came after several months of deliberation.
Admittedly, this is just my opinion, but I'm saddened by the verdict. I'm particularly saddened because by it, the Yate's children were denied justice in a "this worldly" sense. I'm also disturbed because under this verdict, Yates can be released as soon as she is declared competent and will be free to have more children. It also was simply bad law for a number of reasons.
1) In order to fit the proper criteria of "not guilty by reason of insanity" it needs to be demonstrated that the perpetrator did/does not understand the difference between right and wrong and fundamentally cannot comprehend the consequences of their actions.
Yates, repeatedly demonstrated that she knew murdering her kids was wrong, and had planned the murders long in advance indicating that this was not spontaneous psychotic behavior, but the result of premeditation.
2) Depression has been poignantly described as "a room in hell" by Martha Manning, but as awful as it is, it is not insanity. I've counseled many people with depression, and my experience has been that it tends to make people more likely to choose to engage in self-destructive behavior up to and including suicide - but have never seen it be the catalyst for murderous rage. Ultimately also, the depressive personality is still self-aware and quite capable of volitional choice in the way that psychotics are not. I don't for a moment dispute that Andrea Yates was depressed, but from the case evidence and her own testimony it is clear that she consciously premeditated the murder of her children and then acted on it.
So in the end I'm just sad that five little lives were brutally (http://www.courttv.com/trials/yates/062806_ctv.html) snuffed out by the person they trusted most, and yet the person who did it has gone essentially unpunished.
- SEAGOON
-
hear, hear Seagoon. I couldn't have put how I personally feel better... though I am a bit more agressive with my feelings on it.
-
As I posted earlier, those murders happened about a mile down the street from me when I used to live in Webster. She was insane, no doubt, but her POS hubby got off scott free as well. I just can't imagine anything more evil than what she did. But, hey, so sayeth the state...
-
Originally posted by bustr
The greatest danger to children birth-7 years is their mother. Accidents, rage, and depression. United States has roughly 60 or so children in that age group who die from firearms related issues per year. Last time I looked, mother related deaths for that age group were close to 40,000 per year in the US.
And which portion of your colon did you pull those statistics from?
The leading cause of death in young children in the US is by far accidents. Next are congenital malformations and cancer. For accidents, automobile accidents are the most common, followed by drowning, firearms, and fires.
-
Originally posted by myelo
And which portion of your colon did you pull those statistics from?
The leading cause of death in young children in the US is by far accidents. Next are congenital malformations and cancer. For accidents, automobile accidents are the most common, followed by drowning, firearms, and fires.
Automobile accidents.... Mom driving....
Drowning... Mom not watching....
Firearms... Mom hunting Cheney style...
Fires... Mom setting fire to the couch...
Congenital... Mom smoking, drinking, and getting into pool hall fights.
It's all Mom's fault.
-
Where's dad during all this?
-
crazy, loony, insane, depressed, bipolar... who cares.. fact is that she murdered 5 of her kids.. life for a life i say, she should have faced old sparky or whatever method is used in texas. not guilty, thats total BS!
-
The hag drowned her own babies.
Helpless, trusting and innocent...and Mommy dressed them, gave them their Cheerios...and one after another proceeded to kill her little ones. The ones who trusted her with the purity of children.
No fate is bad enough, and I don't care to hear the reasons.
Period.
Picure the faces of your own little angels, and tell me how much compassion you can really muster...cause I sure can't.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Where's dad during all this?
In an interview after the verdict today, he was outside the building saying how great the verdict was. The day she drowned them, he was at work. She called him and told him she'd done something bad to the children. She called the police and told them the same thing. Seems if she knew she did something bad to the children, she was capable of distinguishing right from wrong and therefore today's verdict is not correct. However, I wasn't on the jury.
-
Nice to see you back, Seagoon
Whoa, a JB73 post...eeesh!
I, too was disappointed yet not suprised at the verdict. I hardly expected her to stand up and confess that what she did was wrong. Like everything else in the legal system these days, taking responsibility takes a back seat.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Like everything else in the legal system these days, taking responsibility takes a back seat.
More to the point, like every thing else in the WORLD.
-
Originally posted by myelo
Where's dad during all this?
Doesn't matter... It's still mom's fault for picking such a loser husband.
-
They wana send her to mental hospital ok. when they declare her cured, then send her *** back to jail to finish off her life sentence.
no way she should ever be let out free.
whels
-
Life for a life? Does that mean she would get to be killed 5 times?
