TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Andrea Yates conviction overturned
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Andrea Yates conviction overturned - Page 4

post #91 of 113
Allissa, quick question.

Do you believe the insanity plea to be valid at all? And if so, under what circumstances?

Best-
Michele
post #92 of 113
So we have an understanding here, it is highly unlikely (my crystal ball is broken, sorry) that Andrea Yates will never be able to be adjudged "sane." She will never not pose a danger to self or others. She will not be let out, as far as I can tell. Furthermore, most people who get sent to a psychiatric facility spend more time there than they would behind bars, with parole and good time aspects of sentencing.

So, do you think the insanity (insane but guilty, or NGRI) is applicable here or not? Why or why not?

Best-
Michele
post #93 of 113
Can someone answer these questions for me to make sure I have everything correct?

1. Am I getting this mixed up with someone else, but did she want to be punished for her actions? Haven't I read that she didn't want to plead not guilty because of that?

2. The expert witness who screwed up everything... you all keep phrasing it as if he did it on purpose... as far as I have read, the show WAS at least written, if not produced, it just never aired. Granted that should've been checked, and obviously could've been handled better... but at least he wasn't lying outright, as some of you make it sound.

3. If she does get found not guilty by reason of insanity and treated, is it known for sure that she'll get released if a doctor says she's cured? Will a doctor not realize that if she's cured, she'll realize the gravity of the situation and lose it all over again.

4. No blaming Texas, please! I'm from Texas, born and mostly raised... I'm not anything like Andrea Yates or any of those mothers who killed their children. Blame their nature... that Andrea believed that the Bible was the end all, be all of existence... that people told her how to raise her children and she believed it whole heartedly, whether that meant that her children were condemned to hell or not. I know y'all are kidding, but still...

5. My opinion? I think she could be insane, from everything I read from that Crime Library site, she sounded out of it from when she first started having kids... I feel a bit of sympathy for her... but that directly contradicts with the disgust I feel towards a woman who killed her children, in such a horrible fashion no less.
post #94 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkdaisy226
2. The expert witness who screwed up everything... you all keep phrasing it as if he did it on purpose... as far as I have read, the show WAS at least written, if not produced, it just never aired. Granted that should've been checked, and obviously could've been handled better... but at least he wasn't lying outright, as some of you make it sound.
Even if the episode was filmed but never aired, how can he claim that she got the idea from it and acted upon it IF SHE NEVER SAW IT? That sounds like a lie to me. This guy sounds like too many 'expert' witnesses to me. He was paid to make a case for one side and did so, however he could.

I also agree that Yates should never be out in society again. It is a very tough call to say whether she is just guilty or NGRI. This thread has given me a lot to think about and really shown how difficult it is to make these types of decisions.
post #95 of 113
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by allissa
He could have been counfused, i.e. he thought that the show aired, when it hasn't. Obviously, it should have been checked. I think they figured that out somewhere at the end of the trial that the show never aired. I am not sure if jury was ever instructed on it. But still, come on-brain chemistry? Apparently, it's not the brain chemistry that dictates if Andrea is insane, but whether she watches Law and Order. Is that really the key here? Law and Order episode?
The prosecution used her supposed viewing of that particular episode in their closing arguments to the jury as a way to explain not only the MO, but also the insanity plea (because it had been used successfully in the episode).
post #96 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
The prosecution used her supposed viewing of that particular episode in their closing arguments to the jury as a way to explain not only the MO, but also the insanity plea (because it had been used successfully in the episode).
With five kids, she gave a lot of baths. How hard would it have been to come up with that method herself?
post #97 of 113
Michele, thank you very much for the links. Now I'm even less convinced that "schizophrenic" is the correct diagnosis for my s-i-l (for want of an easier designation). I'm under the impression that in her case it's a question of semantics - "schizophrenic" somehow sounds less malevolent than "psychotic" (the words are practically the same in German and English), and that those who've examined her have attempted to soften the blow.
post #98 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deb25
Even if the episode was filmed but never aired, how can he claim that she got the idea from it and acted upon it IF SHE NEVER SAW IT? That sounds like a lie to me. This guy sounds like too many 'expert' witnesses to me. He was paid to make a case for one side and did so, however he could.
What I'm saying is that he COULD have lied... or he could've honestly though it aired. I mean, if he consulted on the episode and was never informed that the episode wasn't going to be broadcast, then how would he have known that no one saw it?

