Yates VerdictFollow

Yates 2nd Trial Verdict

I have a seriously hard time believing this verdict. It was methodical murder...it's been proven she knew right from wrong, and understood it was wrong that she did it at the time she did it. Yet now she's going to be up for periodical release review in an institution...GG Justice System!

Edited, Jul 26th 2006 at 4:29pm EDT by Ryneguy

My mom suffered from ppd after her last child and I remember a few rough years while they worked with councilors and medication to help. Never once did I think she would try to kill us, maybe beat us (wish I were joking), but never kill us. I just dont know what to think about the whole thing. I think the husband is just as much to blame as the wife because he KNEW she was psychotic. I do believe she was suffering from delusions but SHE KNEW what she was doing. She chased the last boy around the house before she killed him, she KNEW. I think she is insane but I dont think she was clinically insane. She should be drowned and brought back to life again and again and again...

Verdict? She makes for some of the most tasteless jokes ever..

How so? That's exactly the point that was under contention; based on the judgement, it appears that it was not proven.

The first time around, Park Dietz got up on the stand and said she could have seen the same scenario enacted on a recent Law and Order episode. That episode turned out not to have existed. His testimony was a big part of the reason for her conviction - he's a nationally recognized figure, always arguing for the prosecution. So, she got a new trial, and with the prejudicial (and false) information taken out, she was acquitted.

Same data as far as the homicides. Corrected data as regards her mental state. Objective result: acquittal and treatment for as long as she remains psychotic, probably for the rest of her life.

Sorry to be pedantic about this, but that's not quite true either. A psychopath, for example, is entirely sane but would potentially have no problem committing murder.

Legally, psychopaths are sane. They're not delusional, they have no problem understanding cause and effect, they can predict the reactions of others.

They are not *normal*, on the other hand. They're missing a basic component of human nature - call it conscience, compassion, empathy, whatever.

/nod I remember in the first trial that one of the doctors that treated Andrea Yates for her PPD testified that he outright told her husband that her PPD was of a nature that it would catastrophically get worse if she had another child. He said that he warned them in every way he could and yet they ignored him.

Not having one of the most fundamental componants that makes us "human" such as a concious, does not only scream not normal, but screams of said being not all there. Not all there in my mind, means that you are not sane. As I said in my other post, you can get away with a technicality or legality here. But would you allow your child to stay with someone who was lacking in compassion or concious? Hell no. Cause you know they are not "sane" and would be more apt to do something you know no "normal/sane" person would do

Why? OMFG! Why? She's a dog! I can see if it were a toss up between her and Niboobia, but still DAMN!

I must have missed that chapter.

Well, we're talking about a legal definition of sanity, here, not whether she or Ailene Wuornos would make a better baby sitter. It's hardly a technicality, it's the core of the case.

That, too. In fact at least one source I've read was pretty insistent on charm being one of the symptoms of psychopathology.

I think it's just that they have no fear, and exude confidence, which can be quite charming.

True. A psychopath knows that what he's doing is wrong, but his sense of the world has no real morality. It's viewed in terms of his/her base wants and desires. In other words, the part of that person that gives a damn simply doesn't exist. It's either missing entirely, or, due to a some early childhood trauma or abuse (usually) has been relegated so far back into their psyche that they don't recognize it even when it appears. There's a difference between killing someone because the voices told you to, or because you felt it was the most efficient thing to do.

There's a test that illustrates this pretty well. Here goes: A woman's mother has passed away, and she is at the funeral with the rest of her family and other mourners. At the funeral, she meets a handsome man. Wealthy, funny, everything she wants, but when she leaves to get some drinks, he has left and she doesn't even know his name, much less how to get a hold of him, so she gets home and kills her sister.

Why?