Today, Andrea Yates was found not guilty in the drowning deaths of her 5 children.
When you say that this woman killed her 5 small children without knowing the facts, she sounds like a monster.
Instead, she was a very very sick woman.
The person who should have been on trial was that husband of hers who kept her locked up in that house with the 5 kids forcing her to give birth time and time again against doctors' wishes.
Everyone knew something was wrong with her. Witnesses testified that she would sit around in a catatonic state or pick at her scalp until she had huge sores.
This is clearly a psychotic individual yet she was popping out kids, left and right.
I don't expect a woman who systematically drowned her five children to be let go and walk the streets but a guilty verdict would have been VERY wrong.
She doesn't need to be in a maximum security prison, she needs help.
The problem is...it's too little too late.
Posted by De at July 26, 2006 11:56 AM | TrackBackI thought charging Yates with murder was an obscenity and I cheered the loudest when the guilty verdict was overturned by the appeals court. The DA's office should have accepted her insanity plea and been done with it. The fact that they can still file two murder charges when (or rather, if) she's released from the psychiatric hospital is a true perversion of justice.
But suggesting that the husband is at fault is going just a little too far. I haven't reviewed the facts of the case in years, but I don't remember her doctors suggesting that her depression would lead her to be violent against her children. Indeed, that isn't even very common in those cases. The mother is much more likely to kill herself than her children, as she indeed attempted to do at least once.
Also (at least for the time being), no one can "force" a woman to give birth if she feels it's against her best interests. Whether she liked it or not, she chose to keep having children. I'm not trying to suggest that she's culpable for her actions, but they could have been prevented.
Is the husband an insensitive prick? Certainly. But I can't blame some working-class guy for something that the psychiatric community couldn't have forseen. Besides, something tells me that knows his place in this mess and he has to live with that. And that may be worse than a finding of criminal responsibility.
On the other hand, what the fuck do I know?
Posted by: skippystalin at July 26, 2006 01:54 PMIf she were a mentally stable person, I would agree that she chose to keep having kids. According to witness testimony, she was diagnosed with some type of severe depression after the 4th kid was born.
She was warned not to have another child and (again according to witness testimony) her husband told her that it was God's will (paraphrasing here) to reproduce, no matter how much of a psycho you have become.
Of course I'm not discounting her personal responsibility but he's got to be accountable for SOME of this mess.
But...then again...what do *I* know.
I defer to your genius, skippy love. ;)
Posted by: De at July 26, 2006 02:07 PM"The person who should have been on trial was that husband of hers who kept her locked up in that house with the 5 kids forcing her to give birth time and time again against doctors' wishes."
Amen Sistah...
Neither of you motherfuckers knows jack shit. Hey, you asked! ;P
Post-partum psychosis is what they said she had; and as much as I think modern psychology has become quackery; I can't deny that I would lose my shit if they pulled 4 or 5 live humans out of a hole between my legs. Hell, they'd probably only have to do that once.
At any rate, I severly doubt her pyschological and emotional state is curable. She shouldn't be thrown in maximum security, but she sure as shit shouldn't be in the the common population; instituted or not.
Posted by: shank at July 27, 2006 03:23 PMI did hear she had serious mental health issues.
I hope she gets hospitilization and care.
Have a wonderful day!
*^_^
(=':'=) meow hugs
(")_ (")Š from da Raggedy one