or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › The Cat Lounge › Sooooo glad I'm not on this jury
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sooooo glad I'm not on this jury

post #1 of 104
Thread Starter 
Yates Case Hinges on Sanity
The Associated Press
Feb 17 2002 1:46PM

HOUSTON (AP) - The fate of Andrea Yates hinges on whether the jurors who start hearing evidence Monday will believe she knew the difference between right and wrong when she drowned her five young children in their bathtub, then called 911 and told police what she had done.
The 37-year-old woman faces two capital murder charges in the June 20 deaths of three of her five children, ranging in age from 7 years to 6 months.

Defense attorneys say the former nurse turned stay-at-home mom is innocent by reason of insanity. They will try to prove that she suffered from a severe mental disease or defect which prevented her from knowing that holding her children beneath water until they could no longer breathe was wrong.

``We know that drowning children is wrong,'' defense attorney George Parnham said during jury selection. ``Objectively, we could all sit here and say those actions are wrong, but you're going to be asked to view those actions through her eyes.''

Legal experts say he could face a difficult job during the trial, which is expected to last three weeks.

``When you have a crime like this that is so heinous, I think the jurors' inclinations are likely going to be somewhat disinclined to find insanity,'' Baylor University law professor Brian Serr said. ``The fact that she was feeling psychological or mental pressure to kill them does not mean she was in some sort of psychotic state or that she - in a twisted fashion - perceived it to be right.

``The fact that she called the police right afterward and reported herself in essence really undermines the fact that she thought what she was doing was right.''

Before jurors get to hear evidence about Yates mental state at the time of the drownings, they will hear the details of the case, including the 911 call Yates placed after she drowned the last child, Noah, 7, whose body was discovered face down in a bathtub half full of water.

They also will hear the confession Yates gave to police when they arrived at her door, how the officers found the youngest four children's wet bodies on a bed covered with a sheet, and a taped interview that followed her arrest.

Prosecutors also will likely point to testimony from Yates' competency hearing that she made the decision to drown her children the night before, and that after her husband left for work she drowned her children one at a time before her mother-in-law was to arrive.

``All of this indicates this wasn't a spur of the moment act,'' trial consultant Stacy Schreiber said. ``But again, it goes back to explaining the nature of mental illness and a person's fight to stay in control.''

Yates' husband said she suffered from depression after the births of her two youngest children. Medical records detail her bouts with depression, and show that she attempted suicide twice after the birth of her fourth child in 1999 and was warned by a doctor to carefully consider whether she should have any more children.

The doctor who gave that warning is scheduled to testify, along with other medical experts, police officers, detectives, friends and relatives.

Among the experts on the case are two of the nation's top forensic psychiatrists, whose experience includes serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, Unabomber Ted Kaczynsky, and Susan Smith, who drowned her two children by rolling her car into a lake.

Phillip Resnick, a psychiatry professor at Case Western University's School of Medicine in Ohio, is working for the defense. Park Dietz, who runs a California-based private forensic consulting firm, is testifying for the prosecution.

``They are both brilliant and gifted and will do the best possible job for their respected sides,'' said Neil Kaye, a fellow psychiatrist and friend of both.

``Phil would not take the defense side of this case unless he really believed it,'' Kaye said.

Dietz makes the complicated simple and juries often embrace simplicity, said lawyer David Bruck, who hired Resnick for Smith's 1994 murder case, knowing that Resnick was an expert on mothers who kill their children - and on Dietz.

``We desperately need to make sense of things like this and Dietz is very good at making sense of things,'' Bruck said.

One of the capital murder charges is for the deaths of Noah and 5-year-old John. The other is for 6-month-old Mary. Texas law considers a murder a capital offense if more than one person is killed or if the victim is under age 6.

Charges are pending in the deaths of Paul, 3, and Luke, 2. Texas prosecutors typically forgo multiple capital murder charges since only one conviction is generally needed for the maximum penalty.

A person found innocent by reason of insanity in Texas may be committed to a mental institution, then face a series of hearings until the court releases the person from its jurisdiction, which can last as long as the jail time the defendant faced.

If Yates is found guilty, jurors would have to determine whether to sentence her to life in prison, or to death.

Serr believes jurors will opt for a punishment harsher than death - life.

``Given the nature of this crime, it might be a worse punishment for this woman to be locked up forever and to have to think day, after day, after day that she killed her children and they were perfectly aware of who had become their enemy.''
post #2 of 104
oooh. I'd love to be on the jury, I'd hate to hear about how those poor babies had to suffer, but that woman needs to fry.
post #3 of 104
Well, regardless of whether she gets life in prison, life in a mental institution or the death penalty, this woman should never taste freedom again.

