January 8, 2002

8:04 PM

In what seems to be a major turnaround for the state, Texas may not be seeking the death penatly against Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children in a bathtub. They're bargaining for a guilty plea; should she take the deal? Or, does she actually deserve death?
posted by Yelling At Nothing (90 comments total)

She deserves it. I'm in Houston and have been following the case for a long time, and I feel that I have a good basis to believe that she should not only go to hell but get there with a lethal injection. Insane or not, it's her crime. I feel that the evil is present within her just as it is with Osama bin Laden, only shrouded with a thin layer of ambiguity. That may seem ridiculous but so is a guilty plea.
posted by bloggboy at 8:37 PM on January 8, 2002

She is defective morally and has committed multiple irreversible criminal acts of the highest magnitude; sane or not, how would it benefit society to permit her continued existence?
posted by rushmc at 8:40 PM on January 8, 2002

Not only should she get the needle, but so should her husband. Leaving her alone with those kids, knowing she was mentally unbalanced and off her meds makes him as guilty as she.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:46 PM on January 8, 2002

It's creepy that this case has nothing to do with whether Yates drowned her children, and everything to do with whether she is legally insane or not.

bloggboy, bin Laden should plead insanity!
posted by zekinskia at 8:51 PM on January 8, 2002

Zekinskia: He's certainly demonstrated it, hasn't he?

I'm not sure about the husband's involvement (or lack of) but I don't think he should be tried. It certainly doesn't make him as guilty as her; but that's as much as I can say.
posted by bloggboy at 8:59 PM on January 8, 2002

Defective, morally? Since when is mental illness a moral defect? Post Partum Psychosis is pretty well documented - it seems tragic that no one intervened in this woman's illness.
posted by kristin at 9:12 PM on January 8, 2002

Insane or not, it's her crime. I feel that the evil is present within her just as it is with Osama bin Laden, only shrouded with a thin layer of ambiguity. That may seem ridiculous but so is a guilty plea.

The whole point of the designation of legal insanity is that there is a difference between "insane or not." I don't understand what you mean when you say you "feel the evil is present within her" -- do you think the evil will somehow get out of her body and infect other people?

It's creepy that this case has nothing to do with whether Yates drowned her children, and everything to do with whether she is legally insane or not.

That doesn't seem creepy to me (I mean, obviously the whole context is monstrously creepy, but that's another issue) -- there's no question that she did it, nor concern that a jury in a straight trial would find her innocent in such a manner that they would simply set her free. The question at hand is not one of assigning material guilt, but what the best thing to do with her if she is (as I think is likely) demonstrably insane.

Assuming she were insane, are there postive reasons she should be killed? Who benefits? Would it deter other insane people from such actions?
posted by BT at 9:15 PM on January 8, 2002

Wow, this incited a little more vitriol than I had intended ;)

Just to throw in my own 2C, I would be fine with her getting life imprisonment. I would think that, even with a severe post partum psychosis, she would be able to differentiate between the right and wrong of drowning her own children.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 9:21 PM on January 8, 2002

The whole point of the designation of legal insanity is that there is a difference between "insane or not." I don't understand what you mean when you say you "feel the evil is present within her" -- do you think the evil will somehow get out of her body and infect other people?

What I'm trying to say is that there shouldn't be a difference with her. As rushmc said, she doesn't benefit our society (insane or not) and her crime was horrendous. I'm thinking more along the lines of, "What is being lossed?" rather than "What is being gained?" You ask: are there positive reasons she should be killed? I'm not sure, but there are overwhelming negative reasons why she shouldn't.
posted by bloggboy at 9:27 PM on January 8, 2002

Kristin said: Defective, morally? Since when is mental illness a moral defect? Post Partum Psychosis is pretty well documented - it seems tragic that no one intervened in this woman's illness.

But couldn't it be true that the source of all evil is mental illness or defects in the brain? Why does the thought of killing someone not sicken one person, but sicken another?

I think such 'evil' is down to the mental defects that the majority of the world's population have.
posted by wackybrit at 9:41 PM on January 8, 2002

I think the Post Partum Psychosis defense is a little specious. It takes, on average, about five minutes to drown someone to death. She had five children; the last two, as I recall, had to be chased down and carried to the tub. So for the sake of argument, let's say a half-hour of time she spent murdering her children, one by one, and laying their bodies on the bathroom floor in a row, before she made that 911 call to say that "something happened." A half hour is a LONG time to spend in a depressive rage. Especially in light of her rather methodical, calculated procedure.

And several people intervened to aid her with her mental illness, over the course of several years. She was supposed to be taking medication, as I recall, but had stopped on her own (?) or was in between prescriptions, I can' remember.

Personally, I think she decided that she didn't want to be a mom anymore, and made it happen; and in that, her husband is at least partially responsible, since his callous disregard for the safety of his children aided her in her effort - he should have realized how dangerous this woman was, and gotten those kids as far away from her as possible. And yes, she deserves death. She deserves rather more than simple death. But she will likely not get that. We are rather queasy as a society about putting women to death, regardless of deservedness, especially ones with obvious psychological shortcomings. But she should never, ever see freedom again or, worse, be allowed to have children, or be around the children of others.

Again, personally, in the event that she does not get the death penalty, she perhaps should be allowed a single opportunity to take her own life in a clean and effective manner, and perhaps salvage some infinitesimal measure of self-respect and personal honor. If I committed so horrible a crime, I would welcome that opportunity. But I do not think she is capable of such feeling. I believe she is incapable of normal human emotion. She's proven so five times. And while she lives, there is the possibility, however slim, that she will victimize others. We should not forget that we have a responsibility to each other to take steps to prevent her, and other criminals, from victimizing anyone else ever again.
posted by UncleFes at 9:41 PM on January 8, 2002

"Would it deter other insane people from such actions?"

