Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

K8 · July 27, 2006, 03:53:59 PM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

Originally posted by Kamal

if that was the case, why would she every weep during her trial, it must all seem like a dream toher right?

insanity of convenience perhaps

**BeachBum** · July 27, 2006, 08:41:11 PM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

Redrum !!!! I think insanity was a gimme ???

**sammwalk** · July 28, 2006, 02:31:05 AM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

if they could prove, really prove, that this was directly related to a post-partum mental state and was never to return, then i suppose the verdict is fair, since it would be an isolated incident of psychotic behavior identified with a specific mental chemical state following pregnancy. however, this seems extremely implausible. the extent of the premeditation and the crimes don't justify an isolated psychotic episode; they signify a disposition towards psychosis. in keeping with the idea of prison and the death penalty being ways of protecting the public from dangerous individuals, i see no reason why the defendant has any right to a continued public existence, given that her behavior is likely wont to appear again.

psychosis should not be viewed as a reason not to incarcerate/execute individuals; rather, psychosis is one of several reasons people commit crimes, so it should be a key reason in their apprehension. if we begin to consider the mental states of violent individuals and their causes, then we have no way of determining where guilt lies. there is no mental condition that does not have its utmost cause in something outside of the individual's control; hence, one can argue that a past of violence and abuse absolves individuals of responsiblity when they commit crimes because they had no choice. similarly, one can argue (and they do) that mentally unstable individuals have no control over their mental states; hence, they cannot be held liable for any damages incurred when they are experiencing an episode or are otherwise incapable of making "normal" rational judgements. this reasoning can be carried to the furthest degree, absolving any possible criminal behavior.

obviously, what this does is short change any hope of personal responsibility. instead, individuals must be held accountable regardless of their upbringing or mental state or any other factor which may influence generally normal behavior. the only exception is in cases where intent could not possibly be construed, such as accidents, or cases of self-defense.

if for no other reason, defendant should be killed to spare the lives of other possible victims.

**Huggie Smiles** · July 28, 2006, 08:38:02 AM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

Originally posted by sammwalk

if they could prove, really prove, that this was directly related to a post-partum mental state and was never to return, then i suppose the verdict is fair, since it would be an isolated incident of psychotic behavior identified with a specific mental chemical state following pregnancy. however, this seems extremely implausible. the extent of the premeditation and the crimes don't justify an isolated psychotic episode; they signify a disposition towards psychosis. in keeping with the idea of prison and the death penalty being ways of protecting the public from dangerous individuals, i see no reason why the defendant has any right to a continued public existence, given that her behavior is likely wont to appear again.

psychosis should not be viewed as a reason not to incarcerate/execute individuals; rather, psychosis is one of several reasons people commit crimes, so it should be a key reason in their apprehension. if we begin to consider the mental states of violent individuals and their causes, then we have no way of determining where guilt lies. there is no mental condition that does not have its utmost cause in something outside of the individual's control; hence, one can argue that a past of violence and abuse absolves individuals of responsiblity when they commit crimes because they had no choice. similarly, one can argue (and they do) that mentally unstable individuals have no control over their mental states; hence, they cannot be held liable for any damages incurred when they are experiencing an episode or are otherwise incapable of making "normal" rational judgements. this reasoning can be carried to the furthest degree, absolving any possible criminal behavior.

obviously, what this does is short change any hope of personal responsibility. instead, individuals must be held accountable regardless of their upbringing or mental state or any other factor which may influence generally normal behavior. the only exception is in cases where intent could not possibly be construed, such as accidents, or cases of self-defense.

if for no other reason, defendant should be killed to spare the lives of other possible victims.

you're actually advocating the killing of people who suffer from mental illness!!!

errrr...thats what the Nazi's did!

**Kamal** · July 28, 2006, 08:38:45 AM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

^^ Looks like he nearly made a phd thesis out of an issue thats out of anyone's control and nearly know one will read

**Huggie Smiles** · July 28, 2006, 09:19:17 AM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

is that soft talk for the threads gettin locked??? hahahaahaa

**Kamal** · July 28, 2006, 10:15:42 AM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

lmao... no just found it amusing Sam decided to get right into the nitty gritty of it

**sammwalk** · July 28, 2006, 02:30:43 PM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

not advocating the persecution of those with mental illness, just advocating the elimination of those who have demonstrated that the extent of their illness allows them to kill. whether it's in their "control" or not shouldn't be a factor because there's no clear way of determining proximate cause.

and if you don't want to read it, don't. but complicated issues can't be summed up in a few sentences.

**CrazyMadFlyGirl** · July 28, 2006, 09:48:22 PM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

Originally posted by sammwalk

not advocating the persecution of those with mental illness, just advocating the elimination of those who have demonstrated that the extent of their illness allows them to kill. whether it's in their "control" or not shouldn't be a factor because there's no clear way of determining proximate cause..

well said.....

**CrazyMadFlyGirl** · July 28, 2006, 10:06:21 PM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

Originally posted by Huggie Smiles

lets hope you, your family and friends dont suffer from postpartum depression - cos thats quite an attitude to take. you really want to put your sister to death for the effects of chemical inbalances due to the massive hormone changes a woman goes through during labor and birth?

My comment about lethal injection was harsh...my apologies if it came across as my encouragement for murder of another person. But it makes me wonder... Who is the death penalty appropriate for if not for someone who could Drown her own kids??? (all 5 of them) Just for the record I had a very dear girlfriend of mine suffer with severe postpartum depression, but never with any psychotic behaviors or episodes. I also do have a very close family member who suffers from a form of mental illness, so I am very familiar with that side of things. I feel Yates' case was very severe and also premeditated... and I feel she deserved nothing less than LIFE in prison!

**beanzncheez** · July 29, 2006, 09:58:11 PM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

Originally posted by Huggie Smiles

Dont believe what Tom Cruise tells you!

So true.

**beanzncheez** · July 29, 2006, 10:01:38 PM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

Originally posted by Kamal

lethal injection if I was the judge

Killing people off is way too easy. That's pretty much like letting the person off easy. Let her life and suffer the consequences. Without suffering, there is no justice.

**Huggie Smiles** · July 31, 2006, 11:21:43 PM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

just FYI:

19/20 violent crimes conducted by people without mental illness

BBC NEWS | Health | Mental health crime link studied

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5216836.stm

BBC, News, BBC News, news online, world, uk, international, foreign, british, online, service

**sammwalk** · August 1, 2006, 12:56:04 AM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

yeah, that sounds right, because most violent crimes are related to poverty, gangs, circumstantial conflict, etc. i bet a lot of serial killers are otherwise mentally healthy too. that doesn't make the mentally disturbed any less responsible for their crimes, is my point. Like, I don't see how the "insanity" defense is consistent, whether it's temporary or not. Anyone can get angry, at any time, for any reason, so how can this be a defense?

My logic goes like this: if you're the kind of person that can be so enraged/upset over something that it can drive you to kill (besides self-defense, of course), why should that be a defense? You weren't under any Russian mind-control; you did it yourself. Whether it's because you're mentally unstable, or just angry, or sociopathic and unfeeling, shouldn't matter. If you're under the power of your own will, you face the consequences.

**beanzncheez** · August 1, 2006, 01:17:27 PM

Re: Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

I thought most violent crimes were committed because of hip hop.

Andrea Yates found NOT Guilty!????!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment