From what I've seen I wouldn't be surprised if her husband wouldnt try to get her pregnant again to give her another try at raising a child. I'm hoping the courts don't give her a chance at taking another life. os
Two thoughts... !. This was an awfully quick verdict. The crimes she committed were gruesome and horrific, but can 12 people decide guilt vs. insanity that quickly? Didn't see the testimony, so I don't know. 2. Her husband is just as guilty as her. Too bad he won't be put on trial. Religious fundimentalism, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Muslim or anything else, is a very dangerous thing.
Just to let you know, if she had been found not guilty by reason of insanity, she still would have been "locked up" in a mental institution for a very long time. She only would have been released if a panel ever came to the agreement that she was no threat to anyone. With this verdict, the only medical attention she will ever receive is a prison doctor visit.
If you heard detailed descriptions of how her children died (even 2nd hand descriptions from reporters were gruesome), it wouldn't take you more than 4 hours to come up with a verdict.
To me, if you kill out of hatred or "fun", then you need to be in prison for the rest of your life. To kill for "love" or other "reasons", I don't see where a prison sentence is going help. From what I heard, she did not kill out of hatred or fun and her "reasons" were not sane. The law though states she must not think killing them was wrong to fit the plea, but I think you can think killing them is wrong but in the big picture it's right - which is how I think she felt. I think Andrea needs to be locked up but she needs long term professional help. And to those who think the husband is guilty...why?
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Unless she told her husband she was going to murder all five of her children soon, how could anyone have possibly expected it? Oh, and it does make me feel better that she gets the death penalty. She deserves it.
Elvis and I agree on something! I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one on her side. There were warning signs all over the place. After she had three kids, she suffered sever post partum depression. So what did her loving husband do? Decide to have more kids. She did attempt suicide a few times, but it doesn't mean she values her own life more than her children's. She was less ill at the time of her attempts. As the illness went on, it grew and manifested itself as murder. It's not a matter of whether murdering her kids was wrong. The matter is that she was sick. Most people believe she knows murder is not the answer. However, that's the legal definition of insanity-not knowing right from wrong (sounds more like ignorance if you ask me). She is and was clinically insane and that really cannot be argued. She suffers from post partum psychosis (not depression). It is a much more severe case than depression. And many women who suffer from it DO in fact kill or harm their children. This is not the first case like this. There arequite a few women out there who have murdered their kids for this same reason (that they could not protect or care for them, or that they were saving them from something). They have severe delusions. They do know what they are doing because they do think about it all the time. It's almost all consuming. The only way for them to save their kids is to kill them. Unfortunately, legal definition says their guilty without insanity. They know what they are doing in a state of psychosis. They are extremely ill and death seems like the only way out. They don't want to be bad mothers. They don't want their children to suffer in this world. They think this way is how they can best care for them. They truly do it out of love. If she goes to jail for life, she will not receive the medical attention and treatment she needs. I wonder if she can put the husband on trial for child endangerment or something as well. Her husband knew she was ill and did little to help her. When she had trouble taking care of their kids, he encouraged her to have more and then brought his mother in to help her (which most women really wouldn't want as far as I know). You don't encourage a woman to have more kids if she already suffers from mental illness. She tried to kill herself and he couldn't see that she might be so ill that she would be a danger to herself, at least, if not their children? And what was the first thing he did when he found out she killed his kids? He went on TV to talk about it. He barely even shed a tear. I'm sorry, but would any of you go talk on TV immediately after your wife killed your children? It just shows that he might not care like he said he did. He was one of those people who thought "we'll have as many children as God lets us." That's fine, unless your wife can't handle it, physically, emotionally, or psychologically. And too think that if she were out of jail now, he'd want more kids again. He shows very little regard for her life and their kids since he didn't have enough sense to see something was wrong. Even neighbors saw how sick she was. And up until the crime, they saw she was a loving mother who did everything she could for her kids. The problem was that Yates KNEW she couldn't take care of her kids. In her mental state, she was saving them by killing them.
Princess Should a diagnosed alcoholic who is intoxicated well above the legal limit and causes an accident which kills a family of 5 be held responsible for his actions or should he get treatment at an alcohol rehabilitation clinic? We have a person who is ill (alcoholic) doing something he knows is wrong (drinking and driving) and causing the deaths of 5 innocent people. Some people will argue that alcoholism is NOT a disease. For the sake of this particular question, let's assume it is.