Is our legal system all about deterrence, or is it more about punishment? People commit all kinds of crimes every day without the fear of prison sentences deterring them from committing the crimes. Should we do away with prisons, too, since it's clear they're not deterring anyone from criminal behavior?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:43 PM on January 8, 2002

this thread is a place for pro-corporal-punishment people to come together, love each other, hold each others' hands.
posted by kv at 9:47 PM on January 8, 2002

Exactly, UncleFes. She could differentiate between right and wrong, the real question in all insanity pleas.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 9:49 PM on January 8, 2002

My question is this:

Is there any "sane" person who commits murder? My belief is that, no, there is not. The question of insanity, to me, is irrelevant. Andrea Yates just so happened to have a medical condition diagnosed before the atrocity. The only exception lies outside the realm of developmental disorders.
posted by bloggboy at 9:58 PM on January 8, 2002

I wonder what sort of punishment the father would like to see his wife receive. Personally, I am amenable to the death penalty in this situation. What a heinous crime (reminds me of Atreus feeding Thyestes his own sons in the Oresteia). There is no doubt she is guilty, the law says death is an appropriate punishment for this crime, and I think most Texas juries would go for the death penalty pretty easily.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:01 PM on January 8, 2002

If you define murder as the premeditated killing of an individual by another, certainly a sane person can commit murder, it happens all the time - murder for hire, murder for money, murder to eliminate a rival or enemy, murder for sport, murder on behalf of another person. There are instances where you could even say murder was a good act, if the murdered person were ostensibly evil or were planning to do some harm to others.

I've always felt, however, that insanity was a fairly paltry reason to not hold a person accountable for murder. The insane, it seems to me, are far more dangerous than the sane, and should be dealt with less mercifully in the event they commit murder, since they have no idea that the act is wrong and, because of that, would subsequently feel no compunction toward committing murder again given the opportunity.
posted by UncleFes at 10:36 PM on January 8, 2002

I'm not an advocate of the death penalty, but I have to say, I can't imagine how this woman could want to remain alive. I mean, to kill five human beings is a horrible crime; to kill your own children is a horrible crime - all five of your own children? How could you go on living? If she'd prefer to go into an institution rather than end her life, I don't have an issue with that. But if I were forced to remain alive after that, I'd request a lobotomy...
posted by mdn at 10:38 PM on January 8, 2002

But couldn't it be true that the source of all evil is mental illness or defects in the brain:Well, the same could be said of all good or indifferent acts, so unless all are insane the answer is no, unless of course everyone is actually insane, then the answer is of course, but then relativity intercepts reasoning and therefore it's immaterial.
Will her attorneys advise her to take this plea? Unless she is really legally insane, yes. Should she? Yes.
And by the way, the death penalty is a great deterrent for the individual receiving it; they won't kill again when they get out, and lots of people have gotten released from 'life without parole" sentences.
posted by Mack Twain at 11:00 PM on January 8, 2002

There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Yates met the legal definition of sanity in her state of residence at the moments of her horrific crimes. She deserves to be imprisoned for life because of them. I haven't sufficient sufficient trust in the integrity or competence of our governmet at any level to willfully acknowledge to them the authority to murder citizens as reprisal for even the most repugnant of acts.
posted by scottymac at 12:14 AM on January 9, 2002

You lot scare me. You're the kind of people who would participate in lynch mobs.

If she is found to be sane, she deserves life in prison. If she is found to be insane then she deserves life in a secure hospital.
posted by salmacis at 12:40 AM on January 9, 2002

When I first heard this story, I thought how tragic that a Post Partum Depression was allowed to get so out of hand. Then I listened to the interview the husband gave right after it happened. He knew she was off her medications, very depressed and not herself, yet he goes off to work leaving her alone with five children under the age of eight. Was there no family member that could have helped? No way to hire some kind of nanny or house keeper? Her husband, by his own statement, made me think, God they ought to charge him with aiding in the murders.
posted by bjgeiger at 1:25 AM on January 9, 2002

You people scare me.

I do not know enough about Mrs. Yates' mental state at the time of the murders to say what should happen to her, but I think her husband belongs in jail and her psychiatrist needs to have his license evaluated at the very least....

I am torn....I have had three toddlers at home at one time, and had an undiagnosed mental disorder to go with it(bipolar type II)-I can fully comprehend someone snapping under those circumstances.....what I cannot comprehend is that husband and the other relatives sticking their collective heads under the sand and forcing her to continue to care for those children AND homeschool them BY HERSELF KNOWING these problems existed.....I can actually comprehend a scenario where she was truly and completely out of her right mind when she did this....not that I feel this makes the act any less evil.....as a previous poster has said if it had been me I would have been begging for the death penalty once i realized what I had done.......
posted by bunnyfire at 3:55 AM on January 9, 2002

I too was -- at one time -- of the opinion that the husband deserved much of the blame and a part of the punishment. Then I heard an extensive interview with the man wherein he described (with corroboration from family, friends and fellow parishoners of their church) how his wife had been behaving. She had never before showed any signs of violence. At worst, she would closet herself in her room or in the bathroom for several hours and cry uncontrollably.

She had received conflicting advice from her doctors regarding her psychotropic medication, and was off meds at the time of the killings because of that conflict. The family was in limbo, waiting for the doctors to figure out if she needed anti-psychotics, anti-depressives, both or neither, and Andrea Yates slipped further into depression and despair.

The husband went on to describe his wife as being ashamed of her condition, and being ashamed of not feeling more capable of being a contented, involved mother. She was not open to having friends, family members or church members seeing her in her state, and since there was no indication that she had ever had even fleeting thoughts of doing violence against the kids, it didn't seem dangerous to the husband to leave her alone. Unfortunate and undesirable, yes, dangerous, no. He had to work -- he had a family of seven to feed, clothe and house, and if he didn't work, there was no insurance to help finally get Andrea the mental health care that she needed.

I'm leaning in favour of lengthy incarceration in a prison mental ward, because she does need to face some consequence for what she did, but at the same time, she is not mentally healthy. That is documented fact, and her mental state has not improved since her unthinkable acts.

I'm a limited supporter of the death penalty, but I have a hard time seeing what would be gained by putting a mentally ill person to death for a crime that was committed under mental duress, if nothing else. Let her be punished, yes. She will also punish herself for as long as she lives, and that seems to be far worse a penalty than a short needle jab and a easy slide into permanent slumber.
posted by Dreama at 4:09 AM on January 9, 2002

According to the story and the interview that aired on 60 Minutes, Mr. Yates and his wife were warned that having another child after their fourth would bring on severe depression, yet they went ahead anyway. Here's a woman who said her children were evil, attempted suicide, and was on several mood altering drugs.

