Cry Me a Bathtub: Cuomo Says 'Treatment Might Be Harshest Punishment For Yates'

Good Morning America/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

by Mark Finkelstein

July 27, 2006 - 07:36

The Andrea Yates jury spent 36 days listening to testimony and argument, trying to get inside the mind of a woman who had drowned her five children. But with just one sentence, ABC's Chris Cuomo gave us a stunning look inside the mind of a certified MSMer: sympathy first, last and always for the accused.

Commenting on the not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict, Cuomo had this to say:

"Ironically, treatment might be the harshest punishment for Yates, because she has said the healthier she becomes, the more pain and regret she's able to feel."

So let us get this straight, Chris. Yates had already been convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. She could of course simply have accepted her fate. Instead, her lawyers undertook a strenuous appeal in which they ultimately succeeded in obtaining a new trial. They went through the massive undertaking of the trial itself, obtaining a sentence pursuant to which Yates will be sent to a mental hospital . . . with the possibility of walking free as soon as it is determined she is no longer a threat to society.

But somehow, that sentence is harsher than life in prison? I suppose we should look for Andrea to immediately commence a malpractice suit against her lawyers for inflicting this 'harshest punishment' on her. Or could it be that Yates isn't the only one who needs counseling?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

GMA/NewsBusters engine-starter ping to Today show list.

[netmilsmom]

All I know is this. If I lost it like she did, I would be PRAYING for someone to kill me.

She seems to show no regret, but I could not live with myself.

[The G Man]

Yeah, that'll get her!

[PurpleMan]

Am I the only one who disagrees with verdicts of "Not guilty by Reason of Insanity"?

Not guilty?

For the love of God!! The five kids are dead. She killed them.

Not Guilty? I don't think so.

How about a verdict of "Guilty, but insane"?

[goldstategop]

Liberals don't believe any one needs to be held accountable. Besides Andrea Yates is a victim of society.

(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)

[DB]

"with the possibility of walking free as soon as it is determined she is no longer a threat to society."

Protecting society is not the only reason people are sent to prison. It is also to pay for the crime they committed. To discourage others from doing the same thing.

[Vision]

"Society? She's a victim of males, marriage, Christianity, and Texas life. Who wouldn't kill her five children?" /said at a NY cocktail party after sipping a cosmopolitan

[Personal Responsibility]

This just goes to show: If you give a lib long enough, they can talk themselves into believing anything.

[Clint N. Suhks]

How about a verdict of "Guilty, but insane"?

I'm with you brother

[RexFamilia]

It's Bush's fault; the lunatic did not want her children to grow up during this administration

[subterfuge]

Besides Andrea Yates is a victim of society.

Lots of people blame her husband, since he's a man! And they're on FR too.

[MamaTexan]

Am I the only one who disagrees with verdicts of "Not guilty by Reason of Insanity"?

No, you're not. "Not guilty by Reason of Insanity" is nothing more than a legal cop-out.

If someone takes the life of another under any circumstances other than self defense or an accident, they should be prosecuted for murder.....period.

The mental state of the murderer is of no consequence. Even if they 'didn't know what they were doing', they STILL took a life and the law is STILL obligated to punish for the loss of life and to protect society.

[wolfcreek]

Lots of people blame her husband, since he's a man! And they're on FR too.


I believe this woman should have been made an example of what happens when you murder innocent children. Unfortunately, this was not the case. After seeing her ex-husband's pathetic rant on the news, I can't help but wish him the worst.

[Retired Chemist]

Glenn Beck said basically the same thing last night.

[N. Beaujon]

I think going back and having to live with Rusty Yates would be the worst punishment.

[sgtbono2002]

My take on this is that the jury is either mentally incompetent or insane themselves.

The only thing I see to justify this is if the head-shrinkers decided to lobotomise her.

[Go Army.com]

In Georgia several years ago, we changed the law from this result to "Guilty but Insane." They still go to jail for the appropriate time, but get treatment there.

Time for Texas to adopt the same style law.

[CougarGA7]

Give me a break!!

This woman drowned one child, when got the next one, rinse and repeat. You know those kids quickly picked up on what was going on and knew they were waiting their turn to be killed.

THERE IS NO PUNISHMENT FOR HER THAT WOULD SATISFY ME.

The only thing that would come close would be if she was drowned, revived, re-drowned, revived, rinse and repeat.

[USA Girl]

"How about a verdict of "Guilty, but insane"?"

I agree, PurpleMan.

