Replies

I'd hate to think that was the case except with the most out-in-the-ozone folks.

A few observations from having followed this thread from the start, and they're probably going to sound free association so if I ramble, I apologize in advance:

There seem to be a lot of folks who do not believe there should be any insanity defense at all, that no matter what the circumstances, people must be held accountable and responsible for their actions and there must be punishment/retribution/consequences whatever you want to call it for their actions in every circumstance, no exceptions. The thing is, other than in about three states (I think), the insanity defense is currently codified and accepted law. To have what these people want would require changing the law.

There seem to be a lot of folks ... and I am actually one of them ... who would favor a change to a "guilty but insane" scenario, where people are held legally responsible and accountable for the crimes they commit, but if there are legitimate mental illness questions involved, the person may not necessarily suffer the same level of punishment, consequences, etc., as in a case where there are no legitimate mental illness questions. To me it's a legitimate middle ground; others who feel that there must be harsh punishment in every case may have legitimate disagreements, and I accept that.

There seem to be a lot of folks who, either personally or with a family member, have experienced the hell of mental illness and, as such, see this case in a different light. I can appreciate and sympathize with what they've been through.

Some folks think Andrea has been faking mental illness from day 1 and is still faking now. I disagree and have seen no evidence to change my mind. If some comes out, I'll reassess that assessment and be here eating crow.

I posted a link last night to an 11-page discussion on the insanity defense from a Web site on crime. I highly recommend it for those who want to learn the history of the insanity defense, why we are where we are now.

I also mentioned afterward that in this discussion, it was pointed out just how rare a successful insanity defense is. It actually does not work very often. Very few people who plead not guilty by reason of insanity are successful.

So, what happened yesterday was, actually, an aberration and an exception, rather than the rule. However, I think this particular case is magnified by the circumstances involved and the fact that there were children involved, and there's a rather large group of folks out there who think that children are being treated as disposable and unimportant, etc., by society as a whole, as evidenced by the piece posted yesterday by that loon from Canada about how bored she was by her children and as such had as little interaction with them as possible.

And as far as Rusty Yates being evil, being culpable in what happened, etc. I don't know the man, I can't say that he's evil. He holds no direct responsibility in what Andrea did that day. However, every time I've seen the man on TV, I've gotten an uncomfortable feeling about him, and I continue to ask this question, if you have a wife who is showing signs of mental illness ... catatonia and ignoring her personal hygeine to the point where she had lice ... why do you keep planting your seed in her and why do you leave the kids alone with her? That simply does not compute in my mind.

Bottom line, since the DA has said that he's going to recommend that she not be tried on the other two deaths, and being that since "not guilty" is attached to the verdict, double jeopardy will prevent her from being tried again even if she got on national TV tomorrow and said "the mental illness was all a ruse, nanny-nanny-boo-boo," this case is over as far as the law is concerned; any other judgment will have to come before a significantly higher court. As I posted earlier, all this sound and fury might best be expended toward changing the laws that are in place, if the majority of folks out there are so inclined.

Comments?