Bobrek, I think a distinction can be made between an alcoholic and someone who is pyschologically impaired. Assuming that alcoholism is a disease, the person makes the choice to partake in a substance that impairs his/her judgment. A person with mental problems does not choose to impair his/her judgment. Now if Ms. Yates was supposed to take anti-psychotic medicine and refused, which led to a deranged state in which she killed her children, then you would have a much better comparison. I do not believe this was the case however, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Time for people to take responsibility for their actions, if she was insane, who cares? She still MURDERED her kids. Eye for an Eye. I don't want to pay ONE dime out of my tax dollars to support her RECOVERY, just give her the chair and be done with it. As for appeals.....did her children get a chance to appeal? DaDakota PS. Anyone that does not have kids, really has NO clue on this subject.
Can someone please tell me which opinons I am able to have? I don't have kids, so I can't have an opinion about this. I guess I don't make enough money to have an opinion about taxes. I don't own a gun, so I guess I can't have an opinion about whether or not people have the right to own one or not. I can't average 22 ppg in the NBA, much less play in the NBA, so I guess I can't have an opinion about that either. Can I not be pro-choice since I've never had a girlfriend who had an abortion? I think the woman was obviously messed up, but I'm not sure about whether or not that matters in this case. I do know I don't think she should get the death penalty, I don't think that anyone should. Of course, since I'm not mentally ill, nor have I ever committed a capital punishment, or had one committed on me, I guess I can't have an opinion about that either.
Rocketman, why even bother? You're obviously not old enough to have a valid opinion on anything. Now run along junior -- the grown-ups are talking ...
I find it amusing that people in this thread say that Yates is clearly insane but a jury that saw all of the evidence needed just 4 hours to unanimously conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not insane. I guess she wasn't clearly insane enough to even get one juror to think so.
As I understand it, she was on medication (what kind I do not know - I would assume an anti-depressant). Her husband said that she wasn't always taking it.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/special/drownings/1266294 MEHL: How many bathtubs are in your home? YATES: One. MEHL: OK, so it's just the, uh, the master bath I guess you would call it? YATES: Yes. MEHL: OK, is it a regular sized bathtub or is it a big one? YATES: Regular sized. MEHL: How far did you fill it? YATES: About three inches from the top. MEHL: About three inches from the top, um, after you drew the bath water, what was your intent? What were you about to do? YATES: Drown the children. MEHL: OK. Why were you going to drown your children? 15 SECONDS OF SILENCE MEHL: Was it, was it in reference to, or was it because the children had done something? YATES: No. MEHL: You were not mad at the children? YATES: No. MEHL: OK, um, you had thought of this prior to this day? YATES: Yes. MEHL: Um, how long have you been having thoughts about wanting, or not wanting to, but drowning your children? YATES: Probably since I realized I have not been a good mother to them. MEHL: What makes you say that? YATES: They weren't developing correctly. MEHL: Behavioral problems? YATES: Yes. MEHL: Learning problems? YATES: Yes. MEHL: So after you drew the bath water, what happened? YATES: I put Paul in. MEHL: And how old is Paul? YATES: Paul is 3. MEHL: OK, and when you put Paul in the bath water, was he face down or face up? YATES: He was face down. MEHL: And he struggled with you? YATES: Yes. MEHL: How long do you think that struggle happened? YATES: A couple of minutes. MEHL: And you were able to forcibly hold him under the water? YATES: Yes. MEHL: By the time you brought him out of the water, had he stopped struggling? YATES: Yes. MEHL: There was no more movement? YATES: No MEHL: And, after you brought him out of the water, what did you do? YATES: I laid him on the bed. MEHL: Face up or face down? YATES: Face up. MEHL: Did you cover him? YATES: Yes. MEHL: Did you cover his entire body? YATES: Yes. MEHL: With what? YATES: A sheet. MEHL: OK, so after you put Paul on the bed and covered him, then what happened? YATES: I put Luke in. MEHL: OK, how old is Luke? YATES: He's 2. MEHL: OK, and was he face down in the water or face up? YATES: Face down. MEHL: Did he struggle? YATES: Yes. MEHL: How long do you think that struggle lasted? YATES: Just a couple minutes. MEHL: OK, and when you brought Luke out of the water, um, was he, any movement at all? YATES: No. MEHL: What happened to Luke then? YATES: I put him on the bed. MEHL: Um, did you cover him with the same sheet that you'd used to cover Paul? YATES: Yes. MEHL: OK, so Paul and Luke are on the bed, then what happens? YATES: I put John in. MEHL: OK, and how old is John. YATES: John is 5. MEHL: OK. How did you get John to come into the bathroom? YATES: I called him in. MEHL: OK, and, and he came