I'm sure you're right - he could've been paid to help a side, but I'm also saying that there's a possibility that he wasn't lying, that perhaps he just didn't realize the episode never aired.
post #99 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by allissa
He could have been counfused, i.e. he thought that the show aired, when it hasn't. Obviously, it should have been checked. I think they figured that out somewhere at the end of the trial that the show never aired. I am not sure if jury was ever instructed on it. But still, come on-brain chemistry? Apparently, it's not the brain chemistry that dictates if Andrea is insane, but whether she watches Law and Order. Is that really the key here? Law and Order episode?

First off, they don't pay him to be confused, they pay him to present accurate testimony. Secondly, the way the justice system works in this country, people are entitled to a fair trial. If an expert witness presented erroneous testimony, she did not get a fair trial. Who is to know how much that wrong statement affected what jurors handed back as their final decision?
post #100 of 113
Quote:
To err is human. I am sure some mistaken testimony occurs during many trials, no trial is perfect. Furthermore, I beleive they realize this mistake toward the end of the trial and even instructed the jurors on it.
Two notes on your comment:
"Reversible Error"
"You Can't Unring The Bell"

You're quite welcome, JCat. Glad to help.

Best-
Michele
post #101 of 113
I think there's a difference between the cases... mainly that Andrea killed 5 children, in a row, in a bathtub by holding them down and fighting them... while the other stuck one child in an oven.

Here's a question though:

Quote:
Kenneth Lee Pierott, 27, remained jailed on suspicion of capital murder Saturday, a day after the body of his girlfriend's son was found in an oven. Tre-Devon Adams, who was either 5 or 6, had no visible injuries and the oven was not turned on, authorities have said.
How did the boy die then?
post #102 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by allissa
Well, yes, he killed a little boy by placing him in a oven, after spending less than a year in the hospital for the murder of his sister.
I deleted my post because I just read that in a different article... the article you were referring to didn't make it clear.

Still though... that's just one example. And I doubt she'll go free any time soon - granted how do I know... but still, the nature of the case is so different.
post #103 of 113
Is that what some of you hope for? Released after less than a year of treatment? Do you hope that poor Andrea gets a second chance as well? And no, you can not un-ring the bell. You can not bring a murdered child back to life.
[/quote]
I certainly do! No you can not bring anyone back to life, but with excellent medical care (I hope) she might be able to function. This disease murdered her very soul, she is not responsible for that.
post #104 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by allissa
Well, how many examples do you need?
Isn't one dead child is one too many? I am pretty sure there are more cases like that. The point is, after person is found not guilty by reason of insanity in Texas, they are send to a mental hospital, where they can be let out after a very short time, free to kill again. You doubt she will go free any time soon? Well, how do you know that? The guy who killed his sister spend less than a year in a mental hospital, why do you think she will be different if found not guilty by reason of insanity?

Do we know why the guy killed his girlfriend and then his child? No. Do we know why Andrea killed her kids? Well... we know what she's said... the devil made her do it, she thought her children were going to hell otherwise, etc. Like I've said before, these are different situations, specifically Andrea killed 5 children in a row in a tub, fighting them... different than killing just one child.

Besides... how do YOU know that she's only going to spend only a year in a mental hospital?

Quote:
Studies show that persons found not guilty by reason of insanity, on average, are held at least as long as--and often longer than--persons found guilty and sent to prison for similar crimes.
-http://www.psych.org/public_info/insanity.cfm
post #105 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom of Franz
No you can not bring anyone back to life, but with excellent medical care (I hope) she might be able to function. This disease murdered her very soul, she is not responsible for that.
I think 2nd chances are allowed... we release prisoners for commiting a crime after they have served their time... if Andrea goes to a hospital and is "cured", why shouldn't she get the same opportunity as others?