At the very least, Russell Yates is an accessory to murder.

I'm a strong, strong supporter of the death penalty, but in this case I believe she should just be locked up for life.
posted by owillis at 4:28 AM on January 9, 2002

A matter of perspective.

It's not like Yates killed her kids, say, for life insurance money, or even to get sympathy from her peers. She didn't claim some Puerto Rican guy did it, she didn't express pride and joy at her act of horror, she didn't even stay silent for any period of time.

She did it. She fessed up to it. She seems no less horrified than the rest of us.

Whatever happened, we abuse the very concept of evil when we claim that what happened here was the height of evil. Yes, she murdered her children, and this is a horror upon which I would wish on no family nor even society. But, search deep within your heart for a motive here, and realize that this was an act of tragedy, not of pure unadulterated malice and evil.

There's a morbidly interesting question, almost Dostoyevskian, about whether it makes it more or less evil that she killed her own children, rather than someone else's. I do know if she had killed another's children, there would be little question of what came next. This leads to...uncomfortable conclusions, does it not?

--Dan
posted by effugas at 5:07 AM on January 9, 2002

I was just waiting for Dostoevsky to be mentioned.
posted by adampsyche at 6:00 AM on January 9, 2002

Not only does it take quite some time to drown someone- she waited until her husband left for work, to commit these murders in the half-hour span between his leaving and her mother-in-law arriving to help for the day. Then, she neatly placed all but one body on her bed, covered them, called her husband, told him to come home, then called the police, and told them to come as well.

I find it terribly convenient that her "insanity" afforded her the foresight to wait until the one time when she would be alone with all five children, the congnizance to systematically murder them, saving the oldest- and thus, most difficult to kill- child for last, and the conscience to call both her husband and the police- when asked on the phone by her husband if something had happened to the children, she said yes, all of them.

So I don't think she was insane. Maybe she quit caring, maybe she was tired of being a mother, maybe she wanted to get back at her husband, who knows. The why is interesting, but it's not all that important. That said, I don't think she should get the death penalty. I don't think there's a deterrence factor here- this was a very personal crime; unlike shooting someone in the midst of a bank robbery, which could happen to anyone (so inclined to rob a bank with a gun) this was a very intricate and special set of circumstances.

So what's left is punishment, and making sure that this particular offender can never again offend. It's draconian of me, but life in prison seems much more suited- forcing her to wake up to the realization that she murdered five children every day for the rest of a long life is what she deserves. As a very devout Christian, she believes that if she asks God's forgiveness in earnest, it will be granted- putting her to death would be relief and release from all of this. It would be a kindness she doesn't deserve.
posted by headspace at 6:51 AM on January 9, 2002

I do not know enough about Mrs. Yates' mental state at the time of the murders to say what should happen to her, but I think her husband belongs in jail and her psychiatrist needs to have his license evaluated at the very least....

Yes, that's it, pass the blame to everyone BUT the culprit...sure the mailman didn't have a hand in this?
posted by rushmc at 7:27 AM on January 9, 2002

There is no evil; there; is only dysfunction and variant cognitive patterns that transgress what society deems as acceptable.
posted by rushmc at 7:28 AM on January 9, 2002

You people scare me.

And you people scare me, in that you are too willing to abrogate the sometimes difficult responsibility of helping to protect your fellow citizens from criminals in the name of altruistic but ultimately dangerous "mercy" for those who have proven to be violent and murderous. Murderers - those who cross the ultimate line of criminality, who commit the ultimate transgression against our society - may be sick, but they rarely get better. Let them out - or let them escape, or keep them caged with those who are less violent and/or weaker - and they will victimize again. Motive, while helpful for solving crimes, should be irrelevent to the effective punishment of those crimes.

And why should it be a lesser crime since it was her own children? Those kids are just as dead. Five lives snuffed like candles, five kids who will never get the chances that Mrs. Yates had in life, who did nothing to deserve such a horrible fate. I particularly grieve for the oldest, who saw what his mother had done to his brothers and sisters and tried to run. He died in pain and fear and confusion, struggling hard to gain a breath his own mother never let him have.

Whenever I think of Mrs. Yates and what she deserves, and begin to feel that perhaps I am being too draconian, too unwilling to look at her psychological problems, her homelife, her pressures - I think of the horror that little boy underwent in the last moments of his life, staring up at his mother as she held him under the water, the sight of his siblings laid out neatly still fresh in his mind.

Whatever problems she may have had, they pale to invisibility compared to that.
posted by UncleFes at 7:37 AM on January 9, 2002

For me it's simple: She deserves to die. Just not at the hands of the State of Texas (or any other governmental entity).
posted by pardonyou? at 7:44 AM on January 9, 2002

Just not at the hands of the State

Shall we call for volunteers then? It's the state's responsibility to act on the people's behalf to punish criminals, following the constitutionally outlined and guaranteed process by which those accused can be fairly judged and punishments meted according to proscribed law, not vigilante whim.
posted by UncleFes at 7:52 AM on January 9, 2002

I think most Texas juries would go for the death penalty pretty easily.

You think? I thought Texas usually opted for a good spanking.
posted by Skot at 7:55 AM on January 9, 2002

This just shows the virtue of the death penalty. Had Texas been a non-death-penalty state, or a state that heavily restricts the circumstances in which it can be brought (like New York), then Andrea Yates would have had no incentive, whatever, to plead, and there would have been the risk of a terrible miscarriage of justice if her attorneys could sufficiently beguile a stupid jury.

In my opinion, this is exactly what happened in the OJ Simpson case ... if he'd been charged with a death penalty offense, he would have no choice but to plea to avoid it ... few obviously guilty people turn down a plea when there's the risk of execution, in hopes that they can trick a jury into acquitting or at least not reaching a verdict.
posted by MattD at 8:26 AM on January 9, 2002

MDN this is SUCH a good point, methinks. I kept thinking while watching the newscast about how it says something about her character that she is fighting to not get the death penalty.

