Andrea Yates Case is Waste of Money and Grand Standing by Rookie DA

I dont understand why people say that she doesnt deserve the death penalty. She killed all of her kids. I dont care if she was a mental case or not. If she was insane, why do we need to rehabilitate her for the rest of her life. She will never set foot out into the real world again and if she was crazy enough to kill her damn kids, she will kill someone else. She needs to die because she is a sick sick woman and anyone that has kids and is not disgusted with this b**** has something wrong with them. I couldnt watch the news or read the paper when that happened because it made me physically ill to think about those children, kicking and screaming while their own mother held them under the water. She chased the last one down. Can you imaging the terror that the child had to go through. Getting the needle is way to good for her and unfortunately she will never have to die the way her kids did. If it was my wife that killed my two kids, I would do it myself. We wouldnt have to worry about a trial for her because she would have had to answer to me. And there isnt a jury on this earth that would convict me. Her husband is not a man for defending her. He is either a nutball himself or disgusting just like her.

As far as the death penalty is concerned, I think that it is blatantly obvious that I am for it. Why should I have to pay for some low life to live for 50 years when he is a waste of oxygen and my tax dollars. My only problem with the death penalty is that the appeals process is way to drawn out and costly.

 

This thread is doomed because glynch (far left) started it and Master Baiter (far right) was the first response. We should just close it now while we're behind.



<font size=1>couldn't resist funnin' you guys - carry on</font>

 

Hey, it makes my day go so much quicker when we have something interesting to talk about. It is also fun to inflame some of the guys on here, see also the Flynt thread from yesterday. That was a great one.

 

Don't you have to be insane to kill all 5 of your children? That being the case, does it matter?

In either regard, I find the original point to be accurate. This could all be done in one day max and save a lot of money.

 

This is the nature of our adversarial legal system. The D.A.'s job is to do what he believes is right, not save taxpayer money. It may be ugly, but we still have the best system around.

Glynch, look on the bright side. Our whole nation is discussing post-partum depression and mental illness. Because of this media circus, our society is more informed and better prepared to deal with these serious issues now.

 

For God's sake, she chased her oldest boy down the hallway and dragged him back into the bathroom before drowning him too.

That is rational and calculating. Regardless of the reason, she did it. Who could deserve the death penalty more?

 

No offense. I'm just razzin' ya.

My opinion on this one: Thou shalt not kill. That goes for EVERYONE.

 

IMHO, I think this is a pretty clear case of mental illness. Although Ms. Yates should be institutionalized for the rest of her life, she does not deserve to die.

Moreover, I think the husband should be chastised for keeping an obviously mentally ill person barefoot and pregnant. Hell, a doctor even told Mr. Yates that there was a 50% chance that Ms. Yates would suffer a severe bout of depression if she had another child. Of course, Mr. Yates responded to this advice by knocking up his wife again.

This in no way lessens Ms. Yates' awful deeds. But I think that this was preventable and that Mr. Yates didn't use his head.

 

<b>Any</b> murder is preventable.

 

I thought it was 'Thou shall not commit murder' or is the above directly from Mt Jeff?

If society believes in the death penalty, and it does, who would be a more likely candidate? If depression is a reason to excuse mass murder, then what ISN'T a good excuse?

 

How can you say that she does not deserve to die? She did it. She admits it. What is the point in paying to keep her institutionalized for the rest of her life? That doesnt make sense to me. Why waste the money and time for someone that is never going back into society. Those resources could be better used for people that are rehabilitable. It is waste resources on a waste of a woman.

 

The test is whether or not she knew her actions were wrong when she committed them...I believe she did for the following reasons:

1. she waited until she was all alone...husband said she was acting nervously before he left

2. she drowned not one, not two, not three, not four...but 5 children...this is not a lost moment...it took a little bit of time to pull this off

3. she chased down the oldest after he ran from her

4. she immediately called the police when she was finished..she didn't go to the mall...take a shower...bake a cake, like a nutcase...she immediately called the police.

in my mind, she knew exactly what she was doing and she knew it was wrong...given that, i can't think of a better candidate for the death penalty. the logic that "she must have been crazy if she killed her kids" fails...that's not the test...the only test is whether or not she knew what she did was wrong...that's a VERY hard burden for a defense attorney to reach.

Jeff -- the Bible doesn't say, thou shalt not kill...it says thou shalt not murder...the distinction is huge. if you're not quoting from the Ten Commandments, then that's fine...but if you are, you're mistaken.

subatomic -- he knocked his wife up....was she absent for those proceedings?? it takes two to tango, and i imagine she is in control of her birth control options.

glynch -- fundamentalist religion had a role in this??? huh??? great post, pal!! thanks for thinking outside the box for us all!!! once again, does anyone have any responsiblity for their own actions in your world??

 

Ok, then TURN THE OTHER CHEEK or LET HE WHO IS AMONG YOU WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE.

Is that better?

 

Jeff didn't say the Bible said it, he said it was his opinion.

That goes for me as well, whether or not she's ill.

Also, I thought I've read that it cost taxpayers more money to execute someone than it would to keep them imprisoned for life.

 

jeff - if you have a new testament in your home check out Romans Ch. 12-13....ch. 12 talks about personal relationships and loving your enemy...ch. 13 talks about the government and its role in carrying the "sword" of order. you might find it interesting

 

Romans 12:17

<i>Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.</i>

Romans 12:19-21

<i>Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary, "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.</i>

Romans 13:9-10

<i>...and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.</i>

Since we, in this country, are a government by, of and for the people, we are as responsible for our own laws as the government is. Anyway, this isn't really about the Apostle Paul's interpretation of the laws of the Bible or the teachings of Christ. I'm more comfortable with Jesus' words than Paul's anyway.

Besides, I'm not even a Christian, so what am I doing quoting the Bible???