thespillcanvas
Banned
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/wireStory?id=2238557
And, in other news, every criminal in America has just developed a mental illness.
Andrea Yates found not guilty.
- Thread starter thespillcanvas
- Start date
And, in other news, every criminal in America has just developed a mental illness.
lordxixor101
CAGiversary!
This is rediculous. I don't even care if you have post partum, pms, whatever. It's part of life. It might allow you to be a little snippy with the guy behind the fast food window, but it doesn't allow you to kill 5 innocent kids.
Tip, if the voices in your head tell you that killing someone will save them, stop listening to that voice.
Tip, if the voices in your head tell you that killing someone will save them, stop listening to that voice.
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
This is the worst crime imaginable. Nothing even comes close to a mother killing her own children.
thespillcanvas
Banned
[quote name='jmcc']I have no problem with this verdict as long as she's kept institutionalized for the rest of her life. Or, failing that, she's sterilized upon release from whatever asylum she vacations in.[/quote]
...
...
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
52nd term abortion anyone?
Yes, I know that is in bad taste, but admit it, you are laughing.
Your souls are going to burn in hell for that...
Yes, I know that is in bad taste, but admit it, you are laughing.
Your souls are going to burn in hell for that...
[quote name='thespillcanvas']
And, in other news, every criminal in America has just developed a mental illness.[/QUOTE]
If she was legally insane, then I have no problem with the verdict. And like most people who think that people constantly get away with crimes by faking a mental illness.. its exceedingly rare. I haven't seen stastics for quite a while, but it was something like 20-30 high-level felony cases in 2000 or 2001 that were given that verdict.
Not guilty by reason of insanity isn't necessarily a "good thing".. very very rarely does a "patient" get out of the institution and the treatment isn't much better then federal prison (and in many cases may be worse). Court mandated mental institutions are basically medicate them and forget them facilities.
And, in other news, every criminal in America has just developed a mental illness.[/QUOTE]
If she was legally insane, then I have no problem with the verdict. And like most people who think that people constantly get away with crimes by faking a mental illness.. its exceedingly rare. I haven't seen stastics for quite a while, but it was something like 20-30 high-level felony cases in 2000 or 2001 that were given that verdict.
Not guilty by reason of insanity isn't necessarily a "good thing".. very very rarely does a "patient" get out of the institution and the treatment isn't much better then federal prison (and in many cases may be worse). Court mandated mental institutions are basically medicate them and forget them facilities.
TurkeyOnRye
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 214 (100%)
She'd be dead if they sent her to prison. It's a shame they didn't because that's what she deserves.
Sounds like she couldn't handling having 5 children and going "temporarily insane" and killing them was an easy out.
If she was really crazy, she should be locked up in a nuthouse forever and if she was faking, being locked up in a nuthouse forever sounds good to me there too short of a death penalty.
Why doesn't the U.S. torture again? Remind me...
Sounds like she couldn't handling having 5 children and going "temporarily insane" and killing them was an easy out.
If she was really crazy, she should be locked up in a nuthouse forever and if she was faking, being locked up in a nuthouse forever sounds good to me there too short of a death penalty.
Why doesn't the U.S. torture again? Remind me...
rodeojones903
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 81 (100%)
That should never be an excuse to get off. I dont give a shit if you are crazy, you still did it. Hitler was out of his 
ing mind, does that mean if he was caught he should be able to get the same punishment that his crazy bitch did? It today's society he probably would have.
ing mind, does that mean if he was caught he should be able to get the same punishment that his crazy bitch did? It today's society he probably would have.Legal insanity is not just being mentally unstable. The layman definition of legal sanity is a basic understanding of the difference between right and wrong. You could be crazy as a peacock.. if you know what you did was wrong.. you're going directly to jail and not collecting $200.
Also don't forget, the grand majority of people don't really understand the insanity defence and feel it is a way for a criminal to get off the hook. Because of this, insanity typically has to be proven to an undoubtable level before a jury will agree.
Also don't forget, the grand majority of people don't really understand the insanity defence and feel it is a way for a criminal to get off the hook. Because of this, insanity typically has to be proven to an undoubtable level before a jury will agree.
rodeojones903
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 81 (100%)
[quote name='Cornfedwb']Legal insanity is not just being mentally unstable. The layman definition of legal sanity is a basic understanding of the difference between right and wrong. You could be crazy as a peacock.. if you know what you did was wrong.. you're going directly to jail and not collecting $200.