If I did something like this, insane or not, in my moments of clarity I would be preparing my own noose.
posted by glenwood at 8:27 AM on January 9, 2002

Remember the legal standard for insanity is not lack of self control, but inability to tell right from wrong. Any act which shows guilt, regret, attempts to do the act away from those who would stop her, otherwise shows conscious awareness that what she did or contemplated doing was wrong, negates the insanity defense.
posted by MattD at 8:55 AM on January 9, 2002

UncleFes, I think a distinction can be made between someone personally deserving to die, and supporting the act of carrying out that death. For me personally (if I was the King of the World), her husband would have the right to carry out that death. I readily acknowledge that under current law he would be guilty of a crime, but the State of Texas is free to kill her.

Of course, the most appropriate person to carry out that execution would be Andrea Yates herself. It amazes me that she was so troubled and depressed that she killed all five of her children, yet somehow she wasn't so depressed that her own life seemed equally expendable.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:59 AM on January 9, 2002

An excellent point. I believe it was reported that she "attempted" suicide on a couple of occasions, but in general my feeling is that attempted suicides are not really that at all, but rather are demands for attention. There are a great many ways for someone who is determined to commit suicide to do so quickly, effectively and relatively painlessly.

The problem with allowing anyone but the state to carry out such sentences is exactly the point you make - we the people have allowed the state this responsibility, in many ways so that we as individuals don't have to bear the psychological brunt of the burden and ensuring that the judgement and punishment is carried out fairly and effectively. Even if her husband were given a free ticket to exact the sentence, I suspect he'd pass. Despite her crime, he seems to continue to love his wife, and most people are not very capable of killing in cold blood; even if he wished to kill her, he might very well botch it. Or draw the ire of her family and/or supporters, who might wish to exact their own justice.

The state is not very well suited to a lot of things, but this even I have to admit is one that rightfully belongs to them.
posted by UncleFes at 9:38 AM on January 9, 2002

The fact that the state is not very well suited to do anything (or at least not suited to do anything very well) is the reason that it shouldn't be in the death business. I like a little more certainty than the state is able to provide.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:20 AM on January 9, 2002

UncleFes: "Whenever I think of Mrs. Yates and what she deserves, and begin to feel that perhaps I am being too draconian, too unwilling to look at her psychological problems, her homelife, her pressures - I think of the horror that little boy underwent in the last moments of his life, staring up at his mother as she held him under the water, the sight of his siblings laid out neatly still fresh in his mind."

I feel for what those children went through as much as you do, but I don't see how that sympathy and the anger it engenders affects whether or not Paula Yates was sane or insane at the time (and thus whether or not she deserves the death penalty). Decisions made in anger rarely prove to be the ultimate best course of action. And I don't see how executing someone who is clearly mentally ill will do anything at all to change the fact that those chidren died horrible deaths, or to ameliorate the pain this tragedy has caused this family. How will killing her make anything better for anyone? Will it deter other psychotics from losing touch with reality? Is she ever going to be in a position to kill five of her children again, regardless of what happens at her trial? It's not like she's a thrill-killer who did this for jollies, so I guess I'm not really clear on what the point of killing her might be.

As far as I know, she was diagnosed with Post Partum Psychosis; psychosis is defined as a loss of contact with reality. Psychotics' behaviour is usually internally consistent, and some aspects of it may even seem to be indicative of sanity (how methodical she was, how long it took to drown each child, laying the bodies out neatly and covering them etc.), but these are most likely just sane-seeming by-products of whatever strange unreal world she was in at the time, and not necessarily indicative of her being even in the remote vicinity of sanity. It seems pretty clear that she was psychotic at the time of the murders, since, by all accounts I've seen, she was a normal, loving mother when her illness was controlled.
posted by biscotti at 10:45 AM on January 9, 2002

You miss my point; I believe that the enormity of her crime precludes whether or not she is insane (or merely evil) from being an issue. As it does with whether she was a good mother when taking her medicine, whether she suffered from Post Partum, or whatever. She methodically murdered five children. Killing her certainly does not bring those children back, nor does it deter other potential child murderers. What it does do is prevent her from ever victimizing anyone again, and serves as a just punishment for her crime.

Now, you and I can differ philosophically as to whether capital punishment is general is an effective tool for punishing criminals and protecting society (I suspect we do), but I think we can agree that a life sentence, be it prison or a mental hospital, is unjust, since she took far more than she would subsequently pay. That's nothwithstanding the possibility that she would be released and, possibily, commit more horrible crimes, or victimize her fellow inmates, or escape.

I simply believe that there are some crime that are so heinous that death is the only fitting punishment.
posted by UncleFes at 11:00 AM on January 9, 2002

UncleFes: "Now, you and I can differ philosophically as to whether capital punishment is general is an effective tool for punishing criminals and protecting society (I suspect we do), but I think we can agree that a life sentence, be it prison or a mental hospital, is unjust, since she took far more than she would subsequently pay. That's nothwithstanding the possibility that she would be released and, possibily, commit more horrible crimes, or victimize her fellow inmates, or escape."

This ignores the fact that she didn't commit these crimes when she was appropriately medicated for her illness (i.e. placed in a position where she was capable of rational thought). It's pretty clear that she did this while she was psychotic, which means she was not a rational, thinking person at the time and should not be treated by the courts as if she was. This isn't some spurious "Twinkie defense", she has a long, documented history of mental illness. Not accepting that diminished responsibility exists in this case seems to be wilful ignorance of well-supported information in favour of justifying revenge killing. And I'm afraid I can't agree that a life sentence is unjust by your argument ("she took more than she would pay"), since it's not obvious to me that punitive actions like imprisonment or death in cases like this are necessarily meant or able to balance the just/unjust equation at all. It's not possible for her to ever "pay" for what she's done, beyond the personal hell she is no doubt in already, now that she's stabilized on medication again. I think the best we can hope for in cases like this is learning as much as possible from them (and how to fix people as broken as this woman) in the hopes of preventing similar tragedies.