Seriously though wow, some people are just........blah
-
Should of stuck her into a pool and drowned her
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
She was insane, no doubt, but her POS hubby got off scott free as well.
I agree, he needs to be held accountable for his part in this. He was there with her everyday and saw the state she was in. He took her to a doctor, but didn't want her to take medication (against his religion, ya know) so they keep doc shopping until they find one that didn't prescribe her any nutbag pills. Well, we all know what happened next.
The kids are dead, she's in the nuthouse and he's got a new woman and no child support. :furious
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
Should of stuck her into a pool and drowned her
That would be murder.
Instead, get a temporarily insane person to do it. :D
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Life for a life? Does that mean she would get to be killed 5 times?
Seriously though wow, some people are just........blah
yea, life for a life.. you take one, you lose yours.. especially when children are involved.. killed 5 times.. bad attempt in humor i think. bottom line, she killed her children and she should pay with her life.. not go to a hospital where there is a chance that she could someday walk out the doors a free person, remote as it may be.. what would you think if she walks a free woman and then does something like this again.... whats gonna happen then, juice her up on meds and set her free again?
some people are just...... blah... yea, those people that feel sorry for this woman are just.... blah...
-
Something tells me that alot of these types of things are due to career preassure, both parents working, increased use of legal drugs to "cure" problems etc.
In many homes the mother has a career and does all the stuff around the house that moms used to be able to focus 100% on.
-
Solution: Au-Pairs :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Solution: Au-Pairs :D
bingo! :D
-
My stock answer for someone who commits such a horrible crime is usually " 32 cents..the average cost for a bullet."
However seeing the monstrosity of this crime..I vote for skinning her alive with a rusty butter knife, and letting the ants eat her sorry bellybutton while she is staked out in the yard with a pair of magnifying glasses directing the suns rays onto her eyeballs.. But that's just me and my soft side showing through.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
bingo! :D
I have 2 :D
(2 kids...2 aupairs)
Planning on more :D
-
Hi Guys,
It seems to me that the verdict in this trial has exposed two serious problems with our views of crime and punishment, and they are both related. Lose one and you eventually lose the other.
The first is our inability to address crime in moral terms. As a society we are increasingly unwilling to speak of actions in terms of right and wrong, good and evil. Instead, we speak of actions using therapeutic language. People cease to be malefactors and their wrongful actions cease to be evil. Instead people are labeled as sick and they are no longer responsible for what they do because they are sick. This has the added effect of making the criminal "a victim" of their own sickness and thus an object of pity. I was astounded, for instance, that people treated Andrea Yates as the victim, and seemed to forget that the actual victims were the 5 children she murdered. In the end they were almost entirely forgotten, pushed under the carpet, even by their father.
The second problem which flows from the first is a loss of the concepts of justice and punishment. If Andrea's problem is not that she is an evildoer who committed five premeditated murders, but a "sick person" who is not responsible for her actions, then she needs therapy to help her "get better" and not punishment. This eliminates one of the central pillars of law - the concept of retribution or consequences. We punish our kids in part to let them know that there will be a reckoning for evil. We should do this, not as revenge but to teach vital concepts like the difference between right and wrong, the importance of justice, and the critical idea of responsibility. Instead we have moved our response to wrongdoing from the arena of objective retributive justice to the arena of compassionate health care.
It's difficult to know how we can deal with this paradigm shift as individuals, but one of the the simple ways we might be able to positively influence people is by speaking of the actions of people like Andrea Yates or even the Jihadis who barbarically tortured those two American servicemen to death as evil rather than "sick". We can also point out the simple fact that her five victims ultimately did not receive justice at the hands of criminal law system, neither did Yates receive the punishment she had earned. What we saw was a fundamental act of injustice that served neither the victims nor society.
- SEAGOON
BTW - LePaul good to hear from you too, its good to be back.
-
A sane killer is no more or less dangerous than an insane killer. They're both killers. Put them down. For the sake of the rest of the community, put them down.
It's not about punishment. It's about protecting the community from further harm.
-
A rabid animal is not responsible for it's actions either but it is neither humane nor safe to allow it to continue to act at the risk to others. Put her down and move on. If she is "cured" how are you going to remove from her the overwhelming horror of what she did when "sick"? Some acts require a "mercy killing" IMO.