Also don't forget, the grand majority of people don't really understand the insanity defence and feel it is a way for a criminal to get off the hook. Because of this, insanity typically has to be proven to an undoubtable level before a jury will agree.[/QUOTE]
Again, it doesnt matter if you understand what the person did was right or wrong if you ask me. You still did the crime that to societys standards is wrong, and the person should get the same punishment anyone else would.
Also don't forget, the grand majority of people don't really understand the insanity defence and feel it is a way for a criminal to get off the hook. Because of this, insanity typically has to be proven to an undoubtable level before a jury will agree.[/QUOTE]
Again, it doesnt matter if you understand what the person did was right or wrong if you ask me. You still did the crime that to societys standards is wrong, and the person should get the same punishment anyone else would.
[quote name='Cornfedwb']Legal insanity is not just being mentally unstable. The layman definition of legal sanity is a basic understanding of the difference between right and wrong. You could be crazy as a peacock.. if you know what you did was wrong.. you're going directly to jail and not collecting $200.
Also don't forget, the grand majority of people don't really understand the insanity defence and feel it is a way for a criminal to get off the hook. Because of this, insanity typically has to be proven to an undoubtable level before a jury will agree.[/QUOTE]
I think the point is that it seems incredibly difficult to convince someone else that "I didn't know what I was doing at that time was wrong."
You certainly know it was wrong now, in the afterglow, right? I mean, is this woman still trotting around like she doesn't think she did anything wrong? Is she still confused? Isn't this why we have a court to begin with? To judge what you did at some point in time X was wrong?
I mean, if all there is to it is to say that you didn't know any better at the time, what is honestly stopping more people from using it? How could anyone prove something in the past if they weren't there? Who do we have to go on? The defendent. Their words. And if they were "insane at some point in the past, MOST ESPECIALLY during this crime," then why the are they allowed to say anything to a lawyer, judge, or jury? Shouldn't they be locked up and not allowed to say anything because they could be insane? I'm not saying criminals can't defend themselves, I'm talking about someone who, apparently, can go into fits of insanity at any given time. And if that's the case, who is to say they aren't insane...all the time? Or when they talk to their lawyers? Who gets to make that judgement? Seems out of the hands of...well, everyone, imo. (This is where you make the joke about how an insane person would say they weren't, because they wouldn't know, but someone who isn't insane can't say they are insane, because it's a catch-22 at that point.)
Look, I'm not going to weigh in on the judicial matters at hand. I'm not trained in any of the jargon or science, so I won't pretend I know.
But I really gotta question how someone can say they temporary fail to understand right and wrong.
Maybe if I saw this happening more often to people in times that aren't acts of criminal crisis - i.e., you see someone just randomly punch out the clerk in Starbucks every other day or so - then I could give it more credence. But I'm a simple man with simple thoughts and right now I just gotta wonder. So I'm not discounting what you've said - because in all reality it sounds the most straightforward - I'm just wondering how one enters into a state so vile that they no longer understand what they are doing (and for argument's sake, drugs do not count).
This seems right up there with "God told me to do it" when you hear about the woman who killed her child after a rock told her so.
Please no one take this as an attack or as a side one way or another.
If there's one thing I know, it is that you get what you deserve every time. Every last time, and what needs to happen to this woman will happen to her. Especially if you, you know, believe in afterlife and all that.
Also don't forget, the grand majority of people don't really understand the insanity defence and feel it is a way for a criminal to get off the hook. Because of this, insanity typically has to be proven to an undoubtable level before a jury will agree.[/QUOTE]
I think the point is that it seems incredibly difficult to convince someone else that "I didn't know what I was doing at that time was wrong."
You certainly know it was wrong now, in the afterglow, right? I mean, is this woman still trotting around like she doesn't think she did anything wrong? Is she still confused? Isn't this why we have a court to begin with? To judge what you did at some point in time X was wrong?
