Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 07/26/2006 View Tue 07/25/2006 View Mon 07/24/2006 View Sun 07/23/2006 View Sat 07/22/2006 View Fri 07/21/2006 View Thu 07/20/2006
1
2006-07-26 -Lurid Crime Tales-
Jury Finds Yates Insane, Not Guilty
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve 2006-07-26 12:46|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 How is "insanity" a defense? I don't believe she was insane, but even if she was, how does that affect culpability? How about a change in the law allowing a verdict of "guilty, but insane"?
Guilty means you did it. Insanity is a whole other matter, subjecting the courts to a dog and pony show of 'experts', some of whom have obvious ulterior motives.
Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-07-26 14:07||   2006-07-26 14:07|| Front Page Top

#2 Coming up in about six months to a year: "Hey! I'm CURED!"
Book it...
Posted by tu3031 2006-07-26 14:12||   2006-07-26 14:12|| Front Page Top

#3 Court also finds kiddies "still dead".
Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious  2006-07-26 14:13||   2006-07-26 14:13|| Front Page Top

#4 Guilt versus innocence is based on culpability: you did wrong and you had the ability to discern right from wrong. A verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity' means that the jury believes she wasn't capable of knowing right from wrong, and therefore whether she did it or not (legally) isn't relevant.

She doesn't get off, and I really, really doubt she's ever going to be freed.

Some states have changed this to allow a verdict of 'guilty but insane' or such wording.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2006-07-26 14:37||   2006-07-26 14:37|| Front Page Top

#5 Well you're right Steve. I'm fully aware of this concept in law. My question was more a poorly worded challenge to this concept. "guilty but insane" allows for an acknowledgement that the person is guilty of the crime, with extenuating circumstances that affect the punishment; whereas, I believe, NGRI does not. I know this is largely a semantic argument, but seeing that crime is now often looked upon as a disease that must be 'cured', rather than an offense that must be punished, I think a rewording is important.
Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-07-26 14:58||   2006-07-26 14:58|| Front Page Top

#6 Sorry, but Andrea Yates should be drowned in a cesspool forthwith.
Posted by RWV 2006-07-26 15:25||   2006-07-26 15:25|| Front Page Top

#7 Andrea Yates will be slumped in the corner of her room for a few decades and then die of a broken heart. She was sane enough to bear and raise 5 babies. She will be sane enough to relive their death again and again. Letting her live is cruel.
Posted by wxjames 2006-07-26 16:05||   2006-07-26 16:05|| Front Page Top

#8 What she did is the very definition of insanity. And for her sake I hope she stays insane because I can't even imagine how she would feel if she became sane enough to comprehend what she did. This is not to say she should be let loose - just keep her locked up and heavily sedated the rest of her natural life, I think.
Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore  2006-07-26 16:27||   2006-07-26 16:27|| Front Page Top

#9 The insanity defense pre-date Freudian psychology. It was being used in the 19th century. The standards were determined not 'experts', cause there were none back then. It was determined by the jury and its observation of the accused.

However, through the modern guile of 20th Century lawyering, its definition has been expanded with the help of witchdoctors psychologist to include anything that they can define as a 'syndrome'.

In my book nothing stopped Ms. Yates, from just packing up and hightailing it out of the household. If this had been the father, you'd think he'd get a second chance?
Posted by Jomonter Sneart4557 2006-07-26 17:10||   2006-07-26 17:10|| Front Page Top

#10 I agree with Glenmore and wxjames. No mother in her right mind would do such a thing. Go read 1st Kings, Chap. 3, again. Solomon nailed it.
Posted by mac 2006-07-26 18:30||   2006-07-26 18:30|| Front Page Top

#11 I've witnessed a couple of short term psychotic breaks. Those people really did not have any control over their actions during those times.
Posted by 11A5S 2006-07-26 18:57||   2006-07-26 18:57|| Front Page Top

#12 Those breaks are longer term over at Daily Kos...
Posted by Inspector Clueso 2006-07-26 20:02||   2006-07-26 20:02|| Front Page Top

13:06 Crairt Phomotle9768
00:04 WITT
23:53 WITT
23:53 CrazyFool
23:50 whitecollar redneck
23:50 Celsius
23:44 whitecollar redneck
23:36 Celsius
23:28 Champ Angeger5024
23:26 mac
23:20 Broadhead6
23:20 Glains Threrese9277
23:14 Broadhead6
23:10 Broadhead6
23:08 Broadhead6
23:05 Sherry
23:02 Broadhead6
22:53 Poison Reverse
22:48 Thoth
22:43 Thoth
22:42 Fordesque
22:37 Fordesque
22:33 Fordesque
22:33 Poison Reverse









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com