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?
Most of the jury foreman's comments on GMA this morning focused on the "knowing right from wrong" stipulation in the Texas penal code for legal definitions of sanity/insanity.
Unfortunately, he didn't go into the remarks he made yesterday, which to me were a lot more valuable to the public - when he said 5 of them argued about the wording, wanting it to be "Guilty but Insane," as I posted yesterday.
And of course, two out of the three morning news programs I tuned in to this morning announced it the same way as our local Houston news did: "Not Guilty." Period. Grrr. Some went as far as saying she was "acquitted" and she was "found innocent."
This is just so wrong, so wrong. The justice system's "cred" is hanging by a thread these days, anyway, so to have this piled on top just makes me sick.
I did like some people's interpretation that terrorists could use the same defense that got Andrea "acquitted" and also get the same outcome.
She believed that what she was doing was right and based it on her skewed belief system, just as the Muslim terrorists say they do. In her delusions, which unfortunately were often Bible-centered (a point that just about everybody wants to sidestep, for a variety of reasons), she truly believed that killing her children would put them on the expressway to heaven.
She *knew* that in the physical world, the secular world, this was a crime, but she believed that in the spiritual realm, where she *thought* she was living in her isolation, with the devil as her boss, their deaths would be the ultimate sacrifice, saving the children from hell or purgatory or a life of problems or tragedies.
Come to think of it, I remember another mother of a murdered child saying this - that her young daughter would never have to suffer from cancer or many other problems of earthly living. That mother never said a word about missed graduations or proms or weddings or grandbabies - only the negative things that the child was "saved" from.
Somehow, somewhere, certain personality types fixate on those ideas. When they have a goal in mind like that, which they are convinced is "pure" and will somehow please God - not the devil - give them enough opportunity and means and they will follow through with it, or die trying.
However, the only time Andrea has shown an inclination to harm herself was last year (or was it early this year?) when she began really getting glimpses of reality back, after years of treatment at the prison mental hospital in Rusk. They rushed her to a hospital in Galveston and have since kept her wrapped up in cotton batting to prevent another psychotic break.
Yeesh, nobody cares if the rest of us go a little nuts over everyday life, but our taxes go to keep "poor little Andrea Pia" from flipping out yet again - even though she's not where she could hurt anyone else or even herself.
I'm not happy with this verdict and I had not heard that Rosenthal had made his decision already not to ever prosecute for the other two children. Last night he was undecided. I was hanging my hopes on that and intended to send some prayers that direction. *sigh*