I know how much trust my own children put into me and the most horrifying part of this is the feeling those kids must have had to realize the person they trusted most in the world wanted them dead.

My gut reaction says this woman needs to die, but I don't know the whole story. Its obvious shes a very mentally ill woman but I guess what needs to be decided is whether she was 'aware' of what she was doing at the time. I tend to think she was, since she planned it the night before ,waited until her husband was gone, and then methocically killed those poor babies one by one. What were the other children thinking knowing their siblings were being murdered?

I take some consolation in the fact that regardless of what the jury decides, our actions in this world have cosmic consequences, whether you call it Karma, or Gods will. She will pay for this crime at some point, whether the justice is brought down by human hands or not.
post #4 of 104
This whole case makes me sick to my stomach. I cannot imagine any human ever hurting a child, but for a mother to kill her own kids is just down right disgusting.

But to play devils' advocate, there has been talk of her having post partum psychosis. I did a bit of reading on it, and it is a severe form of post partum depression. The chemical imbalances are apparently very very bad ( just like PMS affects you, this is one million times worse ) so it appears the defense will be it was a medical issue that "caused" her to do this. They are going to say she did not have control over her own actions, sort of like sczizophrenics ( sp?? ). I am really curious to see what sort of punishment she receives.
I hope she fries, that is just my honest opinion. But I think a lot of people will be surprised when they actually here all the evidence, and it certainly would surprise me if she gets life in a mental institution rather than the death chair. Unfortunately, nothing any jury decides will bring those precious babies back, nor erase all their pain.
post #5 of 104
I have got to believe that the woman is ill to do something so horrible. All I can say is God have mercy on her soul, because I don't think justice will.
post #6 of 104
I hope they do find her guilty & not find her not guilty by insanity. Sorry, but she damned well knew what she was going to do & she knew perfectly well what the outcome was going to be. I find the husband at partial blame, too ....
post #7 of 104
I completely agree Tigger. I was just trying to show what I've read that they are using as the "excuse" if there could be such a thing. I believe she knew what she was doing, and I also believe the husband must have known that something was wrong.
Lets just hope she is found guilty of 1st degree, and not insanity. That would be a travesty of justice.
post #8 of 104
Yes, she knew what she was doing, but due to her mental state she honestly believed it was the right thing to do for her children. There is no doubt in my mind that she was psychotic and she believed what she was doing was right but the call to the police?!?! I really don't get that!!

It wont matter what punishment this woman gets, the fact that she is probably now mentally stable means that she understands what she did and will have to live with that for the rest of her life (if she is allowed to live). I really don't see how she could be incorporated back into society.
post #9 of 104
I read a really long article on this case in Time, or some magazine like that. The article described Andrea's life from the time she met her husband, who, by the way, seems to be a real controlling wacko. It was obvious that she was mentally ill a number of times after her pregnancies, and someone should have figured out what was going on.

Regardless, she did kill these children, even chased the oldest around the house to catch him. Imagine the fear that child went through in his last moments. I think that, if the jury finds her guilty, she should get the death penalty, and if the jury finds her not guilty by reason of insanity, she should still get life in a mental hospital. It would be great if they could treat her and then put her in jail for the rest of her life.

I would also hate to be on that jury. It would be virtually impossible for me to be impartial. I'd keep seeing my children in the place of hers, and I'd have to convict her.
post #10 of 104
SHe knew, if she could chase that boy around and not just let him go, she knew what she was doing. She even tucked them in all safe and sound after she killed them. She knew and she should get the death penalty and they should hold her down in a bath tub exactly how those poor babies died. I'm sorry, but I feel so strongly about this. This woman doesn't deserve to breathe the air that is pumping through her lungs after she took the breathe from her 5 children.
post #11 of 104
I agree, she should be put to death in the same manner that she took those innocent children's lives. I believe that in most cases, the murderer should pay in the same way his victim did.

