Posted on 07/26/2006 9:35:01 AM PDT by cajunman
The Bible says one of the signs of the end times is a lack of natural affection. I think killing one's child falls in that category.
Good. I've followed this tragic story right from the beginning and believe this was the right decision for her.
Randy "I'd rather just take another question"
I'll bet you would.
Did she get a lighter punishment? Locked up in seclusion in prison or placed in an institute for the mentally insane. Which is worse? I can't see her being released for a long time, if ever.
"I suffered, tremendously, after the birth of my first son"
Sorry to hear that, seriously.
The difference is you didn't butcher you child. You were able to maintain. Anyone who cannot cope, should never be free to roam again. EVER. You can either hate them for what they did, or make excuses for it. But you cannot disagree with the fact that if they did it once due to circumstances, they could possible do it again. Allowing her to ever be free again would be nothing short of negligence on the part of the law.
His taking her to mental health doctors and counseling was ignoring it?
I know a man who has been a faithful, giving, and loving husband for 40 years of marriage, to a wife who struggled for most of those years with varying levels of mental issues and extended mental health counseling and treatments. Over the years he caught hell from some relatives and her friends for either going too far or not doing enough. And the wife was VERY good at playing the manipulation, pity, and gossip games. Sometimes there just isn't a perfect answer or approach, with a severe downside to any decision.
Am not at all directing this next sentence at you, but on these threads I've seen a lot of the same gullible and/or malicious gossipy jumping to false conclusions and slander that I saw in some of her circle. And it makes my blood boil.
We hate the harm being done to all these children but can you imagine what God thinks of it?
It makes our blood boil, but, we will just drift back into our lives, people will continue ignoring signs of danger because they do not have options for mentally defective people until the murder is done - then the state will take action.
Ol' Rusty was too much of a man to admit that his wife was crazy. He ignored the doctors claims that she should not have more children, Why? Then when his five children died, he is in total support of that wife? What about the children? Something is really wrong here. It is not natural for a husband to support a wife that killed five of his children. So, was he hoping to have his child-maker back so that he could show how much of a man he was?
Notice, that he has remarried. Was not going to be denied a child-maker while that wife was in prison.
The man is crazy and those children were dependent on him. He ignored the needs and abilities of his wife making her do home teaching and all care of five children. Why? Because that was his desire and view of the perfect family.
I would think anyone losing five children would never be sane again - but, not Ol' Rusty. He managed to find another wife. Seems those children were not very treasured or loved by him - other than as a display of his manhood.
Sick men and women there.
If you're left here at that time I will be the least of your worries.
Actually Leilani says that Andrea's unfortunate children received justice in this decision.
Hahaha, I heard him say that too.
Oh yeah? Are you sure about that? Who would have thought Hinckley would be walking the streets these days, I bet she'll be out within a decade. Some justice....
Her psycho Medications had been adjusted a couple of days before she drowned her five children.
sw
I think its all because there are 300 million people just waiting to pounce when someone DOES take a stand against what is wrong. But, we must always remember that PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT, as our moms always told us. Our moms really did know what was best...
Oh my. What a freakshow this guy is. You would think someone would have taken him aside at some point and said, "Hey Rusty, maybe you should just speak through your attorney."
Yeah, when you are nuts to the point where Ozzy doesn't want to be around you, that's pretty bad....
The very basis of criminal law grew out of secular and church attitudes towards crime. To be punished you must be able to understand what you have done and that what you have done was perceived as wrong at the time of the event.
In this way the integrity of the law is preserved. Only those who are capable of forming both intent and the action are considered criminals.
I agree this is a tough area for the law and the courts. This is why a successful jury trial deciding "not guilty by reason of insanity" is very rare. Usually, prosecutors and defense counsel both see the "craziness" of the perpetrator and a plea bargain is agreed upon for the "insanity defense." Such decisions are much more common than a contested jury trial for the same issue.
Texas is not noted for being soft on crime. No one in Minnesota has accused Texans as being too soft, compassionate and lenient towards criminals.
The errors in this case were inadequate defense and attempts to understand the issue before the first trial. Most likely, the jury thought a lot about this in reaching the verdict they did.
That post 226 is so full of lies and blamemaking it should be pulled. Literally everyone but Geroge W got the blame for the child murderers. 'Cept the mom of course.
The drug she was on pushed her into killing her children. I wish Rusty Yates would sue the big pharma company. These drugs are awful...lots of out of court settlements conditioned that NO one talks about these drugs making folks killers.
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.