Posted on 02/27/2006 12:12:47 PM PST by dmz
Way to go nitwit. Try again. Probably this time she'll plead little green men made her do it.
You've missed the threads about the bank executive who murdered his twin daughters, haven't you?
I am NOT defending her by saying she is crazy. She's guilt, she's also crazy!
With the right meds, full-blown psychosis can often be brought under control in a matter of weeks. That's one of the things that makes this case so sad. Her new HMO doctor took her off the haldol she'd been on. She went psychotic again and we know the rest.
If they were to sterilize this woman and keep her under medical supervision for the rest of her life, she might be okay in society, but I don't believe prison is the right place for her. My preference would be an institution, because crazy people can't be trusted to take their medication.
The operative words here are "If I think they are in ANY danger ..." (emphasis mine). Your idea of danger may be very different than the parents of your grandchildren.
Would you trust your grandchildren to a woman that had been in and out of the psychiatric hospital because voices told her to hurt her children?
Who I would "trust" to raise my grandchilden is irrelevant. A decent grandparent respects the rights of their kids to raise their own children as they see fit. This case is an extreme one, but if you set a precedent on this case, you will set the scene for ugly family strife and interfering in-laws who interfere because they are now legally entitled to do so.
You're right in that this was a tragedy waiting to happen. But you're wrong in thinking that grandparents have the right to interfere in how their grandchildren are raised. They have a moral responsibility to try to be part of the kids'lives, but they do not have a legal right to interfere with how the kids are raised, no matter how much they object. They can do it legally if they can point to laws being broken -- drug use, physical or sexual abuse, abandonment, etc. I expect that if they could point to an explicit history of mental illness, they could also object with the law on their side. That's what the law is for.
In this sad case, no laws were broken until Yates drowned the kids. Responsible and smart people like yourself would have seen it coming and would have done more to prevent it; sadly, in this case, those kinds of people weren't in the family, and is it any surprise? If you want more laws that interfere in people's personal lives and privacy, go for it. I don't -- the Yates case is sad and tragic, but it is also a very human case. Evil people and evil enablers like the husband and relatives in this case exist and always have -- it is part of the human condition. Some will retort that "Evil is what happens when good men stand by and do nothing." I would answer by saying good people did do something -- they prosecuted Andrea Yates. Trying to punish the husband and relatives who "did nothing" or worse, yet who broke no laws, calls for one of two things: more laws, or perverting the law as it stands.
Watch out what you wish for.
I did miss it. I'd check it out if you can point me to the thread.
Yeah, let's not have any sympathy for the mentally ill...
True. He is getting married in March. In lieu of gifts donations should be made to the Texas Mental Health Association. Motto: Love endures forever!
So I guess we can include her doctor in the mix of people to blame, as well as the husband, family, and in-laws .
I don't think so. There would be a huge right to a speedy trial issue.
I don't know if this is thread is the one I read, but I am sure it has the "It was all the depression" type comments.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1566042/posts
I think they should fry him, and Yates, too.
If only a crazy person would reject this deal, and she rejects it; there is her defense.
In a retrial, she will either be found builty, but insane; or, innocent by reason of insanity. You think the prosecutor would offer this deal if he was confident of a conviction in such a high profile case?
She might be holding out for no more than 20 years.
He has remarried already from what I understand. He has a kush government NASA job.
Well, her husband sure does. He sued the doctor for malpractice.
I can't defend her either, but the woman has to be insane
Thanks.
I wonder if he won the settlement.
Have to agree.Something strange there.
Thailand will install one for you, but the price is rather high (and I ain't just talking money)...
"When her meds were balancing her out and the first whiff of sanity hit her she should have run, knowing that she was a danger to her children."
Her meds "balanced out" while in prison for the murder.
A bit late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.