'Psychotic,' but is Andrea Yates legally insane?

USA Today ^ | 9/11/01 | Laura Parker

[kattracks]

If you look back at the bleak life of Andrea Yates, the Houston mom who drowned her five children in the family bathtub, the clues were all there. She attempted suicide twice. She waged a losing struggle with depression that began after the birth of her first child, Noah, in 1994. Her doctors documented periods when she heard voices, had visions and became so unhinged mentally that they diagnosed her as psychotic. But was she insane the morning of June 20 when she killed her children, one by one? Her lawyers say she is not guilty by reason of insanity. Prosecutors have charged her with murder and are seeking the death penalty.

[Timesink]

Competent or incompetent, who cares? Either way she's probably going to die in custody. She'll get life in prison w/o parole, get the death penalty, or be found "not guilty by reason of insanity" and tossed into a mental institution for the rest of her life.

Any of those outcomes is fine with me.

[Drammach]

I pretty much agree.

Although I would say she is obviously insane, due to her history, and was most probably insane at the time of the murders, what difference does it make?

She is, and always will be a danger to society, and as such, should simply be "put down".
I do not believe in "Life" imprisonment, parole or not, when dealing with murderers.
Just execute them and be done with it.

[vikingchick]

"This person is not a serial killer," says Richard Dieter, of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, an anti-death penalty group
You're right, Richard. Technically, she is a mass murderer. Serial killers take out their victims one at a time, in a series of events. Mass murderers kill their victims all at the same time, in one horrendous event.

[RLK]

She hasn't known what world she's in for years.

[Prism]

Pro-life:"If it were possible, would you support a law that required the baby to be transplanted into a willing mother so it could be brought to term?"

(most) Pro-choice:"Yes"

Pro-life:"Why?"

Pro-choice:"To save the baby"

Pro-life:"Then aren't you confirming that the mere inconvenience of pregnancy is enough to justify the taking of a life?"

Now, is such a pro-choicer 'legally sane'? Socially sane? Mentally competent to parent?

[jimt]

Folks,

This article contains many red herrings.

The woman stated she had been thinking about killing her kids "for months".

She chased the last one through the entire house until she caught him, and dragged him kicking and screaming to the bathroom, where she drowned him alongside his six month old sister.

She then called her husband and told him he "better come home".

SHE THEN CALLED THE COPS AND TOLD THEM SHE'D JUST KILLED HER CHILDREN.

This story has three elements: premeditation, five murders, and a clear conciousness that what she'd done was wrong.

If there was ever a poster child for the death penalty, she's it. No ifs, ands or buts. Once these facts are established in court (a slam dunk) she should be permanently rehabilitated.