in... YATES: Yes. MEHL: Um, did you say anything to him? YATES: I told him to get in the tub. MEHL: OK, and did he? YATES: No. MEHL: Um, what did he do? YATES: I put him in. MEHL: Did you pick him up, how? Under the arms? YATES: Yes. MEHL: And did he go into the water face down or face up? YATES: Face down. MEHL: OK. Did he struggle with you violently. YATES: Yes. MEHL: Did that struggle last longer than with the younger children? YATES: A little bit, yeah. MEHL: OK, but still you were able to hold John under the water? YATES: Yes. MEHL: And eventually he stopped struggling? YATES: Yes. MEHL: OK, when you brought John out of the water, was there any movement at all from him? YATES: No. MEHL: What happened then? YATES: I put him on the bed. MEHL: Did you then cover him along with Paul and Luke? YATES: Yes. MEHL: OK, and then what happened? YATES: I put Mary in. MEHL: Did you actually have to go out into the other room to get Mary? YATES: No, she was in there already. MEHL: Was Mary in the bathroom with you when Paul, Luke and John all went in the water? YATES: Yes. MEHL: OK, what was she doing? YATES: She was crying. MEHL: OK, was she, was she sitting in a chair, one of those . . . YATES: She was sitting down. MEHL: On the floor? YATES: Um-hmm. MEHL: OK, um, so you picked Mary up? YATES: Um-hmm. MEHL: She go into the water face down or face up? YATES: Face down. MEHL: OK, she was able to struggle with you? YATES: Yes. MEHL: Because she's only six months old, right? YATES: Um-hmm. MEHL: But she struggled and how, how long do you think she was able to struggle for? YATES: A couple of minutes. MEHL: OK, and after Mary had died, um, what did you do with her body? YATES: I left it in there and called Noah in. MEHL: OK, did Noah come immediately? YATES: Yes. MEHL: And, when Noah walked in the bathroom, did he see Mary in the tub? YATES: Yes. MEHL: What did he say? YATES: He said, `What happened to Mary?'" MEHL: And what did you say? YATES: I didn't say anything. I just put him in. MEHL: Did he try to run from you? YATES: Yes. MEHL: Did he get out of the bathroom or were you able to catch him? YATES: I got him. MEHL: OK, and Noah is 7, is that correct? YATES: Yes. MEHL: Did Noah put up the biggest struggle of all? YATES: Yes. MEHL: OK, did he go in the water face down or face up? YATES: He was face down. MEHL: Um, when you were struggling with Noah, did you have to, did he try to flip over and come up for air at any time? YATES: Yes. MEHL: Did he ever make it out of the water long enough to get a gasp of air or anything? YATES: Yes. MEHL: How many times? YATES: A couple times. MEHL: But you forced him back down into the water? YATES: Yes. MEHL: How long do you think that struggle lasted? YATES: Maybe three minutes. MEHL: OK, and after Noah was dead, when you brought him out of the water, was there any sign of life from him. YATES: No. MEHL: What did you do with his body? YATES: I left it there. MEHL: OK, so Mary and Noah were left in the bathtub? YATES: I took Mary out. MEHL: After John, excuse me, after Noah was dead? YATES: Yes. MEHL: OK, what did you do with Mary's body? YATES: Put her on the bed. MEHL: Did you cover her? YATES: Yes. MEHL: And you left Noah's body in the tub? YATES: Yes. MEHL: OK, then what did you do? YATES: I called the police. MEHL: OK, did you call 911? YATES: Yes.
Ok, Super Dad. Since I have no children that must mean I support their murder, right? Or that I don't understand how awful the crime was? Get over yourself. If you disagree with my position that Paula Yates was insane and should not be put to death by the state, fine. You won't have any shortage of people supporting your view versus mine. If you think that there is no point in which people don't have control over their own faculties, that's fine, as well. The implication you are making here is insulting, however. Tell you what, instead of telling strangers on a BBS whether their opinion on a subject is valid, or not, why don't you save the lectures for your own kids, ok, Dad-kota? Thanks.
RM95, You don't need to know anything about a subject to have an opinion about it, something that you are constantly proving time and time again on this board. EVERYONE, Gather ROUND Rm95 is going to share his opinions on things of which he has ZERO experience, but don't hold his lack of actual substanitive subject matter against him, I am sure his opinions are just like everyone elses. Opinions are like asses, everyone has one, and if it is not yours it is cracked. DaDakota PS. I stick by my post about people who don't have kids can never fully UNDERSTAND what it is like to have kids, and how life changing an experience it is. If you ain't in the club, you don't get the handshake baby !!!
So any ammoral person would be insane, and therefore, not accountable, according to your interpretation of the law?
Elvis, You are certainly entitled to your opinion, my point is that children give people a WHOLE new perspective. If you have kids one day, you will understand what I am saying. She killed HER kids.....her KIDS !!!!!! It is unconscienable, and she deserves to ROT in hell for eternity. DaDakota....DAD is right BABY !!! PS. RM95 still doesn't have any kids...but opinions...he has those a plenty.