You're right, I'm anti-death penalty, but even if I weren't, even if I could see its validity in certain cases, I certainly couldn't see how it in any way would accomplish anything positive in this case beyond satisfying those hungry for short-term revenge. I can see how DP advocates come to their positions sometimes, and I actually can understand that you believe that there are some crimes so heinous that death is the only fitting punishment, but I think in this case either our definitions of "responsibility" differ, or the importance we place on its determination in the course of justice does.
posted by biscotti at 12:19 PM on January 9, 2002

If she WAS psychotic, that was an organic brain disease that killed those kids. If she wasn't, she is a murderer.

I still think husband and shrink have some responsibility here. Husband should have had sense enough to do what it took to at the very least take some pressure off her in the household. Shrink should have kept her on the antipsychotics-or got her on different meds, whatever....
posted by bunnyfire at 12:44 PM on January 9, 2002

which means she was not a rational, thinking person at the time and should not be treated by the courts as if she was

And yet, those who commit crimes of passion are hardly rational during the commission of their crimes, and some people are hardly rational at all. Some who commit heinous crimes do so for totally rational reasons. It just seems ridiculous to say that this case, and whether she should live or die for her crimes, comes down to whether she had taken a pill that day. My contention is that the crime is so severe that questions as to whether she was insane during the half-hour she drowned her children are moot. Of course she was insane! Far as I can tell, her insanity is irrelevent to whether she should be killed for this crime. If she'd doen nearly anything but murder them one by one, we wouldn't be talking about it - she'd be somewhere getting medicated. But she murdered five children, which imo places the question way WAY WAY beyond what was going on in her undermedicated head at the exact time she decided to drown her children in the tub.

has a long, documented history of mental illness.

Well, yes. She shouldn't have been anywhere near those children. Her husband should have abandoned her long ago to ensure their safety.

in the hopes of preventing similar tragedies

Society has never been successful in preventing tragedies. Law enforcement is uniquely incapable of determining what people are going to do before they do it, and legally bound to leave them alone until after they do whatever it is they are going to do.

She can never be "fixed." Not only is she too broken, she has broken too much not hers. Let me rephrase: she is not worth fixing. She has destroyed too much.

or the importance we place on its determination in the course of justice does

here's where we differ, I think, most of all. To me, everyone is always ultimately responsible for what they do.
posted by UncleFes at 12:56 PM on January 9, 2002

I believe that the enormity of her crime precludes whether or not she is insane (or merely evil) from being an issue.

You have it backwards. Whether on not she is insane in the ONLY issue in determining the enormity of her crime. If she is insane (or was at the time of the murder), then she committed no crime.

To me, everyone is always ultimately responsible for what they do.

You failed Psych 101, dintcha?
posted by obiwanwasabi at 2:31 PM on January 9, 2002

then she committed no crime.

And yet, five children are horribly dead. A conundrum indeed. Or are we comfortable with that?

failed Psych 101

I took Ethics and Critical Thinking instead :)
posted by UncleFes at 2:44 PM on January 9, 2002

UncleFes, I think a distinction can be made between someone personally deserving to die, and supporting the act of carrying out that death.

Yes, and to me, the distinction is clearly one of cowardice, of knowing what is right but not having the will to follow through with it.
posted by rushmc at 2:52 PM on January 9, 2002

Whether on not she is insane in the ONLY issue in determining the enormity of her crime. If she is insane (or was at the time of the murder), then she committed no crime.

Insanity is NOT a black-and-white issue, no matter what those courtroom dramas on tv tell us; it exists along a continuum, and exists in all of us SOMEWHERE along that continuum. Getting into the business of trying to assess where people happen to fall on that continuum, and then punish them or absolve them for their cognitive processes, is more than a slippery slope...it's hopeless.

People should be held accountable for their actions, whatever prompted them. Certainly circumstance should be taken into consideration, but this is not a case of someone stealing bread to feed their family, and I can think of no conceivable circumstance that would excuse or justify an act like this one. Once a person is sufficiently broken that they go beyond the pale in a manner such as this, all becomes irrelevant except that they should be removed from the world. They have forfeited their right to exist, and the particular path that lead to that forfiture doesn't matter.
posted by rushmc at 2:58 PM on January 9, 2002

I think what it boils down to for me is:

A) If she's NOT insane, she needs to spend the rest of her life in prison as punishment for her crime.

B) If she IS insane, she needs to spend the rest of her life in a mental institution, because she's obviously dangerous.

Either way, her life as she knew it should be over.
posted by headspace at 3:10 PM on January 9, 2002

But see, when someone is imprisoned for "life," their life is NOT over! They live - in prison, or a mental institution, and conditions certainly are not great; but even if she actually spends the rest of her natural life in one of these places (not guaranteed), she will still have a life. Truncated, perhaps, but while there is life, there is hope. She will have contact with her fellow prisoners, visitors, etc.; she will be able to enjoy what pleasures are available in those surroundings; she will get the opportunity to victimize those who are weaker than her; and she has the rest of her life to try and get released or escape - the rest of her life to plan, to wheedle, to employ lawyers with one goal - to get her out. Long after we have forgotten all about Yates and her children, she will be doing everything she can to reenter our society. And what she did will hardly enter into the equation. She'll have "paid her debt to society," she'll be "successfully treated for her mental illness." And she'll be released. Because in our hearts, we are merciful creatures. And forgetful ones.

It is difficult to do, because it is both cold and final, but there really is only one suitable punishment for what she did.
posted by UncleFes at 3:32 PM on January 9, 2002

And why should it be a lesser crime since it was her own children? Those kids are just as dead.

That's precisely the question I asked. There would be no debate, no question, no soul searching if she had killed some other mother's children. She could be admittedly insane and it really just wouldn't matter.

But she killed her own, and that makes a difference; nay, it makes *the* difference.

Why should it make a difference? Obviously and undeniably it *does* make a difference -- but why should it? Why does it?

--Dan
posted by effugas at 4:22 PM on January 9, 2002

It absolutely sickens me that this woman dares hide behind her mental illness as to excuse her crime.

Don't get me wrong; I am a big supporter of mentally ill patients being considered with regard to their condition. But from what I know of this crime, she should not get a lighter sentence by pleading insanity. I agree whole-heartedly with UncleFes's argument that she had the wherewithall to plan and meticulously murder each of her children. Insane or not, she did murder these children. She deserves the full consequence of the law. I believe she deserves to die.

