In other news -

[kyburg]

A jury on Wednesday found Texas mother Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity in the drownings of her five children, ages 6 months to 7 years, in the bathtub of their Houston home five years ago.

Hokay.

Now.

How soon can we arrest the husband for child endangerment? HELLO.

Comments

[eve-dallas.livejournal.com]

'How soon can we arrest the husband for child endangerment?'

There is that - but it won't fly, especially in Texas.

[bellacrow.livejournal.com]

gah, how does living in a bus equate to normal? He was told several times that she shouldnt have any more kids after the 2nd or 3rd. He kept her isolated and in crap conditions. IMO he's responsible too.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

I honestly didn't think we would see this day - so anything is possible.

CRAP.

[turandot.livejournal.com]

I agree. I feel that I'm invariably gonna open myself to attack here, but he wouldn't be the first or last husband in the state who decided that "bigger is better" must apply to childbearing prowess, so of course no one would bat an eyelash when it came to his conduct. It's sort of the attitude in some circles in this state.

[http://users.livejournal.com/little_e_/]

Near as I can tell, prosecuters only go after one person (or one group of persons) for a crime. I could be wrong, but it seems more like they'll just put the prosecuters on other cases.

[anahata56.livejournal.com]

The absolute recklessness of a man who keeps a woman with severe post-partum depression pregnant for seven years and then putting her solely in charge of childrearing is a man who has the lion's share of culpability in the deaths of those children, in my not so humble opinion.

The whole time she was falling apart, he was completely in control--of her, of the children, of his penis, of the whole situation.

He should be strung up by his privates, because as far as I'm concerned his privates were the weapon he used to murder his children and ruin a woman's life. And the fact that he's been able to walk away from this is an abomination, and a travesty, and very much an indicator of how very much we will excuse a man any assault so long as it involves only assaulting his wife.

Not to put too fine a point on it.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Does the "needs killin'" clause still apply in Texas? Because if it does I will testify on her behalf that he Needs Killin'... and as I recall it only takes one other person, which we should be able to find easily...

[anahata56.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, from what I understand, SHE would NOT be one of those people.

He walks away and marries another woman, and she still thinks he's Mr. Wonderful.

Which only goes to show you how much serious help she really needs.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

jeezus.

I get the feeling the Universe has a Lesson in store. May she actually learn it this time.

[anahata56.livejournal.com]

I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of a lesson stronger than waking up from your dream world and finding that you've killed your little ones, but there you go.

Maybe what she needs is a gentler lesson--like maybe she's actually worth being treated like something other than a brood mare. Like maybe finding someone who can convince her that she's more than the worth of her womb.

Unfortunately, considering everything, it's going to have to be one hell of a man who can take on that job.

Something in me hopes she finds him.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

*nods* I think you're right, on all points there.

And whoever it is that helps her out of that hole successfully? Deserves a medal or something... OTOH, what he'll likely end up with is a very devoted partner, which would be reward enough, methinks...

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

(I realize that may come off wrong... I agree, the boy (I won't dignify him with any other title) needs stringing up... but at some point when you're in a hole it becomes up to you to at least figure out you're in a hole and yell for help. Otherwise it simply won't take....

[anahata56.livejournal.com]

The difficult thing is that she didn't know, I can almost promise you that.

Domestic brainwashing is a powerful thing.

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

Good icon... and point taken. Seen a small bit of it myself.

[yeoww.livejournal.com]

What she did was absolutely horrific, unimaginable. But it sounds like she suffered from untreated mental disorders and maybe PPD. That, on top of the fact that her husband put them up in a trailer for years, wasn't it? And didn't she tell him at one point that she didn't want more kids? She has to live with what she did for the rest of her life and her spouse shares the blame equally in what happened, as far as I'm concerned.

[turandot.livejournal.com]

His mother testified during the retrial that she basically wasn't fully there the last couple of pregnancies, and so she'd come visit every time pre and post-birth to make sure the children were being taken care of. When she functioned, she basically was not far away from being catatonic, at least the last couple of years.

Any other place but the south, and he'd probably have been charged with child endangerment since the beginning, but around here, there are select men who'll probably look at that testimony and make Russell Yates their own personal hero, and thank god I don't run into them on a regular basis. =[

[lordindra.livejournal.com]

It was worse than PPD, from what I've read about it she suffered from literal psychotic breaks.

That said, I'm conflicted on the verdict. On the one hand, she clearly had about no control over her actions. At best she might have been able to choose how to kill her kids, but even that is doubtful. So it would seem she shouldn't be held responsible.

On the other hand, I'm very much a "the law is the law" when it comes to enforcement and interpretation of the lawbooks. If the law as written leads to injustices, the proper response is to enforce it as it is, and proceed to change the law. Consistent enforcement of the law I think is important for a reasonably orderly and fair society, even if the cost is occasional injustices.

Texas law deems legal insanity as not knowing what you are doing is wrong. IT doesn't matter if you can control your actions or not, all that matters is if you know it is wrong, and it appears that she did know. So from that point of view, the original conviction, while unfortunate, was legally the correct one.

Of course, there is Jury Nullification, a right juries have had here since before the Declaration of Independence. Basically, put the law on trial as much as you put the defendant on trial. For those extreme injustices in the law itself that the legislature can't move fast enough to fix, it is a critical part of the checks and balances system we have. I'm split on whether this case was a severe enough injustice to warrant a nullification like we just saw today. Murder is one of the most serious crimes that someone can commit, cutting them a break for *any* reason must be considered extremely carefully, and err closer to overly strict than other crimes. So I'm a bit split on whether or not I agree with todays verdict. The law certainly should explicitly allow an "unable to control ones actions" aspect to the insanity defense, but it currently does not.

All that said, the husband should be up on child endangerment. Putting someone who you know is suffering from severe mental illnesses, who has suffered psychotic breaks and isn't even able to take care of themselves without help... you are an idiot at best to leave them alone with your kids.

[foogod.livejournal.com]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think there is another part of the issue you're not considering here: intent.

In order to be convicted of murder, one of the requirements is to be able to show that it was deliberate. Not being able to control one's actions in the matter effectively makes the results accidental (due to circumstance), with no deliberate intent. On this basis, and based on her mental state, I'd say that they might be able to legally convict her of manslaughter, but not of murder, so overturning the murder conviction was correct according to the laws on the books, regardless of the definition of insanity.

(now, of course, that's not the reason they gave, but that's a minor detail, in my opinion, since it's pretty clear that they were thinking along lines that are supported by the law, IMO)

[sylvia-says.livejournal.com]

I agree completely.