I mean, if all there is to it is to say that you didn't know any better at the time, what is honestly stopping more people from using it? How could anyone prove something in the past if they weren't there? Who do we have to go on? The defendent. Their words. And if they were "insane at some point in the past, MOST ESPECIALLY during this crime," then why the
are they allowed to say anything to a lawyer, judge, or jury? Shouldn't they be locked up and not allowed to say anything because they could be insane? I'm not saying criminals can't defend themselves, I'm talking about someone who, apparently, can go into fits of insanity at any given time. And if that's the case, who is to say they aren't insane...all the time? Or when they talk to their lawyers? Who gets to make that judgement? Seems out of the hands of...well, everyone, imo. (This is where you make the joke about how an insane person would say they weren't, because they wouldn't know, but someone who isn't insane can't say they are insane, because it's a catch-22 at that point.)Look, I'm not going to weigh in on the judicial matters at hand. I'm not trained in any of the jargon or science, so I won't pretend I know.
But I really gotta question how someone can say they temporary fail to understand right and wrong.
Maybe if I saw this happening more often to people in times that aren't acts of criminal crisis - i.e., you see someone just randomly punch out the clerk in Starbucks every other day or so - then I could give it more credence. But I'm a simple man with simple thoughts and right now I just gotta wonder. So I'm not discounting what you've said - because in all reality it sounds the most straightforward - I'm just wondering how one enters into a state so vile that they no longer understand what they are doing (and for argument's sake, drugs do not count).
This seems right up there with "God told me to do it" when you hear about the woman who killed her child after a rock told her so.
Please no one take this as an attack or as a side one way or another.
If there's one thing I know, it is that you get what you deserve every time. Every last time, and what needs to happen to this woman will happen to her. Especially if you, you know, believe in afterlife and all that.
[quote name='Strell']I think the point is that it seems incredibly difficult to convince someone else that "I didn't know what I was doing at that time was wrong."[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it is. That's why it doesn't get used as a defense a lot and people are found not guilty because of it in very few cases.
[quote name='Strell']You certainly know it was wrong now, in the afterglow, right? I mean, is this woman still trotting around like she doesn't think she did anything wrong? Is she still confused? Isn't this why we have a court to begin with? To judge what you did at some point in time X was wrong? [/QUOTE]
But if at the time of the act the person was "insane" (replace whatever long-ass defintion concerning this or any other case here), how they feel now doesn't matter.
[quote name='Strell']I mean, if all there is to it is to say that you didn't know any better at the time, what is honestly stopping more people from using it?[/QUOTE]
The defense has to be approved by a judge before it can be used in court. There is a standard used to determine whether or not it is OK in a particular case.
[quote name='Strell']How could anyone prove something in the past if they weren't there? Who do we have to go on? The defendent. Their words.[/QUOTE]
Ummm...they have this thing, called a "trial" where evidence and witnesses are shown to the jury by both sides and then the jury determines whether or not the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
[quote name='Strell']And if they were "insane at some point in the past, MOST ESPECIALLY during this crime," then why the are they allowed to say anything to a lawyer, judge, or jury? Shouldn't they be locked up and not allowed to say anything because they could be insane? I'm not saying criminals can't defend themselves, I'm talking about someone who, apparently, can go into fits of insanity at any given time.[/QUOTE]
If they're determined to be mentally unfit to stand trial (provide for their own defense), then they don't go to trial.
[quote name='Strell']And if that's the case, who is to say they aren't insane...all the time? Or when they talk to their lawyers? Who gets to make that judgement? Seems out of the hands of...well, everyone, imo. (This is where you make the joke about how an insane person would say they weren't, because they wouldn't know, but someone who isn't insane can't say they are insane, because it's a catch-22 at that point.)[/QUOTE]
Defendants are examined by doctors who then give their opinion along with other related evidence at trial concerning their diagnosis of the patient.
[quote name='Strell']Look, I'm not going to weigh in on the judicial matters at hand. I'm not trained in any of the jargon or science, so I won't pretend I know. [/QUOTE]
You should added a crab here to break up a long post.
[quote name='Strell']But I really gotta question how someone can say they temporary fail to understand right and wrong.
Maybe if I saw this happening more often to people in times that aren't acts of criminal crisis - i.e., you see someone just randomly punch out the clerk in Starbucks every other day or so - then I could give it more credence. But I'm a simple man with simple thoughts and right now I just gotta wonder. So I'm not discounting what you've said - because in all reality it sounds the most straightforward - I'm just wondering how one enters into a state so vile that they no longer understand what they are doing (and for argument's sake, drugs do not count).
