Andrea Yates to get bail. Set at 200K. (travesty)

Fox News Alert | 2-1-06 | self

[wardaddy]

Andrea Yates granted bail by judge. Bail set at 200K. Husband is seeking the 20K for bondsman.

Breaking from Fox.

[TKDietz]

That lady truly is insane. I'm not too bothered by this.

[wardaddy]

and if the husband is a brutal wife beater who becomes a mass murderer...is the wife criminally negligent because she never told the cops he was mean?

folks always look for a way to blame the man when a woman snaps......if one is available....like it's not fair to hold her responsoble for her own actions....

however...yes....he should have seen something was wrong...no question but how many folks think a breakdown will result in 5 murders of babies

and yes....if you go upthread you will indeed find someone saying he was just as culpable if not more so...Katie Beaver-logic.

[wardaddy]

it's about justice.

why in the hell should someone accused of killing 5 PEOPLE get bail period?

take off the lawyer head for a second.

[wardaddy]

why give bail to someone accused of killing 5 kids?

most states refuse bail for felony murder.

[wardaddy]

i know folks refused bail for smuggling copious amounts of weed 20 years ago....sat in jail over a year waiting for trial in Miami.

[MeanWestTexan]

"and if the husband is a brutal wife beater who becomes a mass murderer...is the wife criminally negligent because she never told the cops he was mean?"

Not under the law, because you have no general legal duty to take affirmative steps to protect the public.

As a parent, however, you DO have an affirmative duty to protect your children.

(To give the classic example, LEGALLY, one can walk by a drowning stranger and do nothing (assuming you did not put him in the pool, the pool is not yours, or you're not the lifeguard, etc). However, if it is your child, you ARE responsible, and must make all reasonable efforts to save the child.)

Here, it's undisputed she was nuts. She had been in the looney bin several times because she was a "danger to herself and others." He knew this. He knew she was going downhill, and yet left his kids with her.

That's criminally negligent, just like leaving your daughter with a known sex offender or something similar.

[kinghorse]

She excised her ejected uncontrolled growths. They are very proud of her.

[wardaddy]

You're parsing.

So what if crazy mean husband kills his wife's sister in law....is she the "public"?

This sorta relates criminally to folks who raise negligently bad kids who go out and rob and murder in the your mall parking lot.

Are they criminally responsible for their thug child?

No, not if he kills a soccer mom but yes if he kills a sibling.

Is that what you're saying?

Again...folks...particularly women here look to put responsibility for her (Yates) evil actions on her husband. Soft bigotry.

Not that he doesn't deserve some blame...sure he does...but she drowned them...as hard as that is to accept...that a mom would murder her 5 children....brutally

[wardaddy]

ouch

[MeanWestTexan]

Yeah, saying a father has a legal duty to protect his children is really "parsing."

Hate to be your kid.

[utahagen]

I'm sure Yates is nuts, which is why she should perhaps be in an asylum rather than a prison. But she should not be FREE. Even the mentally ill should be held accountable in some way for their actions and it is an outrage that a woman who murdered her five children should be free to walk the streets. (Plus, if Yates is nuts, she poses a genuine threat to society.)

[MeanWestTexan]

She'd not freed.

She's going to a state mental asylum, even on bail.

You need bail because the mental asylum is a civil commitment, as opposed to criminal.

(Come on people, read the article! Or at least the rest of the thread!)

[utahagen]

OK, got it. I stand corrected.

[wardaddy]

you emotive reasoning types always have to get nasty don't you?

you should work on that

btw....four children from 3 to 17.....all axe murderers..lol

[TKDietz]

"why in the hell should someone accused of killing 5 PEOPLE get bail period?"

Because she is presumed innocent until convicted. She was convicted, but that conviction was overturned, so it is like it never happened. Her bond now is conditioned on her staying in the mental hospital. If she tries to leave, her bond will be revoked and she'll be put back in jail. She's not going to be out on the streets. People are safe.

I saw a lawyer for this woman speaking at a continuing legal education seminar. This was back before her conviction was overturned. He showed us a lot of video of her from right after the incident with her children and at later dates, and talked with us about the psychiatrist findings and the dirty tricks prosecutors used at her original trial. I've dealt with a lot of crazy people. This lady is obviously crazy. She was picking at her head till it would bleed to try to remove the 666 she imagined was on the top of her head. She was responding to internal stimuli, as if people who weren't there were talking to her. She wasn't making any sense. She was out of her gourd when they first picked her up. I think she's probably crazy enough that she didn't really have control over herself when she did what she did. The prosecutors lied and put on some bogus evidence of a TV show that never even aired about a woman killing her kids and then faking like she was crazy. This was entirely inappropriate conduct on the part of prosecutors. They should be buried under the jail. This lady deserves a fair trial, just like all other Americans accused of crimes do. If we don't protect that right for all then we'll lose it for all, even those who are totally innocent. She's out on bond because she is innocent until proven guilty, but the judge took steps to see that everyone is safe by requiring her to stay in a mental hospital while awaiting her new trial. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. People are making mountains out of molehills. There is nothing to see here, move along.

[wardaddy]

Because she is presumed innocent until convicted.

then I guess you oppose all no bail granted rulings except if someone has already been convicted...like Manson?

[MeanWestTexan]

You are correct, I do not suffer fools gladly.

Tell your wife to keep the kids away from water if you are the only one to keep them safe.

[MeanWestTexan]

"why in the hell should someone accused of killing 5 PEOPLE get bail period?"

Because a jail is not nearly as equipped to handle, long term, seriously mentally ill people like the looney bin she is being moved to.

You're just horrified at her crimes (as you should be) and thinking emotively.

[jess35]

If you kill five children you have proven you are a demon and need to be sent back to hell.

I believe we've progressed past the point where crazy people were seen as being possessed by the devil. Strapping them to a board and holding them underwater to see if they can live, likewise, has been discarded as a legitimate response.

Yates was/is/will always be bonkers. That doesn't change what she did but I'm pretty sure we've progressed past the point where we kill insane people because they offend our sensibilities.

[RockinRight]

The b**tch should have already fried in the chair IMHO.