I can't believe some people have the gall to excuse her of the crime because someone else (husband, shrink, friend) didn't intervene to prevent her from committing the crime. I suppose 20/20 hindsight is never wrong, is it.

(If this double-posts, it's because I got an error the first time.)
posted by somethingotherthan at 5:30 PM on January 9, 2002

Shrink should have kept her on the antipsychotics-or got her on different meds, whatever....

since you've been on meds, bunny, you know that a responsible psych allows time between pushing different kinds of pills. I'm not sure what she was on and what she was going to be on, but it's usually a good idea to allow some breathing room between medications [and, if the patient is sufficiently psychotic, to keep her/him in observation in the duration].

a depressive rage can last for hours on end. she could very well have been in an altered state throughout the entire action.

personally, I think she should be executed - that's purely an emotional reaction, taking nothing else into account.
posted by Nyx at 5:36 PM on January 9, 2002

rushmc: "Yes, and to me, the distinction is clearly one of cowardice, of knowing what is right but not having the will to follow through with it."

I can assure you that my distinction isn't based on cowardice. In fact, if you read my posts you'll see that I took the position that she deserves to die, and that in a perfect world the appropriate victims would have the "privilege" of killing her (in this case, either the husband or herself). I'm not against the state taking the life because I don't have the "will" to allow the state to follow through -- I'm against the state taking the life because I don't think the government (through our taxes) should have the power to end life.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:15 PM on January 9, 2002

There would be no debate, no question, no soul searching if she had killed some other mother's children. She could be admittedly insane and it really just wouldn't matter.

I'm not sure if this is true, but the reason is pretty clear: if it were another mother's children, that mother's grief would be a major factor. As it is, there is no clear living victim who will fight to punish the murderer and with whom others can empathize. Instead, the horrible murderer who killed five people and the tragic victim who lost all five of her children are the same person.

We say that punishments are for the sake of those killed, but really they're for those left alive, dealing with the pain of loss. The dead have no interest; our symbolic justice for them makes us feel better, but we're a lot more inclined to push for it if there are real victims alive, people who've lost their loved ones to a horrible crime.
posted by mdn at 6:16 PM on January 9, 2002

We say that punishments are for the sake of those killed, but really they're for those left alive, dealing with the pain of loss. The dead have no interest

Don't listen to her. If I get murdered, I assure you, I want my murderers executed. I am counting on all of you!
posted by thirteen at 6:43 PM on January 9, 2002

Yeah, no matter how strongly you feel about that now, when you're dead, it's really not gonna be on your mind.

(since, you know, you won't have one, being dead and all.)
posted by mdn at 8:17 PM on January 9, 2002

We say that punishments are for the sake of those killed, but really they're for those left alive, dealing with the pain of loss.

Neither A nor B, I should say, but rather C, for the sake of society, which must be maintained and defended.
posted by rushmc at 9:58 PM on January 9, 2002

Nyx: "a depressive rage can last for hours on end. she could very well have been in an altered state throughout the entire action."

Really? How would you know? Ever been depressed? Do the words "depressed" and "rage" seem to contradict each other?
posted by Fenderhead at 10:21 PM on January 9, 2002

Clarification: When I said "How would you know?" I was referring to your statement that a depressive rage can last for hours on end. As someone who has been severely depressed, I can assure you that rage is not even on the radar when you're in that worse-than-hell state.
posted by Fenderhead at 10:24 PM on January 9, 2002

The simple fact is that no one, except possibly Mrs. Yates herself, knows what state she was in when she killed those kids (which she has admitted).

This is a crime from which society as a whole recoils in horror, disgust, loathing and, possibly, shame, shame that someone didn't see how sick she was and work to prevent it.

It appears that she is fully guilty - however, I doubt that we'll ever know just why she did it. Can she even/ever answer that question?

Not that it matters one iota, but she lived about 7 or 8 miles from me and I can tell you that the horror expressed throughout the world about her act was most definitely felt here, close to where it happened.

This entire matter will be debated and discussed for many years. At this point, the court will ultimately decide her fate, but probably not her true state of mind at the time or even now.
posted by Fenderhead at 10:32 PM on January 9, 2002

I can assure you that rage is not even on the radar when you're in that worse-than-hell state.

Depression is not the same for everyone. It is commonly agreed by mental health professionals that anger and depression are flip sides of the same coin.
posted by mdn at 10:56 PM on January 9, 2002

how would I know? been there, done that, can't find the exit sign. why are you assuming that you're the only one who feels depression in the world?

At any rate, it's fairly common for depression to bring rage along for the ride - it's not slavering, foaming, howling rage, but a quiet, methodical feeling. It isn't driven by any sort of rationality - in fact, if I didn't fear MeFi scientific retribution, I'd suggest that it feels like the 'human' brain has been released, and the reptile/mammalian hindbrains have taken over.

- a present depressive
posted by Nyx at 12:52 AM on January 10, 2002

Give me a break....go google depression-you guys never heard of agitated depression? or mixed states, in the case of bipolar? these are truly living in the bowels of hell, I know from personal experience-all the manic energy of the high(think cocaine/caffeine-make that expresso-oh, about 20 or 30 pots-) then combine that with the worst depression-you feel like you will never have another positive feeling ever again-it is way past irritation-plain depression sounds soothing in comparison.
It is a dangerous state to be in if one is suicidal....
add postpartum hormones and a psychotic break to that mix and SOMEONE needs to be in the hospital before they hurt someone-capiche?
posted by bunnyfire at 4:19 AM on January 10, 2002

None which even remotely justifies what she has done. Or excuses it. Or should even factor into the equation of what we should do about her.

It's easy to say that someone should have seen this coming. But the fact of the matter is that she did not tell anyone that she was feeling murderous, she did not separate herself from her children when she began to feel like she wanted to kill them, and she hid her desire to kill her children until after the deed was done. She completely shirked her responsibility to aid mental health personnel in her treatment, and her responsibility to keep her children safe. AT BEST that's the worst sort of criminal negligence, resulting in the homicide of five children.

"I don't feel right in my head" is not a free pass to murder your kids. Ever. Capiche?
posted by UncleFes at 6:55 AM on January 10, 2002

"I don't feel right in my head" is not a free pass to murder your kids. Ever. Capiche?