This seems right up there with "God told me to do it" when you hear about the woman who killed her child after a rock told her so.[/QUOTE]
This is why we have experts in mental disease.
Yeah, it is. That's why it doesn't get used as a defense a lot and people are found not guilty because of it in very few cases.
[quote name='Strell']You certainly know it was wrong now, in the afterglow, right? I mean, is this woman still trotting around like she doesn't think she did anything wrong? Is she still confused? Isn't this why we have a court to begin with? To judge what you did at some point in time X was wrong? [/QUOTE]
But if at the time of the act the person was "insane" (replace whatever long-ass defintion concerning this or any other case here), how they feel now doesn't matter.
[quote name='Strell']I mean, if all there is to it is to say that you didn't know any better at the time, what is honestly stopping more people from using it?[/QUOTE]
The defense has to be approved by a judge before it can be used in court. There is a standard used to determine whether or not it is OK in a particular case.
[quote name='Strell']How could anyone prove something in the past if they weren't there? Who do we have to go on? The defendent. Their words.[/QUOTE]
Ummm...they have this thing, called a "trial" where evidence and witnesses are shown to the jury by both sides and then the jury determines whether or not the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
[quote name='Strell']And if they were "insane at some point in the past, MOST ESPECIALLY during this crime," then why the
are they allowed to say anything to a lawyer, judge, or jury? Shouldn't they be locked up and not allowed to say anything because they could be insane? I'm not saying criminals can't defend themselves, I'm talking about someone who, apparently, can go into fits of insanity at any given time.[/QUOTE] If they're determined to be mentally unfit to stand trial (provide for their own defense), then they don't go to trial.
[quote name='Strell']And if that's the case, who is to say they aren't insane...all the time? Or when they talk to their lawyers? Who gets to make that judgement? Seems out of the hands of...well, everyone, imo. (This is where you make the joke about how an insane person would say they weren't, because they wouldn't know, but someone who isn't insane can't say they are insane, because it's a catch-22 at that point.)[/QUOTE]
Defendants are examined by doctors who then give their opinion along with other related evidence at trial concerning their diagnosis of the patient.
[quote name='Strell']Look, I'm not going to weigh in on the judicial matters at hand. I'm not trained in any of the jargon or science, so I won't pretend I know. [/QUOTE]
You should added a crab here to break up a long post.
[quote name='Strell']But I really gotta question how someone can say they temporary fail to understand right and wrong.
Maybe if I saw this happening more often to people in times that aren't acts of criminal crisis - i.e., you see someone just randomly punch out the clerk in Starbucks every other day or so - then I could give it more credence. But I'm a simple man with simple thoughts and right now I just gotta wonder. So I'm not discounting what you've said - because in all reality it sounds the most straightforward - I'm just wondering how one enters into a state so vile that they no longer understand what they are doing (and for argument's sake, drugs do not count).
This seems right up there with "God told me to do it" when you hear about the woman who killed her child after a rock told her so.[/QUOTE]
This is why we have experts in mental disease.
[quote name='hohez']I love that being crazy is an excuse for crimes.
Next up will be:
"Hitler discovered to be bi-polar, holocaust forgiven!"[/quote]
Godwin's Law anyone?
EDIT
Twice in three posts... Wow.
[quote name='rodeojones903']That should never be an excuse to get off. I dont give a shit if you are crazy, you still did it. Hitler was out of hising mind, does that mean if he was caught he should be able to get the same punishment that his crazy bitch did? It today's society he probably would have.[/quote]
Next up will be:
"Hitler discovered to be bi-polar, holocaust forgiven!"[/quote]
Godwin's Law anyone?
EDIT
Twice in three posts... Wow.
[quote name='rodeojones903']That should never be an excuse to get off. I dont give a shit if you are crazy, you still did it. Hitler was out of his
ing mind, does that mean if he was caught he should be able to get the same punishment that his crazy bitch did? It today's society he probably would have.[/quote]
[quote name='thespillcanvas']Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/wireStory?id=2238557
And, in other news, every criminal in America has just developed a mental illness.[/QUOTE]
Just another reason why we know Bush is the way he is.....
And, in other news, every criminal in America has just developed a mental illness.[/QUOTE]
Just another reason why we know Bush is the way he is.....