Wolfcreek said: "I believe this woman should have been made an example of what happens when you murder innocent children. Unfortunately, this was not the case. After seeing her ex-husband's pathetic rant on the news, I can't help but wish him the worst."

What concerns me the most is that in too many cases in our society - whether it be homosexual marriage or what have you - the needs of adults are coming ahead of the needs of innocent children.

This verdict sends all the wrong messages.

[tioga]

Texas has no provision for guilty by reason of insanity....only NOT guilty be reason of insanity. Texas law is odd.

[subterfuge]

I happen to agree with you. She is ultimately responsible, that is the bottom line. SHE should be punished harshly imo. She should never be allowed to move about without hard, heavy chains around her feet, hands and neck. And put that on the Today Show.

But I happened to catch her EX-hubby on the tube this morning and he carries on like she's just on old friend who had a stretch of bad luck. He reminisced about how they're still cordial and talk frequently "about the kids." All the while he's smiling and basking in the attention. It's pretty obvious the guy is happy as a lark now that he is free of the psycho. Pathetic.

[knittnmom]

Guilty but insane. That does make more sense. Seems to me that any parent who would kill their child must be insane. Sane people do not drown their children.

[SunnyUsa]

I hope as she gets treatment she realizes she should never walk free again, she's a monster who was capable of drowning her 5 little children one by one methodically ....then "called for help"....

horrific, she should live with the knowledge of what she did everyday.

[queenkathy]

Now THAT was well said!
No one can ever convince me that she fully knew what she was doing and that it was wrong! She carefully plotted and planned. She purposely waited until she was alone and then one by one chased down and murdered all 5 of her babies.

No apology here. She's totally responsible for taking the lives of 5 innocent children who depended on their mom to care for them and love them. They were helpless.

[queenkathy]

OOPS...in a hurry and left out one word..I meant to say that no once can convince me that she did NOT know she was doing wrong...
One little word and it changes the whole sentence...

[pax_et_bonum]

For y'all from Texas, here's an interesting "Texas quote" from post #8:

"Society? She's a victim of males, marriage, Christianity, and Texas life. Who wouldn't kill her five children?" /said at a NY cocktail party after sipping a cosmopolitan

[i_dont_chat]

Unfortunately, in the State of Texas, there is no such option.

The jury's choices were Not Guilty, Guilty, or Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. There is no judgement in Texas called Guilty by Reason of Insanity.

Hope this clears this up.

[MissEdie]

What BS, unfortunately her "punishment" isn't nearly as painful as what she put her own children through.

[D1X1E]

How about a verdict of "Guilty, but insane"?

I believe from what I read, some of the jurors wanted to go that way also but Texas law does not provide for that. It was either guilty or NOT guilty by reason of legal insanity. A verdict BTW that I think is insane. Personally I never did buy the insane part from a legal standpoint anyway. Crazy yes but not to the point of not knowing right from wrong.

[definitelynotaliberal]

Lots of people blame her husband, since he's a man! And they're on FR too.


You're partially right. Some of us do blame her husband but not 'since he's a man'. I blame him for not having the 7 and 5 yr. old in public school and a babysitter to pick them up and spend 3 hours assisting his wife till he got home. 5 kids is a lot for anybody. Kids in large families quickly learn to act responsibly, function as teams, but still, when they're 3, 2, and 6-months, you need help, at least for a couple of hours a day. He abdicated that responsibility, and there's no way around that truth. To say the very least, he was not generous. A lot of our FReeper men would've been chivalrous, not Rusty Yates.

[nyconse]

I have to wonder if she gets out and undoubtedly she will, what's to stop her from having another child?

[subterfuge]

Points taken. See # 22.

[Politicalmom]

That's ridiculous. "Sane" people pay to have their children's arms and legs ripped off every single day.

Susan Smith drowned her children to please a man. Nobody ever said she wasn't "sane".

[dfwgator]

Sane people do not drown their children.

So, you would have to be insane to go around killing young women like Ted Bundy did, right?!? Murder is not something rational people do, period. How is what Yates did different than any other murder? And she knew right from wrong, because she called the Police right after she did it. Furthermore, I'm convinced she put on an act afterwards to convince people that she was insane.