Boy, I will probably get hate mail after saying that. Sorry everyone, if I offended anyone. But being a mother of 2, its hard to be impartial. That stuff I read about post partum psychosis, well its all well and good, but I just cannot justify it in my head.
post #12 of 104
I think she should be punished and not shown to be insane at the time. The death penalty to me is fitting for the crime, but even life in prison would make her think about what she did for the rest of her life. I think if she was that ill, she should not have been around her kids or in control of them. She should have succeeded in her suicide attempts. Well, I would never be selected for jury duty.
post #13 of 104
This subject came up by two women ahead of me in line. One had 4 children (not very well behaved) and she told this other lady that there were times when she could understand what Andrea Yates did and sympathize to her cause! I looked at her 4 rug rats running around under her feet and shouting and being kids, and wondered for the umteenth times how some woman even get the privlege to have children? I was so mad I was shaking. If indeed Andrea was overwhelmed by having such 5 young ones, there were so many other alternatives to her besides drowning them in the bathtub! In my mind, someone should hold Andrea down in a tub of water till she can't breathe, that would be the exact justice. I am glad I am not on the jury either, for I too could not be impartial.
post #14 of 104
I said a lot of this in the last thread which was deleted, but it seems like a good time to say it again...

Until you have experienced brain chemical imbalance or mental illness, you have no idea what it is like. And you should consider yourself lucky to be ignorant of those facts. It was the most scary time in my life when I had an untreated brain chemical imbalance. I am certainly not condoning her actions, but if her psychosis was even 10 times worse than mine was before treatment, I can understand her actions.

Before I was treated, once a month my personality would completely change. I am usually a very serious, patient, calm, diplomatic fair person who fears and hates any kind of violence. When my chemicals were out of whack, I would become obnoxious, irritable, impatient, reckless and violent towards my husband, friends and even strangers. I also had neurological symptoms, like loss of depth perception, aphasia (not being able to think of the right words when talking) and I would have very clear but completely wrong memories. I would hook up machines I used at work every day in such wrong configurations and not understand why they wouldn't work. I would try to walk through a door and miss. I had trouble with co-workers because I was so obnoxious that no amount of apology could make up for it. It seemed like things would just fly out of my mouth (and hands) before I could stop it. I didn't know what was happening, but I knew due to the neuro symptoms that it wasn't just me being a cranky witch once a month.

Just because she "knew what she was doing", made plans and chased one of the children around does not mean she was not insane. Because she was insane (or mentally impaired or suffering from psychosis or whatever), she made wrong decisions. She felt that she had ruined her children by not being a good mother, and the only way to help them was to kill them. This was obviously wrong and deluded, but she was highly motivated to do what her broken brain though was the right thing. Why she called the police, who knows? She was not operating from a basis in reality.

If she is being successfully treated, it would be the understatement of the year to say she is horrified and ashamed of her actions, and probably feels as guilty as a person can possibly feel.

I have already gone on so long I will not get on the subject of the husband, other than to say he is guilty of at least neglect, and maybe more...

All of you who don't understand, just be glad you don't. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but a responsible citizen makes the effort to be informed and open-minded. I hope I have at least given some useful information.

On the last (deleted) thread, there was a doctor who did a great job of explaining post-partum psychosis. Hopefully they will make a return to this thread and open a few more eyes and minds.
post #15 of 104
Thank you for showing all of us the other side of the coin. I am sorry you had to experience something so horrible, you have certainly showed me the other side of this illness. Thank you.
post #16 of 104
Julie, wonderfully stated. You said what I couldn't put into words. I know I can't relate, but I do know what psychosis can do to the brain. As far as my comment on her being incorporated back into society, I was coming at that from her perspective. If she does "walk," it is going to be so difficult for her to find her "place" because of what she has done.

Yeah, don't get me started on the husband either (or her doctors for that matter).
post #17 of 104
In all these psychosis cases. Ultimately she or any incarcerated person will be pronounced "cured" and set free. I would hope and pray that their "cured" state is real and not their having learned to tell the doctor what he wants to hear. I've talked to a couple of Psychologists about that and unfortunately gotten the "party line" answer rather than any meaningful dialogue. One did tell me that patients in an institutional setting quickly pick up the "jargon" and try to manipulate the system to their advantage. They can become very feral and cunning. As he reminded me they are unbalanced,not stupid.

I'm reminded of a local case some years ago. A woman was released from a mental institution with the pronouncement from her "doctors" that she was "perfectly safe". She to was in for badly injuring a child. They released her to the custody of her mother.

On the first week out she and her mother went to a nearby shopping mall. There,this woman spied a 4 yr old girl walking beside her parents. She leaped at the child. It took 4 strong men,including a police officer to subdue her. She was foaming like a rabid animal and screaming "I'll kill you" at the terrified child.

