Posted on 03/15/2002 10:34:00 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
LIVE Thread, Add Comments...
Silly me, I thought there was a higher rate of death penalties given to people of color.
We can test that theory, if the a man with the same/similar history does the same thing to his children, in Texico. If you know of any, I'm sure they're appealing right now.
It doesn't usually occur to killers to attempt to kill people who are stronger than they are. It is easier for women to kill children than it is to kill another woman or a man, who are liable to fight back.
Cordially,
I would have given her death myself had I been on the jury. I think she would be quite capable of harming someone else. She's already murdered five people! I don't ever want her to be within a mile of another child ever again.
Since you are not equipped to discuss race, I also thought there was a higher rate of death penalties given to men.
Actually, Murder is THE unforgivable sin-- but I'll let God be the judge of that. (so in a way, you're still right.)
There is a local bookstore for home schooling. When the Yates's first visited it Rusty walked into the store and checked it out. He then let the wife and kids come in. They never spoke unless he spoke to them first.
A neighbor of theirs we know said that the kids almost never were allowed outside in the front yard. They were inside all the time. 5 kids and mom in a 1600 sq. ft. house.
Does not excuse what she did. But there is something odd about Russell "van dam" Yates
After the divorce (no sense having to split the profits), he'll sell the movie rights and probably write a book (withing a year). THEN he might remarry, with a prenupt....
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/03/15/national1519EST0680.DTL
(03-15) 12:19 PST HOUSTON (AP) -- After less than an hour of deliberations, a jury spared Andrea Yates from the death penalty Friday and sentenced the mentally ill housewife to life in prison for drowning her children in the bathtub.
Yates, 37, will have to serve at least 40 years before becoming eligible for parole.
Yates stood while the verdict was read, her attorney's arm around her, but had no apparent reaction.
The jury that took less than four hours to reject Yates' claim of insanity and convict her of murder Tuesday returned the sentence with similar speed after prosecutors made a less-than-forceful push for the death penalty.
Yates' five children "never had a chance and you need to think about those children," prosecutor Kaylynn Williford said in closing arguments of the penalty phase. But avoiding a forceful call for Yates' death, she said: "Whatever decision you make, the state will accept."
To impose the death penalty, the jury of eight women and four men needed to decide unanimously that Yates was a future danger and that there were no mitigating circumstances against executing her. The jury answered no to the first question and therefore did not have to answer the second.
Yates' husband, Russell, had no reaction as he watched in the courtroom. His brother, Randy Yates, nodded affirmatively. Andrea Yates' sister, sitting across the courtroom, wiped tears from her eyes.
As Andrea Yates was led from the courtroom by officers, she looked back toward her mother and siblings.
The sentence brought a swift end to a case that began last June 20, when a wet and bedraggled Yates called police to her home and showed them the bodies of her five children, age 6 months to 7 years. She had called them into the bathroom and drowned them one by one.
At trial, Yates' lawyers and her husband argued that she suffered from severe postpartum depression and that she had no choice but to kill her children to save them from the clutches of Satan.
Prosecutors acknowledged she was mentally ill, but that she could tell right from wrong and was thus not legally insane at the time of the killings.
The case stirred new debate over the legal standard for mental illness and whether postpartum depression is properly recognized and taken seriously. Women's groups had harshly criticized prosecutors for pushing for the death penalty.
Before the trial, prosecutors had offered to take the death penalty off the table in exchange for a guilty plea. After the jury rejected Yates' claim that she was innocent by reason of insanity, prosecutors offered no new evidence or witnesses during the penalty phase, saying all the evidence had been laid out during the trial.
Prosecutors in their closing arguments said Yates' life shouldn't be more important than the lives of her five children.
"It's not just about Andrea Yates," assistant district attorney Williford said, holding an exhibit with the photos of the five slain children. "It's about Noah, John, Paul, Luke and Mary."
While Williford never directly told jurors punishment they should choose for Yates, she said she thought they could answer the two questions posed to them in a way that would result in death by injection.
"This crime is the crime of ultimate betrayal: the ultimate betrayal of a mother to her children," Williford said. "Those children never had a chance."
Defense attorneys pleaded for Yates' life saying she isn't a future danger and her mental illness, background and character speak volumes about why she should receive a life term rather than death.
"You may believe that the defendant knew the wrongfulness of her actions, but that does not mean you don't believe she was mentally ill," defense lawyer Wendell Odom told jurors. "She will live the rest of her life knowing what she's done.
"When it comes to punishment, there can be no greater punishment."
Odom told jurors the state never presented an expert to testify during the brief punishment phase that Yates would be a future danger. He said Yates killed her children out of love, which "mitigates against the death penalty."
"If you follow the law, you do the right thing," he said. "If you don't follow the law, a woman dies and we all have to live with that."
First, I'll agree with you that a man would have probably been judged harder. It's not fair, true.
The second question asked for the death penalty is "Are there any mitigating factors?" With Karla, she wasn't schizo at the time of her murders and there were no mitigating factors. With Andrea, while she wasn't ruled insane, even the prosecution admitted that she had severe mental problems. Hence, mitigation. I know it doesn't sound like justice for those 5 dead young ones, though.
Drug treatment will be strictly at her option. If she declines it and continues to act nutty, she'll be transferred to a psychiatric facility.
They can still charge her with the other two deaths. However, without some new punishment evidence (particularly regarding future dangerousness), they will not be able to seek the death penalty because of a doctrine known as collateral estoppel (much like double jeaopardy but issue-based rather than offense-based).
As someone experienced in capital litigation, I can tell this sentence is not surprising. There just was not much evidence showing a continuing threat to society and the defense put on a good mitigating circumstances case. All along, I felt that the insanity defense was simply an early attempt to plant the seeds of mitigation evidence in the jury's head.
What do you mean "SUPPOSED"? They ARE the weaker sex. No need to be PC here.
LOL. I like the way your mind works.
Susan Smith had sex with her prison guard. If Yates repeats this performance and conceives, the law says the child must be put in foster care. Of course, Yates could kill him before term. If she ever gets out, she could change her name, move to another state, worm her way into the confidence of an unsuspecting family and wind up babysitting her kids. She's likely to appear very "grandmotherly" by then. Won't that couple be surprised when they come home! Oops!
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.