Posted on 03/12/2002 1:22:12 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Edited on 05/07/2004 8:00:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
There are humane yet firm incarceration and treatment alternatives available. You know, the sort that a civilized society imposes, as opposed to some sort of ignorant frontier-style vengeance. I would hope that she would be sterilized as well.
I guess the first question that comes to my mind is what exactly is "psychotic"? And is it common? How many people might be described as such? I'm sure these questions have come up in the courtroom.
I haven't spent a lot of time really following this case except for catching a bit on it on the news each day. But, I did notice that the defense was accentuating the "mental illness" angle, probably as a tool to get their client off the hook. The media seemed to be eating it up.
Now, I'm pretty much convinced that just about anybody that deliberately kills innocent folks, particularly helpless ones, in a relatively premeditated manner just isn't "right" upstairs. But, I don't think that is sufficient an excuse to preclude using whatever punishment the law allows up to and including the death penalty.
In the end, the jury makes the decision (which apparently is "guilty" in this case) and that is as humane as can be expected IMHO. Some people are so despicable as to be threats to society if free, and heavy burdens to society, free or imprisoned if captivated. I don't advocate the death penalty for any but the most henious of crimes, but this premeditated, brutal killing of 5 helpless children is on the same level as any other mass murder and should be dealt with in the same manner.
BTW, C. Darwin, would you happen to be in the Psychology/Psychiatrist business? Just curious.
If you go to the Ithaca Journal website it is indeed in the "local/regional news" section. In fact, right above the headline is the phrase, in bold, all capital letters, "LOCAL NEWS."
I read the article several times, and the author does not make the conclusion you claim. She says Yates suffered from postpartum psychosis, which is a statement of fact.
Actually, no. Even in the best of worlds, any diagnosis is a statement of clinical opinion.
There is nothing whatsoever in the article that states whether or not Yates should be found guilty or innocent because of this psychosis.
I think it's pretty clear where the author's sympathies lie here. You're free to interpret it differently, of course. However, the author clearly writes from the premise that: (a) Yates suffered from this disorder; (b) appropriate treatment may have prevented her from murdering her children. This certainly creates at least the implication in the article that her mental illness is the sole cause of the murders. Furthermore, if the purpose of the article was to write about post-partum depression why did the author have to discuss Yates' case at this length? While I could see using it as a springboard, the author used it as the basis for the entire article, as if everything Yates was claiming about her mental illness was gospel (it should be noted that, I believe, some of the doctors have contradicted some of Yates' claims about her efforts at seeking treatment).
It doesn't help your case when a statement you put in quotation marks appears nowhere in the article. The author actually states that "Andrea Yates said nothing of her early delusions; she wanted to keep up the appearance of the perfect American family." Entirely different from what you claim.
Not really. While I apologize for an unitential misquote (I was in hurry and didn't want to hit my "back" button and risk losing what I had written in reply thus far), in either case the author is making a point that Yates was trying to live up to an image of "American" perfection and trying to do so prevented her from seeking treatment. As noted above, my main gripe was that this column was labeled Local News by the Journal. You say it wasn't in the paper edition. Fine. That's an improvement.
But it was in the online edition. And the Journal should apply journalistic standards there also.
Touche'. Glad I'm not a theologian.
Not all murderers have impeccable logic, motzman. The absence of a solid motive doesn't necessarily equate to insanity. Based on the facts, it would be pretty difficult to imagine any scenario under which Yates didn't know what she was doing was wrong. Her actions indicate she understood fully what she was doing.
Incidentally, ever stop and see how long three minutes actually is? That's the time estimated for the drowning of each victim.
It is starting to sound like much of our schism on this is due to our reading it in different versions (online v paper) of the Journal. If I had read it in the "Parents" supplement, I doubt I'd have even mentioned it on the board.
In any event, it sounds like we are, if not in agreement at least recognizing each other differences>
Aw, a true "diversity" moment..... ;-)
The backwoods, torch-and-pitchfork-wielding TEXANS (you know, the place where the dragging of blacks behind trucks is a sport more popular than high school football)...
Well, THOSE ignorant hayseeds, who are obviously as smart and sophisticated as the rest of us, especially me...are going to meet out their barbaric form of "justice" on this fine, innocent victim of a fancy-schmancy psychosis they can't even pronounce.
Obviously, to the wisest among us (especially me), the truth is obvious. Andrea Yates is making a statement. It's sort of like burning her bra, only instead of burning her bra, she's drowning her children. YOU GO, GIRL!
(etc...etc...PUKE!)
How's this for starters.."Andrea Yates said nothing of her early delusions; she wanted to keep up the appearance of the perfect American family."
Pure speculation, or putting words in Andrea Yates' mouth. Obviously this writer has an agenda; this is not objective journalism.
Now, what's wrong with YOU?
She called her husband to tell him what she'd done and it was payback to him for the life he'd put her in and she was too weak to escape. She called the police which shows a clear understanding that what she did was wrong. You can't argue with these facts. You can't argue with the facts of the length of time she held each child underwater, the vomit and feces-filled water in their lungs, Noah raising his hand above the water as he struggled to ask her "Have I been a bad boy?"
Go ahead and make excuses for this evil and go ahead and call me names, you fool.
You call that fact? I call it your opinion!
and she took the lives of the five innocents who trusted her and you make simple-minded excuses for her?
I don't consider it an excuse, but rather, trying to understand how anybody could do it.
You don't know what you are talking about.
You don't know what you're talking about, either.
What person that commits murder is in their right mind?
My point!
What excuse is that to take innocent life?
Again, it's no excuse but an attempt to understand how anybody could do it! You, on the other hand, are narrow-minded and seem to ignore all fact to maintain your opinion!
Have kids?
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.