Would you believe the local bleeding hearts mounted a campaign to have her given back to the care of her mother?? The mother,who was in her 80's and half- senile appeared on tv moaning about her poor daughter...the child was of no consequence to these people.

Thankfully the courts placed her under a warrant where she would never again be released. But that "doctor" is still in the system,so who knows.

BTW..have you evr noticed that the parole boards and/or examiners make VERY sure that prisoners are not released in THEIR community???
post #18 of 104
KF - That's exactly why I wish there was some way, if Andrea Yates was to be found innocent because of insanity, that she could go to the mental facility, and then when she's "cured" she could go on to prison for the rest of her life. Because, to me, even if she was not sane, she still took the lives of those five children. I don't think anyone that commits such a crime should ever walk free again.
post #19 of 104
Thread Starter 
Yates Drowning Deaths Trial Begins
The Associated Press
Feb 18 2002 9:34PM

HOUSTON (AP) - Andrea Yates had a history of suicide attempts and was so psychotic that her delusions drove her to drown her children in their bathtub, a defense attorney told jurors Monday as her capital murder trial got under way.
Prosecutors agreed she suffered from a mental illness but contended Yates was well aware her actions were wrong when she held each of her children beneath water until they could no longer breathe.

Defense attorney George Parnham said his client suffered from postpartum depression with psychotic features, ``the cruelest and most severe of mental illnesses.''

``It takes the very nature and essence of motherhood - to nurture, to protect and to love - and changes the reality,'' he said.

Yates, 37, fidgeted and pulled at her fingers as she sat at the defense table. She is charged with two counts of capital murder for the June 20 drownings of three of her five children, ages 6 months to 7 years. She has pleaded innocent by reason of insanity.

She could wind up in a mental institution, prison or on death row.

``She knew this was an illegal thing,'' Harris County Assistant District Attorney Joe Owmby said during opening statements. ``It was a sin. She knew it was wrong.''

Officer David Knapp testified that when Yates opened the door to her house the morning of June 20, her hair and clothes were wet. She said she had called police because she had killed her children, Knapp said.

The officer noticed wet footprints on the floor in the entrance, kitchen and living areas and said it appeared one set belonged to an adult and the second to a child.

As Yates led him into the master bedroom, Knapp saw a small arm protruding from a sheet on a bed. He pulled back the cover and said he saw John, 5; Paul, 3; Luke, 2; and Mary, 6 months.

``Some of their eyes were half open, some were shut,'' said Officer Frank Stumpo, who also testified Monday.

Stump had arrived minutes after Knapp to find Noah, 7, floating face down in the bathtub with his arms extended.

Knapp said Yates showed no emotion, answered his questions in a monotone voice and followed instructions to sit down and show identification.

``Her eyes were wider than what I'd consider normal,'' Knapp said.

Parnham said the evidence during the expected three-week trial will show that psychosis so clouded Yates' mind that she didn't know what she was doing, let alone that it was wrong.

``Our experts will tell you that the psychosis and the delusions that caused a loving mother to do what occurred on the 20th of June were so severe, that it was so long-standing, that Andrea Yates' ability to think in abstract terms, to give narrative responses, to be able to connect the dots, was impaired,'' Parnham said.

Owmby said there were many signs Yates knew what she was doing was wrong. Owmby said Yates told police that she should go to hell for what she had done and that she waited to drown the children until her husband, Russell, left for work because he would have stopped her.

``Andrea Yates had a mental illness,'' Owmby said. ``She also called the police after she killed these children.''

Jurors heard Yates' 911 call Monday as testimony began. She requested police and an ambulance and told the dispatcher she was ``ill,'' but did not elaborate. When dispatcher Dorene Stubblefield asked if she was alone, Yates said, ``No, my kids are here.''

Yates' extensive medical records detail her bouts with depression and two suicide attempts. They also show her fear that she might hurt someone and a doctor's caution that the couple reconsider having more children to avoid future psychosis after Luke was born in 1999.

If Yates is found innocent, a hearing will be held at least 30 days later where she will either be released or involuntarily committed.

If convicted, jurors will have to determine if she is a future danger to society and if there is enough mitigating evidence to sentence her to life in prison rather than death.
post #20 of 104
Thread Starter 
Just wanted to add that I really enjoy these discussions. I find everyones opinions really interesting and enlightening. As far as this subject, I'm not sure what I think. I like reading everyones thoughts and I think I learn alot from them.
post #21 of 104
I think the question ofher being mentally ill is pretty much moot...of course she is. No-one in their right mind kills their children like that.