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
[quote name='the3rdkey']Abortion is legal.[/quote]
I am talking about a criminal act like that perpetrated by Yates. Not what is legal. Whether people like abortion or not (and I would prefer if some other course of action is taken), its a whole other thing for a child to look at you with fear in their eyes wondering why mommy is pushing them under the water, and then have the mother pull a lifeless body from the water that moments ago believed their mother was their protector from all harm.
I am talking about a criminal act like that perpetrated by Yates. Not what is legal. Whether people like abortion or not (and I would prefer if some other course of action is taken), its a whole other thing for a child to look at you with fear in their eyes wondering why mommy is pushing them under the water, and then have the mother pull a lifeless body from the water that moments ago believed their mother was their protector from all harm.
jmcc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Jeoff']"I have no problem with this verdict as long as she's kept institutionalized for the rest of her life."
That would waste money. She should be drowned in a bathtub as punishment. Disagree?[/QUOTE]I can't support the death penalty, but that would be satisfying.
That would waste money. She should be drowned in a bathtub as punishment. Disagree?[/QUOTE]I can't support the death penalty, but that would be satisfying.
[quote name='Jeoff']"I have no problem with this verdict as long as she's kept institutionalized for the rest of her life."
That would waste money. She should be drowned in a bathtub as punishment. Disagree?[/QUOTE]
I agree 100%. Actually, I think for a while they should just randomly hold her underwater until she almost drowns, then drag her back up. Let her guess which day she'll get to stay under.
This insanity plea is BS. IMO, anyone who commits cold-blooded murder would have to be mentally unstable to some degree - otherwise, they wouldn't do it. We don't need someone in society who did something like this. And I, for one, don't want to spend my tax dollars to "cure" her.
That would waste money. She should be drowned in a bathtub as punishment. Disagree?[/QUOTE]
I agree 100%. Actually, I think for a while they should just randomly hold her underwater until she almost drowns, then drag her back up. Let her guess which day she'll get to stay under.
This insanity plea is BS. IMO, anyone who commits cold-blooded murder would have to be mentally unstable to some degree - otherwise, they wouldn't do it. We don't need someone in society who did something like this. And I, for one, don't want to spend my tax dollars to "cure" her.
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
[quote name='argyle']I agree 100%. Actually, I think for a while they should just randomly hold her underwater until she almost drowns, then drag her back up. Let her guess which day she'll get to stay under.
This insanity plea is BS. IMO, anyone who commits cold-blooded murder would have to be mentally unstable to some degree - otherwise, they wouldn't do it. We don't need someone in society who did something like this. And I, for one, don't want to spend my tax dollars to "cure" her.[/quote]
I wonder how long it will be before someone pleads insanity to rape or assault? I still am suprised it is allowed at all for murder cases.
This insanity plea is BS. IMO, anyone who commits cold-blooded murder would have to be mentally unstable to some degree - otherwise, they wouldn't do it. We don't need someone in society who did something like this. And I, for one, don't want to spend my tax dollars to "cure" her.[/quote]
I wonder how long it will be before someone pleads insanity to rape or assault? I still am suprised it is allowed at all for murder cases.
I don't know why people are saying she "got off"
After she spends her time in the institution, she should be going off to jail.
My abnormal psych teacher talked about Yates a lot. I believe she mentioned when she killed the children, it was already out of the time frame from the last birth that Postpartum Depression usually lasts.
After she spends her time in the institution, she should be going off to jail.
My abnormal psych teacher talked about Yates a lot. I believe she mentioned when she killed the children, it was already out of the time frame from the last birth that Postpartum Depression usually lasts.
GrimNecroWizard
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='argyle']I agree 100%. Actually, I think for a while they should just randomly hold her underwater until she almost drowns, then drag her back up. Let her guess which day she'll get to stay under.[/quote]
Exactly
Exactly
the_gloaming
CAGiversary!
I remember I was in the court district in downtown Houston a few days before the verdict was read for Yates. Man, that place was nuts (especially with all that damn construction!). Yeah, that bitch is crazy.
But, you know what I think is even worse is that her husband supported her throughout the trial. I mean, come on. Do we have two looneys in the family?
But, you know what I think is even worse is that her husband supported her throughout the trial. I mean, come on. Do we have two looneys in the family?
bread's done