« Hunger-Striking Cindy Sheehan Packs on the Pounds | Main | Gay Police Accused of Breaking Moonbat Law »

Andrea Yates was neither "neurotic" nor "upset" at the time of her taking the lives of her children. By using such language, you and others minimize the very real disease process that was underway at the time. That has been done to too many people for too long resulting in many tragedies that could have been prevented.

Mental illnesses are real and are treatable. But access to and willingness to accept treatment is made harder when society minimizes people's pain and trivializes their struggles to get help. We can do better, a lot better. Let's get started.

So a woman with what is essentially a severe form of post natal depression decides to kill her children, then claims she went batshit insane as a defence.

I don't care whether she was insane. Even insane people generally know that murder is wrong. It doesn't necessarily stop them from doing it but, really, all that proves is that people are capable of overriding their conscience.

"Of course Yates is insane; anyone would have to be to commit such a crime. Still more insane is the society that kicks aside the corpses of five children in its rush to comfort the poor murderess for having been upset enough to kill them.

Instead of the appropriate execution, Yates will be subjected to a timeout at a mental asylum, to last until some bleeding-heart flake with a psychiatry degree decides that she's "cured" — at which point Noah, John, Paul, Luke and Mary Yates will still be dead."

Bravo. Thank you. You read my mind.

I now await the Medea Defense.

"Hey honey, is that Shepherd's Pie? Where are the kids?"

How does someone who committed a crime receive a NOT GUILTY verdict? She killed her children, methodically drowning one after the other in the same dirty water. And now she's NOT GUILTY! I cannot even begin to describe the anger I feel that she was not held accountable for her actions, sick or not... I fully admit that Andrea Yates was probably insane at the time, and do not really have a problem with Andrea Yates living out the rest of her life in a mental institution instead of a prison. My issue is that her mental illness grants her a NOT GUILTY verdict - how can you be not guilty of a crime you committed? Our judicial system needs a GUILTY by reason of insanity verdict made available to the juries for people like this who deserve to be in an institution but still holds them accountable for their criminal actions.

Of course Yates is insane; anyone would have to be to commit such a crime.

Actually, VH, please allow me to submit that Yates was not insane, but psychotic. You see, "insane" is not a clinical term...it is a legal term. One can be psychotic, yet legally sane. See Ted Bundy, Jeff Dahmer, etc.

The legal definition of "insane" basically means the following:

* the accused must lack the ability to understand his/her actions;

* the accused must lack the ability to appreciate the wrongfulness, or illegality, of his/her actions.

* some locales require that the accused must not have remorse for their actions, because remorse indicates an ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of the actions.

If ANY of those conditions are not met, then the insanity test fails. For example, Bundy and Dahmer were both psychotic, and no one disputes that. However, because they actively hid the evidence of their crimes by various means (lying, hiding bodies, ingesting them, etc.), those acts show that they clearly understood that their acts were wrong (morally, legally, etc.).

Scenario #1: A cop goes into a house and sees a man killing a woman. The cop tells the man to stop and drop the weapon, and the man says "Why? I'm killing Satan!" If clinical tests show that the killer genuinely believed he was killing Satan and thus benefitting mankind, chances are that the killer would be found "Not guilty by reason of insanity." Why? Because he would not have been able to appreciate the reality of his crime, nor would he have determined that his crime was actually a crime.

Scenario #2: A woman drowns her five kids in a bathtub, one by one. She then calls 911 to admit what she's done. That very phone call illustrates that she knew her actions were wrong, thus obliterating her insanity defense.

The jury got it wrong, pure and simple. Yates is psychotic, NOT insane!

I'M SORRY FOR THIS SOCIETY AND ANY ONE ESPECIALLY WOMAN WHO WOULD AGREE TO PREVIOUS COMMENTS- MORE SO AT FAULT THAN ANYONE IS THE FATHER (HE SAW SHE WAS MENTALLY ILL AND DID NOT TAKE THE PROPER STEPS TO PROTECT HIS 5 CHILDREN) - WHAT KIND OF A PERSON DOES NOT USE PROTECTION AND REARS CHILDREN AND BELITTLES THE MOTHER OF HIS CHILDREN TO LIVE IN A BUS WITH NO WATER OR UTILITIES - THIS IS AN EDUCATED WOMAN WITH A MEDICAL BACKGROUND, WHOM HAD SHE NEVER HAVE CROSSED PATHS WITH RUSTY A MAN WITH AN ENGINEERING BACKGROUND WITH THE MEANS TO SEEK MEDICAL TREATMENT DID NOT - BUT MOST INTERESTING IS SOCIETY DICTATES A MOTHER HAS OR SHOULD PROTECT HER CHILDREN TO THE END - YET THIS WAS NOT EXPECTED OF RUSTY - IT IS OUR RESPONSIBLITY TO REPORT AND PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM HARM EVEN IF IT IS IN THE HANDS OF THEIR OWN PARENTS. NOT HAVING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY OR THE BURDEN OF RESPONSIBITY MAKES YOU AN ACCESSORY - SO NOW RUSTY HAS MOVED ON REMARRIED IT WOULD BE TO HIS INTEREST TO SUPPORT AND NOT CALL HER A MONSTER BUT TO SAY HE HAS BEEN SUPPORTIVE IS A CROCK OF COURSE HE WOULD IN HIS MINUPALATIVE PLAN TAKE THE COWARDS WAY OUT BY DISTRACTING FROM HIMSELF. BUT AS THE READERS HERE HAVE STATED THERE LITTLE BONES ROT- MAY THEIR LITTLE SPIRITS REST IN PEACE AS THERE SOULS SCREAM OUT TO THIER FATHER- WHY DIDN'T OR COULDN'T YOU PROTECT US. MAY HIS NEW WIFE BE A STRONGER WOMAN THAN ANDREA). I GUESS IT'S EASIER IN THIS SOCIETY TO BLAME ANDREA- I WILL SLEEP BETTER NIGHTS, AND PRAY AND GLORIFY THE APEAL - COUNT THEM 5 LITTLE SOULS - WHY DIDN'T RUSTY USE CONTRACEPTIVE PROTECTION - OR RESTRAINT SHE WAS HOSPITILIZED AND CONTEMPLATED SUCIDE AND SHOWED SIGNS OF MENTAL ILLNESS YET RUSTY CONTINUED PROCRIATE WITH HER WITH NO REGARD TO THE EXISTING CHILDREN AND KNOWING HER MENTAL ILLNESS CONTINUED TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN WITH HER. SO AS YOU GO ON ABOUT THIER LITTLE ROTTING BONES YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER WHAT RUSTY HAD TO SAY FOR HIMSELF AND WHAT HE COULD HAVE DONE TO PROTECT HIS CHILDREN. WHO WALKS AWAY EVERYDAY AND LEAVES THEIR CHILDREN IN DANGER? BE KIND TO THE MENTALLY ILL - WE MAY BE THERE SOME DAY OR KNOW OF PERSONS WHO ARE AFFLICATED WITH MENTAL ILLNESS BUT TO ADD 5 CHILDREN TO BE CARED FOR BY SOMEONE MENTALLY ILL- YOU WOULD NOT BRING OR LEAVE SOMEONE WHO IS MENTALLY ILL TO TAKE CARE OF OUR YOUNG...? WOULD WE? RUSTY DID... MAY THE LORD AND SOCIETY GUIDE ANDREA.. FROM THE HELL SHE HAS TO LIVE WITH EVERYDAY. MAY RUSTY FIND GUIDANCE.