Aw, c'mon, don't be so mean, Fes...maybe, in addition, she didn't sleep well the night before. Maybe her blood sugar was low, or her self-esteem was suffering because of a comment her bagger made at the grocery store that morning. Perhaps she had one of those hangnails that REALLY hurts but no one will take seriously. Or maybe she had alien visitors that MADE her do it. You can't imagine all the factors that forced this fundamentally good soul to such a heinous act--so forgive and forget, eh?
posted by rushmc at 7:24 AM on January 10, 2002

oops, almost forgot... /sarcasm off.
posted by rushmc at 7:24 AM on January 10, 2002

Nyx - I owe you an apology.

Bunnyfire - I agree with you regarding the bipolar problem, but, to my knowledge, Mrs. Yates was never diagnosed as suffering from a bipolar disorder. . .but I could be wrong.

The crux of all of the above discussions is that there are some very strong opinions, some of which are at direct odds with some others. My only point was to note that, if you've never been clinically depressed, you can't understand what it's all about. If I came across as seeming to say that I was more depressed than anyone else here, that was never my intent.

At this point, I'll lurk and read.
posted by Fenderhead at 9:55 AM on January 10, 2002

"I don't feel right in my head"

do those who don't feel right in the head know that they're not right in the head?
posted by tolkhan at 10:16 AM on January 10, 2002

it's not an excuse, it's a cause.

believe it or not, depression is a physical problem - it's not simply 'in your head' when the chemicals that control your functioning are playing roulette with your day-to-day life.

I don't condone what she's done, or even think she should get special treatment because of it - but as someone who has been and is presently in a depressive cycle, I feel the need to point out that she couldn't 'snap out of it', and - if she's like millions of other people who suffer from clinical depression or a variant thereof - she had very little control over her actions. believe me, I don't usually go around smashing things and screaming when I'm 'normal' - depression takes you over.

That is, of course, an objective view. I have no idea what she was feeling/thinking during the murder, or whether or not she was really in a depressive cycle. If she had the psychological problems she's claiming, both her psychiatrist and her husband ARE partly to blame - why on Her blessed Earth would you leave someone in the throes of psychosis around small children? If you knowingly drop a gun in a schoolyard, you are as guilty as the kid who picks it up and kills his classmate.

I'm just sayin'....
posted by Nyx at 12:21 PM on January 10, 2002

she had very little control over her actions.

But enough, in the end, to hide her intention to murder five children, and then carry out that intention, including chasing two of them down when they discovered her in the act.

No one's saying depression isn't a very serious condition, and one that should be aggressively treated. I'm saying that she can't have it both ways. If she was sick, she was well aware of it, and she should have taken steps to remove herself from those kids. She didn't. She should have made her psychologists/husband/doctors aware of what she was feeling and thinking about those kids. She didn't. She should have stopped herself from murdering them by any means within her power. She didn't. Long before she ever did anything, she absolved herself of any responsibility for what she planned to do. Then, she went so far over the line that any mental illness she may have isn't even remotely adequate to excuse her hideous actions. She could be a full-on schizophrenic hearing the voice of Satan himself commanding the murder of her kids - it wouldn't matter. Her actions have gone far beyond what could be excused by mere mental illness, and even if you disagree with that, you'd have to admit that she could have done far more to stop what was coming and didn't bother.

No one dropped this gun in a schoolyard. The gun formed in her mind, and she hid it from the principal until she decided it was time to start shooting up the place.
posted by UncleFes at 1:31 PM on January 10, 2002

Unclefes, the problem here is none of us has seen her medical records....we have no way of knowing how far away from reality her brain took her that day... I do tend to agree with you that she should have realized that the elevator was headed down and acted accordingly......i can tell you that when I am not well it is as if I am watching myself do things, and i am only along for the ride.......but I am not and have never been psychotic.

to be honest i am tempted to think she was possessed by a demon-but i can imagine what all you intellectual types will say to that!
posted by bunnyfire at 5:38 PM on January 10, 2002

Suppose her husband had taken her children away and abandoned her "for their safety". Suppose then she tossed herself off a bridge because of it.

How many of you armchair moralists, who are still deluded enough to think the world comes in nice pretty "black or white" kneejerks, would be up in arms about this evil, unchivalrous, uncaring husband driving his wife to the brink of insanity and beyond?

Yeah. I thought so.

--Dan
posted by effugas at 5:55 PM on January 10, 2002

Suppose her husband had taken her children away and abandoned her "for their safety". Suppose then she tossed herself off a bridge because of it.

That'd be a tough break, but those kids would still be alive because of it. It would have been the right thing for her husband to do.

One of the things I realized when I became a father (after 12 years of being married with no kids) was that my life wasn't all about me anymore. It was all about my kid. What happens to me, what I do, is good or evil in relation to how it affects that kid. So for her to toss herself off a bridge would have been the finest gift she could have given those kids.

You're right Dan, I wouldn't be up in arms about Yates hopping off the nearest bridge. Not one little teensy bit. Because she would have been doing her family and, as fellow members of society, us a favor. Shame she didn't. Her doing so would have been, in the parlance, taking one for the team.

What I'd like to know - long as we're all here in our favorite moralizing armchairs - is why you believe the opposite...? Why do you believe those kids' lives were worth less than hers?

Yeah, I thought so.
posted by UncleFes at 8:41 PM on January 10, 2002

My point, Fes, is that it's only through the power of perfect hindsight that we can say, "Wow, it's OK that she tossed herself off the bridge, because you know she would have killed her kids otherwise."

That's my point. You wouldn't have known. He wouldn't have known. And if he had taken the kind of draconian measures that seem so obvious in hindsight, he'd be viewed as an evil, horrible man.

What haunts me is that the view would be justified. Empirical evidence of teleology in the neuropsychological structure of morality?

--Dan
posted by effugas at 10:38 PM on January 10, 2002

You know if she had killed these kids before they were born most of you wouldn't have given a rat's hiney......
posted by bunnyfire at 3:38 AM on January 11, 2002

You know if she had killed these kids before they were born most of you wouldn't have given a rat's hiney......