However if you believe she knew what she was doing, that she wasn't ill, then you can't agree with this point.. but I agree with Mom of Franz - the disease ruined her and she is not to blame for that.
post #106 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by allissa
And if she is let out and kills again, who will be responcible for that?
Are you seriously saying you hope she is released? She drowned five children, and you think she should be released? What if the Devil tells her to kill her neighbors kids next, assuming, of course, she won't get any more of her own?
Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. I hope they find her NGRI and that she is back out on the streets tomorrow so that she can kill her neighbors kids, the ones down the street from them, etc.

NO! Listen to what I'm saying, what others have been saying. If it can proven that she was insane, that she is mentally ill and needs help then I hope she gets that help so that she can go about living a somewhat normal life. I'd prefer it if she could be closely monitored... that should be part of the law...
post #107 of 113
Let's assume for the sake of arguments, that She is completely bonkers. Let's all admit the possibility that she felt god really came to her and said something along the lines of "your children's very souls are in danger if you don't send them to heaven" Now. If I were delusional and I SAW GOD.. (and, let's assume also that in this case I was highly religious.. lets assume I was more religious than I was american here..) I would go... what's more important.. My life? or the eternal lives of my children? Sure. What I'm about to do is illegal, but then again, isn't the law of god a higher law than the law of man? Well then.. lets get to drowning. I mean I'm grossly simplifying the event, but really.. if I frequently saw god, and each time I saw him, he told me that my children's only salvation was to die.. I don't know... I can survive life in prison or worse, if it will save my children's souls..

Of course.. i'm not nuts, and I wouldn't kill my children, and to be perfectily honest, if I saw god, I'd be a little worried about whatever it was that I ate..but she had a LONG history of mental instablity..

I see her as insane. I don't think someone that's just homicidal would qualify. I don't think "they were screaming and driving me nots is a valid insanity plea. I don't think that coming up with a carjacking story is a viable insanity plea...

however, I do feel andrea yates wasn't playing with a full deck, if you get me.
post #108 of 113
Here's a story from my home state about a woman who pleaded guilty, but mentally ill: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/09/bo....ap/index.html
I don't think the two cases are really comparable, but the article gives an idea of how the laws differ from state to state. This was the second death at this woman's hands.
post #109 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtlecat
however, I do feel andrea yates wasn't playing with a full deck, if you get me.
Oh I totally get ya there.

I think there are really 2 arguments going on here... whether she's insane or not (I think she is) and if she IS... what her punishment should be if she uses the NGRI defense. And whether the NGRI defense allows insane people to be back on the street within a short amount of time, whether that 'punishment' is suitable.

Okay maybe that's really more than 2 arguments.
post #110 of 113
Quote:
Although she was sentenced to prison, Diehl-Armstrong will first be sent for mental treatment at Mayview State Hospital near Pittsburgh. If doctors determine she no longer needs care, she would then begin serving her prison term.
I think that makes sense, jcat... that she gets treatment and then goes to jail. Maybe I'm a bit confused, but what does Texas law say will happen?
post #111 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkdaisy226
I think that makes sense, jcat... that she gets treatment and then goes to jail. Maybe I'm a bit confused, but what does Texas law say will happen?
Just going by the article Alissa posted, it seems that in Texas the NGRI verdict means treatment in a mental hospital, and then release after the doctors decide somebody has been "cured", i.e., no subsequent imprisonment.
post #112 of 113
All I have to say in this whole situation, this woman needs to be put in a mental hospital and needs significant help. Andrea needs prayers too.

My ex-boyfriend worked at NASA at the time of the murders. What a sad time that was.
post #113 of 113
I think the husband is to blame for the majority of this. Like others, I think it was his irresponsibility to both his children and his wife that lead to the horrendous crime. I have issues with insanity pleas, I think they are too easily rigged, but for her, her issues were very well documented. Its like this... Your SO has the compulsion to drink massive quantities of licqour and then take pain pills for the headache. Do you take him/her out to the bar and provide them with alcohol? Then hand them a bottle of Tylonol? No, thats irresponsible. So is impregnating your wife when you know she is not mentally stable enough to have kids. he provided her with the means, essentially, which in my mind makes him just as guilty, if not more so.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Andrea Yates conviction overturned