The big question is what to do with her. If we accept that she has a real illness,then she wasn't able to control her actions So the Death penalty serves no-one but those who are looking for "Revenge". For anyone outside the family to cry for 'revenge" is a bit suspect in itself. Life in prison;maybe..if there's treatment for her there,but more likely would result in her either being killed or completing her breakdown via suicide. Smacks of "revenge" again,doesn't it?

That leaves confinement to a medical hospital. Probably the best option IF the staff is competent. As you have read in my previous post I have doubts about that issue. Even if they "cure" her of this psycosis,there'll be the realization that she killed her own kids. That must be a terrible thing to realize...so what will that do to her mind??

However it goes this woman will never again be "free" in any real sense. I can't help but pity her too. I hope that if she really is insane that some day God will recieve her as a wounded soul and can forgive her and give her peace.

Incidentally..the problem I have with any death penalty is simply this. If I kill a man I believe threatens me or my family and it turns out it's the wrong man; I have MURDERED an innocent man and I am expected to pay the price. If the justice system executes a man and it is found out later he was innocent;it's just shrugged off and forgotten...even tho the system has done the same as me. Who pays the price for the innocent man there? Why is his life somehow less valuable than my victim?? So as participants in that system aren't we murderers too??

I just have this vision of standing before God and being asked.."Why did you kill one of the innocents??" And I will not even have the excuse of insanity.
post #22 of 104
It is so hard to know what to do when people are a potential danger to society through no fault of their own. It seems unfair both ways.

I agree with Kittyfoot that the responsibility ends up being with the doctors and officials. We can only hope that they do their jobs in this case and all others as well. And probably most of the time they do. I think the stories we hear in the news (like the one in your area you mentioned, Kittyfoot) are the occasional failures of the system.

In Britain they have the exact policy you described, dawn. If you are found not responsible for your actions due to mental illness, you are confined to a treatment center or hospital. If you are determined to be "cured" and want to leave, you go to jail for the crime you committed. I would imagine most people continue to be treated, as opposed to going for cured status. Either way, they are closely watched and the public has some protection from their actions.

From the article that Airprincess posted, it seems like that option is also available in this case, ie. finding her not guilty and involuntarily committing her to a mental institution. I hope that is the one they choose, and that she gets help somewhere besides jail or "the chair".
post #23 of 104
Originally posted by airprincess
Yates Drowning Deaths Trial Begins
The Associated Press
Feb 18 2002 9:34PM
After reading that and how the cop described what he saw, I feel like I could vomit, I'm almost in tears and I feel like I have a rock in my gut. How could anyone justify any of that?????????????????? If she was warned to not have any more children because of mental health problems then she shouldn't have. And her husband is a bigger freaking idiot for standing by her, if my hubby killed my babies, he'd be dead too. ANd the same would go for me. I don't believe it is a dr's responsibility to hold these people's hand. A dr makes suggestions but cannot live y our life, if she was sick, which to me just seems like her way of being an easy way out of this, but anyways if she was, SHE should have taken any steps neccesary to make herself better or get the proper help and get her D*** tubes tied before adding a 5th child for her to slaughter.
post #24 of 104
The woman had enough sense to chase her 7 year old around in order to drown him too, but she was unaware of what she was doing?? Puhleeeze. I say fry her..why waste the money keeping someone like that alive. If I were her husband, she'd be dead already.
post #25 of 104
I don't think anyone involved in this case (or anyone discussing it in this thread) ever tried to justify her actions. Obviously it was a horrible thing that she killed her children. I'm sure she, like you, kezzer, wanted to vomit when she became aware of what she had done.

Also, just because she appeared to be aware of what she was doing doesn't mean she is not insane.
As I wrote in a previous post--

--Just because she "knew what she was doing", made plans and chased one of the children around does not mean she was not insane. Because she was insane (or mentally impaired or suffering from psychosis or whatever), she made wrong decisions. She felt that she had ruined her children by not being a good mother, and the only way to help them was to kill them. This was obviously wrong and deluded, but she was highly motivated to do what her broken brain thought was the right thing.--

Expecting a mentally ill person to take the necessary steps for treatment on their own (without the help of family members or doctors) is like expecting someone with a broken leg to walk to the hospital and put on their own cast. Yes, there are certainly things she could have done differently, and I agree that making sure she didn't have any more children would have been a good start, followed by counselling, medical attention and medication if required.