Ditto if she had killed her imaginary friends, the plaque on her teeth, or the skin cells in that troublesome hangnail.

What's your point?
posted by rushmc at 5:52 AM on January 11, 2002

just wanted to point out a little hypocrisy before the thread died. I have a reputation to uphold, after all....
posted by bunnyfire at 6:35 AM on January 11, 2002

My point, Fes, is that it's only through the power of perfect hindsight that we can say, "Wow, it's OK that she tossed herself off the bridge, because you know she would have killed her kids otherwise."

We are edging closer to agreement, you and I :)

"perfect hindsight" is right. How can people blame her husband and doctor? They could never have known. Why couldn't they know? Because she never told them, and she never took any steps to protect the kids from herself.

My contention is that those two things are the main factors after the fact. She should have told someone; she should have taken steps to protect those kids from herself. She had more important responsibilities to those kids than to herself, but instead of meeting them she indulged her murderous impulses until they became horrible actions. Similarly, if she had jumped off a bridge and the father was vilified, it still would have been better than what happened. It's not about the father's reputation, anymore than it is about the mother's depression. The safety of the kids is the paramount end result of the entire proceeding. They both blew it - personally, I think they are the kind of people (and there are a lot of them about) that never get to the point in their psychological development where they realize that other people are people too - with lives that are just as rich, complex and worth living as their own. They see everyone else as extras in the Ongoing Saga of Me. And they allwo the most horrible of acts to be committed, because they are so involved in their own selves that they cannot conceive of looking outward and consider, however briefly, that another person has just as much right to consideration as they do. Yates was sick, no doubt; but perhaps worse she was selfish. And five kids are dead because of it. Five lives that had just as much right to be lived as hers, but that she snuffed out because she was depressed.

How can we continue in good conscience to allow her continued existence? It's an affront to those that know that we are not the center of the universe, and that others' lives are as worthy as our own.

point out a little hypocrisy

Bunnyfire, that is an army-sized can of ethical worms that you might want to think twice about opening. The hypocrisy of a great deal of religious dogma and action, including a goodly bit on the exact subject you mention, is well known and easily cited. If you are unable to tell the difference between a cluster of non-delineated cells and a 5-year-old human child, that might not be something you want to advertise.
posted by UncleFes at 6:54 AM on January 11, 2002

well, if all the people who have ever been involved in the abortion of an inconvenient child dropped off this thread, I wonder how many of us would be left to argue how much of a monster Andrea Yates is.....used to be that the state of a mother's (mental) health was one criteria looked at back in the days before abortion on demand.......

just musing here, that's all......
posted by bunnyfire at 12:33 PM on January 11, 2002

::Fes sees juicy piece of bait with fairly large hook sticking out of it, decides to eschew further contemplation of Bunnyfire's musings::
posted by UncleFes at 1:03 PM on January 11, 2002

How can people blame her husband and doctor? They could never have known. Why couldn't they know? Because she never told them, and she never took any steps to protect the kids from herself.

I sense a form of Catch-22: If she was sane enough to know she posed a threat to her children, she could not have been insane enough to have actually posed that threat.

There really are events that you can't predict. After a plane crash or a terrorist bombing, there are hordes of people that -- if they had just called, if they had just done someting -- their wives, their children, their anyone might have survived if but for a ringing telephone to delay them.

You emphasize the safety of the kids, but I have a peculiar sense that you might have felt disgust with a man depriving his five children of their loving mother. "How could he think this of her! She's never so much as lifted a finger! I don't care how sad she seems, that's no excuse to tear a child's mother away. He's probably just selfish and wants to screw a new twenty year old."

--Dan
posted by effugas at 1:48 PM on January 11, 2002

You talk of this event as if it were some sort of accident, some natural disaster, that it was inevitable. Not so. She did it herself. She made it happen.

I may very well have felt disgust for the man. More likely, we'd have never heard of the Yates' had that ocurred. BUT my disgust is irrelevent to that man's responsibility to protect his children in the best way he knows how.

If I sensed that my wife was a mortal danger to my kid - ANY kid - my responsiblity is to protect him/them up to and including killing her if necessary, regardless of public opinion, her mental state, or potential repercussion. I love my wife very much. The thought of even hurting her pains me greatly. She factors highly in my responsibilities. You mess with her, I take it very personally. But children trump - mine first, everyone else's next.

That's some hard responsibility - capital R. But what's harder? That, or a line of little bodies all in a row on the bathroom floor?
posted by UncleFes at 2:23 PM on January 11, 2002

used to be that the state of a mother's (mental) health was one criteria looked at back in the days before abortion on demand.......

I think more relevant might be requiring mental health screenings before women are allowed to become MOTHERS.

::: whistles pleasantly :::
posted by rushmc at 12:00 AM on January 12, 2002

But children trump - mine first, everyone else's next.

Okay, Fes, I knew it was too good to last. I think I've agreed with most everything you've said in this thread up until now, but that's just patently silly. Your kids trump all, for you--sure, I'd have it no other way. But putting other random spawnlings ahead of your own wife? Sounds nutty to me...what's the justification/rationale?
posted by rushmc at 12:03 AM on January 12, 2002

screen the dads too-or don't they ever murder their own offspring?
posted by bunnyfire at 4:30 AM on January 12, 2002

screen the dads too

By all means.
posted by rushmc at 7:11 AM on January 12, 2002

But putting other random spawnlings ahead of your own wife? Sounds nutty to me...what's the justification/rationale?

You misunderstand: IF my wife was going to murder other people's children, it would be my responsiblity, provided I could, to do anything in my power to stop her. That's what I was saying.

I don't place other people's children above my wife in the general run of where my responsiblities lie; that'd be a rather large job. And, I assume (often wrongly, yes, but you have to start at some point) that other people's children are held by their own parents with the same consideration that I hold mine, so they don't need me looking out for them.

My point was that, if I have foreknowledge of malevolence, it is my responsiblity (as the man on the scene, for lack of a better term) to protect society from my family, to the best of my abilities.
posted by UncleFes at 9:16 PM on January 12, 2002

Okay, fair enough. I misread.
posted by rushmc at 12:37 AM on January 13, 2002