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.
How would you arrange it in practical terms. I am curious and many people could use your advise.
But it is different when a wife is sick and a husband has to work. How would you arrange it?
Do you think that the state should provide funds to help? What do you think about homeless who are mentally sick?
It seems the more inane the crime or act, the more fame and $$'s. Great country. One where it pay's to think about as far outside the box as humanly possible.
Having free afternoon I went a few days ago to the court to watch the public trials. In the room I went there four cases tried of the poor defendants with the same assigned lawer. All four cases were decided WITHIN ONE HOUR.
The one was against a clearly mentally sick man. He looked rather nice and friendly, was moving his body back and forth and his hands were in handcuffs. Judge (a woman) looked a him and asked if he was on the medication. He answer "no, you honor". She asked, "were you ever treated in the psychiatric institution", he said "yes, your honor".
To make it short, "his" lawyer wispered with the judge and prosecutors and then whispered with the defendant, the defendant asserted that he resigns from jury trial etc. He admitted that he believed the police report to be true (he did not remembered the actual event).
Judge asked if he is satisfied with the deal between prosecutor and defense, the defendant said "yes, your honor". And he was sentenced to the six months in jail. He looked quite happy and walked out escorted. The judge looked relieved, looked around the room and sighed.
What was his offence? He was homeless and "lived" around the subway station. One day he undressed himself publicly over there and got arrested.
So was everyone in the community who knew the family. Because she had been hopsitalized for mental illness, there were many people involved with this case: doctors, social workers, family members, her husband---all were no doubt familiar with her variable condition. Yet none suspected she would kill her children. Only after she did so, did the Monday morning quarterbacks come out of the woodwork.
Hindsight is so clear. My own attempt at after-the-fact pronnouncements is that she did this to exact a sick revenge against her husband. But, of course, none of us will ever really know for sure.
And what has the homeless to do with this discussion?
Yes, presumably. This is what I asked you. Will you describe them?
Yes, I wish I knew the winning (or losing) number before.
My point is that there really is perverse theology in this picture.
I don't blame the doctor for what Andrea Yates did. But I do question his taking off her meds, so shortly after her hospitalization and her long-standing mental illness. I suffered from "just" severe depression.....and was hospitalized (for 6 weeks, 4 as inpatient)...he kept me on my meds for two years after I got out of the hospital. (I kept asking him, when can I stop taking them.....he said not for a long time.....the chance of relapse is too great.) I wasn't as ill as Yates.....and my doctors (psychiatrist and my general pract. both agreed I needed longer treatment on meds than I wanted.....which was to get off them sooner....but it was two years.)
It would make no sense to take her off the meds.....and if it was Rusty's decision because of the expense, then, since he basically insisted she stay at home with kids (how could she afford to go to work, anyway? daycare for 5 kids would take away all her income), then he should have found a way to make sure she had her meds.......if the doctor stopped the medications, well, I think doctors need to stop relyon solely upon self-reporting, especially in mental illness cases. It's proven that mental illness (esp. depression) affects your memory and distorts your thinking.....you can't rely upon someone for critical information who either is unable to be honest or may have a motivation to be dishonest about themselves. Either way, this is so very tragic.
How can either one of them LIVE with what HAPPENED to the their babies???
She's guilty as hell and I'm glad they convicted her, as for him - what did he know and IGNORE? Surely he's at fault for leaving his precious babies alone with this psycho - he never seems appropriate in any appearance I've ever seen of him.....
I think this is a glimpse to what when on in that house, he never took responsibility for what was going on in that house.
Whatever they do with him, I could care less....
I bet we'll all be disgusted to hear what he knew and did nothing about....
All I care about is those poor babies, drowned by that murderous mother - who knew what she was doing...."solving her problems". Rusty Yates was the closest to the situation and as the father he was responsible for his babies welfare....I'm not saying he could ever have imagined his B wife would do what she did - but it certainly was in the realm of possiblilities that those kids would've gotten hurt due to her wacko behaivor.
Those poor children, I can't read about their final moments without being SICK to my stomach. How do these people live with this??? I'll never understand.
Yes. There are caps on treatment...i.e., life time dollar amounts. They look at what is basically standard, customary care for the average person for a particular illness (w/o complications), the length of time (normally) it takes to heal, etc. Physical illnesses, of particular kinds, say a heart attack or stroke, without other complications, they assign a dollar amount to. If the treatment is "too long" or "excessive," they may either disallow it, not pay for it, or pay what they think is "reasonable." The dollar amount, however, for physicall illnesses is quite high, generally.
The "lifetime" dollar amount, however, for mental illness is quite low. My insurance company assigned a cap of, I believe, $25,000---life time. Meaning, once I'd used up that total (inpatient and outpatient therapy, hospitalization, tests, medication), they completely stop paying for anything. One hospitalization stay, of 1 months, could cost $7,000 to $10,000 (or even more). That leaves little or no room for any relapses to occur, if one does....and once you've used up the remaining amount of $$$ for meds, you're cut off from being insured for any mental illness treatment.
Mentally ill can mean a variety of things--not necessarily psychotic. Depressed people can be described as mentally ill. The thing is that she knew enough to take precautions to insure that she got the killings done and only then did she call in the authorities and finally her husband.
In my book, that is conscious reasoning. She knew.
Thoughtful post.......how tragic to have to dwell on such an awful thing. I didn't know/read that Rusty Yates had been playing videogames in the hallway.....shocked here. And I cannot imagine ever doing what Andrea Yates did.....it's truly incredible. If I was a juror, my heart would break if I heard her son ask what he "did wrong" while his mother drowned him. It tears me up to think about what those poor kids felt and thought as they were killed by their own mother.
Very well said, it's about families taking responsibility for whatever has happened to a loved one - as unpleasant as it might be.
As an RN I worked with stroke patients who often had drastic personality changes-and recall one such elderly male patient who would think he was being attacked whenever we approached him for care, including his very sweet elderly wife.
We knew he would be a threat to her too - and it took alot of counselling and "violant" behaivor when she visited to make her realize she couldn't take him home....he would harm her.
He never recognized people for who they were (he often was back on the "ship" - he had been in the navy for years).
After being married for almost 50 yrs - it's very tough. But this is reality - and people have to take responsibilty for what's going on in their lives/homes.
Then the expense for the psychiatric medications should be paid by the state at 100%.! The country which is going to spend more than 400 billion dollars a years on the military can afford this small item! Less homeless, less tragedies. To hell with the free market ideology.
How very sad.......I don't understand why certain people (it appears more often men than women) need to control their spouse.......and the ones being controlled are enabling their spouses to do so. But once the controlled spouse gets to a certain point, it's almost impossible for her to seek help, any normal thinking becomes distorted and twisted as a result of being controlled.....it's insidious, just as is depression.
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.