What makes me want to vomit is the lack of compassion and willingness to try to understand mental illnesses, as well as the automatic response that she should be killed, by her husband or by the alleged justice system. Since she is in Texas, you last two posters have a pretty good shot at getting your wish.
post #26 of 104
Thread Starter 
Yates' Mom-In-Law Testifies at Trial
The Associated Press
Feb 20 2002 8:09AM

HOUSTON (AP) - Six weeks before she drowned her five young children in the bathtub, Andrea Yates filled the tub with water unexpectedly one day and said she ``might need it,'' her mother-in-law testified.
Dora Yates, the first of the Houston woman's relatives to take the stand in her murder trial, said Tuesday that Andrea Yates was catatonic and ``was not herself'' for several months before the children were killed last June.

Andrea Yates, 37, could face the death penalty. She has pleaded innocent by reason of insanity.

Dora Yates, who wiped her eyes Tuesday when calling Andrea her ``very precious daughter-in-law,'' said she left her home in Hermitage, Tenn., last April to visit her son's family in Houston for a week. But she ended up staying several months, she said, because Andrea was ill and needed help with the children.

Dora Yates told of a day last May when she found her daughter-in-law in the bathroom with a tub full of water. ``I might need it,'' she quoted Andrea Yates as saying.

Defense attorneys suggested during opening statements Monday that Yates' delusions had caused her to fear the family's water supply might be interrupted.

Prosecutors say Andrea Yates suffered from a mental illness but knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of the drownings.

Several police officers have testified that Andrea Yates answered their questions on June 20, looked directly at them and read and signed a consent form for police to search the house.

Houston police Sgt. David Svahn testified Tuesday that Yates' husband, Russell, ran up to the house screaming that day after his wife called him at work and told him to come home.

Svahn said he had the grim task of informing Yates that his children, ages 6 months to 7 years, were dead.

``At that point he fell to the ground and began hitting his hand on the ground,'' Svahn said. The father then picked up a plastic chair from the yard and threw it, the officer said.

``His wife told him she had hurt all five of the kids and that she finally did it,'' Svahn said.

The day before the drownings, Dora Yates said, Andrea stood in front of the television for 45 minutes as the children watched cartoons but didn't interact with them or react to the program.

Dora Yates testified that she doubted her daughter-in-law knew right from wrong, ``not in the state she was in,'' because she stared into space for hours, and even scratched her head until she had bald spots.

Andrea Yates normally was giving and comforting, but her depression grew worse after her father's death last March, Dora Yates said. Her arms trembled, her foot tapped and she smiled infrequently. When asked a question, Andrea didn't answer or waited a while before speaking, Dora Yates testified.

Yates said her daughter-in-law appeared somewhat better after a brief stay at a mental hospital last spring.

Harris County Assistant District Attorney Joe Owmby asked Dora Yates why she refused to talk with his office or expert witnesses in helping to determine whether Andrea Yates was sane at the time of the drownings.

``The prosecution is seeking the death penalty against my daughter-in-law, and I firmly think that is wrong,'' she said.

Yates is charged with murder for the deaths of three of her five children. Charges eventually could be filed in the deaths of the other two.

If Yates is found innocent by reason of insanity, a hearing will be held at least 30 days later, when she will either be released or involuntarily committed.

If jurors convict her, they must determine if she poses a future danger to society and if there is enough mitigating evidence to sentence her to life in prison rather than death.
post #27 of 104
The news in Houston last night reported that when the prosecution brought forth the pajamas of the children that she broke down.

No matter what happens this woman is going suffer. Maybe death would be the right thing to free her troubled mind and soul. Maybe it's just meant to be if she does get the death penalty. I'm not saying she should get the death penalty or even life in prison, but I just can't see how once she is mentally healthy how she could deal with the fact that she killed her own children. She has a long road ahead of her
post #28 of 104
I agree with what Keezer and Melissa said. I'm not saying she wasn't insane....obviosuly she was, but she still took the lives of her innocent children...and I feel like using insanity as a plea and getting away without punishment, is just not justified in this case. Clearly Jeffrey Domer was insane as well....but he got the punishment he deserved, and so should this woman.
post #29 of 104
that the "nice" people on here are so willing to call for the Death of this woman while we "bad" folks are saying have a little charity.

Kind of makes you think doesn't it...or maybe not!!!
post #30 of 104
Well, I personally am able to put myself in the shoes of those terrified children and a grief-ridden father. When you do that, it isn't too hard to take the next logical step and hand this 'lady' what she deserves.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Cat Lounge
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › The Cat Lounge › Sooooo glad I'm not on this jury