Posted on 03/16/2002 7:41:28 AM PST by codebreaker
Prosecutors will weigh a number of factors that may lead them to prosecute Andrea Yates husband Russell for either child endangerment or negligent homicide. ABC News has learned.
No decision has been made, but it is being seriously considered, sources said. Prosecutors would charge Russell Yates if an when the evidence warrants, but do not have the evidence now, sources said.
Andrea Yates 37, was convicted Tuesday of two capital murder charges filed in the killings of her children last June.
And c'mon, we all know that most women can get emotional, how stupid of men not to realize then that most women are thus capable of murdering their kids(using the logic displayed on this thread). Obviously trying to save the family unit, trying to work through a problem and heal, instead of bolting at the first sign of trouble is really just selfishness on the man's part("...for better or for worse...", how dangerously simplistic and unrealistic.) Might hasty overreaction do horrible damage to her and the family? Absolutely, but hey, it is 'for the children'.
I guess to some here it is better to psychologically drown the children than to 'put them at risk'.
And why hasn't G_d been indicted yet? He KNEW men are sinful and capable of evil, yet despite this allowed them free will. Surely he must shoulder some of the blame. BLAMING SATAN IS NOT ENOUGH! Has the statute of limitations run out on poor Abel's murder?
Their HMO would not allow that.
No their HMO wouldnt PAY for it. Russell could have taken her to any doctor he wanted including a witch doctor.
Another thing that struck me, was the first phone conversation that Rusty and Andrea had right after the murders where she said to him, "well I finally went and did it." His response was, "which one?" Not "what are you talking about," or "did what?" Wouldn't that be the natural response of a person who got a call from his wife at work and had no idea what his wife was contemplating? He must have known she was capable of harming the children if he truly responded in this way. Whether they will be able to prove legal culpability...well that's another cn of beans.
I have to disagree with you here. Having a mother so whacked out on haldol and other psychotropics, and so disturbed that she doesn't eat, doesn't sleep, doesn't wash her hair, and her mother is helping her 4-5 days a week just to stay afloat is NOT a "traditional lifestyle." This is a very different kind of lifestyle - the one called "living with someone who is severely mentally ill." There but for the grace of God go we.
The great tragedy here is that everyone seemed to be "pretending that things were fine" when they *weren't.* I don't know about the media; they're another story, but from what I have read here, many including myself see the Yates case as an object lesson for what the ancient Greeks called "hubris" - the sinful pride that leads to someone's downfall.
In this case, the "hubris" comes about from everyone pretending that this is just another perfect little suburban homeschooling family, mom at home with the kids, daddy off to work, when in reality this family was a cauldron of turmoil and mental illness. Many conservative writers fall into the same hubristic trap when they say things like "You HAVE to homeschool," or "Women must ALWAYs stay home," etc. In this case, Andrea Yates needed to be in a mental hospital, and her two oldest children needed to be in school. To say this is neither an attack on "the traditional family" or homeschooling, but simply to acknowledge that life isn't perfect and sometimes these things *don't work out.*
I think I'm developing a theory that men--no matter how tough they talk--cannot truly believe that women can be evil, wicked and cruel. When they come face-to-face with evidence of these things, they take refuge in a variety of escape hatches that our Oprah-ized society provides. Our legal system and the snake-oil industry known as "psychiatry" both reflect this, shall we say, prejudice.
Prosecutors should pack the juries of alleged female perps with women. Men are not fit for the task of gazing into the female abyss.
Really that desperate to blame the man are we, eh? NOW we have HIM having the babies?
Hogwash. Earth to craig... men don't HAVE babies. Women HAVE babies. To imply that if a man has sex with a woman HE is responsible for her murdering them five or six years later... And you consider yourself a conservative, who believes in the rule of law? It sounds like the rule of estrogen around here to me.
How 'bout this? SHE kept on having sex and getting pregnant. SHE could have left home. SHE could have said NO. SHE could have used the pill, or norplant or DOZENS of forms of conception prevention methods. Maybe HE thought that she WANTED a big family and that the depression would pass this time like it had the others.
But no, to desperate freepers, who see women who kill as "obviously a victim" instead of the vicious murderers and predators they are, this conviction of the woman alone cannot stand. No matter where, no matter how, there is always a man who is somehow "equally responsible" to hang, blame, charge, make pay, incarcerate, or in this case, put to death.
After all, he clearly abused her. Locked her in that trailer as his sex-pregnancy slave. Fed her bread and water, chained to that bed. Forced sex on her to get her prenant, and denied her medical care. Who knows what kind of abuse must have REALLY gone on in that household? It MUST have been that way! Women just don't do evil things, without having a man who is equally responsible or actually even the cause of their evil!!! Find that man, any man, and strap HIM to the chair and fry him. Let the poor woman off the moral hook and put her in a mental institution for seven or eight years so she can heal from her experience as a victim of this wicked man. She will never fully recover from what HE obviously did. </ sarcasm >
I know who REALLY needs the meds, and it ain't anybody in the Yates family.
Perhaps if you all get a petition together, you could freep this prosecutor and let him know by force of freeperdom that YOU believe that the evil MAN forced her to go through evil pregnancy after evil pregnancy and used the mental duress to drive her to kill her kids.
Then you could go for the death penalty.
Maybe before the murders he was reaching the conclusion that his wife was a hopeless case and looking for a way out. Too bad he couldn't have moved a lot quicker and the kids could have been being raised by a saner stepmother.
To my knowledge, the Mosaic covenant is still in force, thus, the death penalty, to me, would seem almost mandantory. But I'm not entirely sure.
One thing is for sure: our legal system needs to forget about rehabilitation, and realize that law cannot rehab an evil person, but can only restrain him. The whole idea of a penitentary is from the Quakers, who thought if a convict was given nothing to do but think about their crimes, they would reform their ways. But Romans 13 seems clear to me that the divine mandate is given so as to restrain and punish the evildoer, not reform him (though if it happens, good). Society needs to understand the total depravity, and their refusal to acknowledge it is killing us.
He is illustrative of a good example of Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder. In his mind his truth is the only truth, he is right and will always be right. They are the hardest cases to cure if it is at all possible.
Wrongo butt head. Its you that seems to think that Yates might "enjoy it". Rintense saw it as ultimate punishment for someone that forces his sick wife to have sex with him and continue to produce more kids. If you think there is any thing pleasurable about homsexual rape than you are the latent homo, not rintense.
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.