[WV Mountain Mama]

I posted the following comment on another thread earlier this morning and am still so disgusted by yesterday's verdict:

This was supposedly a psychotic woman. Two days before the murders, she was at her doctor who saw NO signs of psychosis. She was able to do a trial run with the bath tub and found out she didn't have enough water in it (a week earlier?). She managed to murder all 5 children in a small window of time when she was alone with them. She went around the house and locked all the doors beforehand, so the children couldn't escape (and at least one tried to run for his life), she removed the bathmat to help make it easier for her, and hunted down her children, one by one and drowned them. Then, she called 911 to report it. Why? Because she knew it was wrong. Which was exactly why she should have been found guilty.

Justice, what a joke. Five dead kids, murdered by the one person who is supposed to protect them. Apparently women really can blame their hormones for anything, and then wonder why they aren't in more boardrooms, let alone president. That'd be great, a hormonal nutter threatening global warfare once a month if her chocolate supply is late, and it is perfectly ok. She isn't responsible for her actions, she has ovaries.

[WV Mountain Mama]

Nothing unless the judge decides to keep her until she has reached menopause.

[Alouette]

The "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict was created in order to put away the perp in an insane asylum (which in those days were worse than prison) for the rest of his natural life instead of a long drop at the end of a short rope.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

You know, I'm a real law and order guy, but I think I agree with Cuomo. This woman was nuts.

Where I take issue is the fact, let's face it, a man that did this would never get the amount of sympathy the MSM is heaping on Yates even if he, too, was insane

[PurpleMan]

Understand that Texas law does not all for such a verdict.

Just begging the question (in a non-fallacy type linguistics)

[knittnmom]

In my opinion, sane people do not murder. Period. Which is why I agreed with the option of "Guilty, but insane". This would not mitigate the need for punishment to keep society safe, and hopefully discourage imitators.

[after dark]

This is what we can look forward to.

In five years a dolled up Andrea Yates will be danced out before our eyes. She will be a modern miracle of medicine.Commentators will gush" Now that she is no longer saddled with children and a husband. She looks beautiful!" She will either be set free to get a job working as a nurse in a baby killing factory ,or it's back to cup cake land for Andrea Yates.

She did not want that idiot Russell and his witch like mama to own her kids, so she killed her kids. In the eyes of modern Babylonians she is a hero for killing her kids. They are trying to encourage more of this behavior.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I doubt that even in the best of light Andrea Yates would be considered beautiful. She has that look in her eyes that makes her appear a little "off", even in photos taken years before her children were killed.

[after dark]

I assure you had she been ugly she would have been put on death row.

Crazy eyes never stopped a crack model from being on the cover of Vogue. Insanity seems to have appeal in some circles.

[Humbug]

Regardless of whether the verdict was just or not i believe there is truth in this. My guess is that if she is ever "cured" she will take her life. Or at least attempt to. In fact, ironically enough, probably the best way to tell she is getting better is when she starts becoming suicidal.

[Wolfstar]

How about a verdict of "Guilty, but insane"?

I understand your point and don't disagree with it in a larger context. But I do disagree that Yates is insane. She clearly knew what she was doing. Personally, I believe she just didn't want to be bothered with the kids anymore and wanted to act out the ultimate revenge on her husband. Now she's free of both, free of prison, free of being a convicted felon, and will eventually be able to walk out of that "institution" a free woman.

If that's justice, then there is no justice in this country.

I'm not normally a hater, but I fully hate her.

[Wolfstar]

Sane people do not drown their children.

Yes, actually, they do -- and shoot them, stab them, scald them, have sex with them, and otherwise abuse them. There are plenty of people in this world who are quite rational, but who lack any conscience. They put their needs first, last and always.

[Stone Mountain]

How about a verdict of "Guilty, but insane"?

They have that in Scotland and in a few other countries. Every time they've tried to pass a simlar law here though, it has never come close as far as I have heard. The "guilty but insane" verdict has it's own problems too. Do you put the person in treatment until they are able to understand what they did and them throw them into general population at a jail? What kind of sentencing can a judge give to put someone in a hospital since the judge wouldn't know how long treatment could take.

[Stone Mountain]

In Georgia several years ago, we changed the law from this result to "Guilty but Insane." They still go to jail for the appropriate time, but get treatment there

Wow - had not heard of any state passing a "guilty but insane" verdict choice. Very interesting - I wonder how that's working?

[Rte66]

That's what five of the jurors were holding out about, the foreman said - they didn't the like the wording of the charge, but couldn't change it to the "Guilty but Insane" that they wanted.

Rusty claimed they spent over $1.5 million on her defense in the past 5 years and it was such a waste. I wanted to find that figure somewhere and see if he really is the person who paid that or somehow raised it or where it came from. He has "moved on" and wants everyone else to, too. Sure, cretin.