Yes, it is confirmed. She has been found guilty. There is a lot of speculation around this. Most pointedly, that she was not insane at the time of the murders, because when she called 911 she admitted that what she did was wrong and knowing right from wrong makes her sane at that moment in time. She was not tried for all 5 kids, so that if she gets off on this one, they can go after her for the other two kids. She is currently facing either the death penalty or life in prison. Her defense attorneys (who undoubtedly put together a better case, but whether or not which attorney did the better job is irrelevant now) say that she should have instead been hospitalized for her insanity. My question is this. Should she receive the death penalty, or life in prison, or should she be hospitalized? What would best take care of this particular situation? If you are unaware of this case, you can look at cnn.com to get the latest update on Mrs. Yates. Another question. Since her husband knew of her mental problems but had her at home unmedicated and taking care of the kids, should he be questioned for his not taking care of his wife and therefore his children are now dead, all 5 of them? I am just curious to see what you think.

is her husband a mental health professional? even mental health professionals aren't accused of their patients' misdoings. she should not be killed. though the prophets tell us we are charged with keeping the earth an orderly place, and if we kill her though her soul is clean the heavenly father will meet her in eternal paradise, we do not have the right. let the lord take her when the lord sees fit. if she is guilty of these murders, she should not be let free again. in hospital or prison, she will be jailed and kept from society. which is unimportant. in prison she will likely die sooner. perhaps that will be less cruel.

"is her husband a mental health professional? even mental health professionals aren't accused of their patients' misdoings." Of course, he is not her psychiatrist. He is someone infinately closer to her who is aware of her problem and had her removed from her medication prescribed by the psychiatrist. On top of that he pressured her into having more children and more children even though he knew childbirth brought on the bouts of insanity, thus increasing the chances of this happening and knowing it was harmful to her. Did he actually commit the crime? No. Could this have been prevented if he acted differently and took better care of his wife who was obviously ill? Without a doubt. He has been hurt, but he is not a complete innocent in all of this either. I think that the death penalty would be too easy. I also think that if she were put in a hospital for help she would get out rather quickly able to do this all over again. Right now I am for life imprisonment.

im not sure anyone outside the court home has anything worth while to say on this case, including myself. its already taken up too much national attention. eri, how can you say this: "Did he actually commit the crime? No." then say this: "but he is not a complete innocent in all of this either." this: "He is someone infinately closer to her who is aware of her problem" doesnt make him responsible in a criminal sense. nor is this: "On top of that he pressured her into having more children and more children even though he knew childbirth brought on the bouts of insanity" a crime. bottom line the husband committed no crime, however I suspect he will find his ass in civil court for criminal negligence or something like that in a suit brought on by the womans parents, if they are even involved.

how can you say he could have prevented it? how could he know to what extent his wife's mental illness would take her? i heard a headshrinker that said psychotropic drugs can cause problems like this both when they are stopped AND when they are given in TOO HIGH A DOSAGE. if the latter was the case, would you implicate the doctor who prescribed the drug? maybe that's the answer? criminalize psychotherapy and just round up all the sickies like we did pre-Reagan? life imprisonment if you don't meet the social norm PROACTIVELY? before the damage is done?

Regardless of whether he knew he could have prevented it, he's been punished. The five children he wanted so much are dead. Let him experience his own psychosis, imagining his children being killed one by one by his wife. Society can't punish him any more than that.

Mrs. Yates parents are not involved in any way. There will not be any charges brought up against the husband. "He is someone infinately closer to her who is aware of her problem" doesnt make him responsible in a criminal sense. " Patrick, your arguments talk a lot about what the law says. I am not defining what is or is not criminal. You should know by now that this is not my concern. I could care less what our fucked up legal system has to say about much of anything. I don't think legal vs. illegal, because I don't trust our legal system. It has too many problems. "how can you say he could have prevented it? how could he know to what extent his wife's mental illness would take her?" He had no way of knowing how bad it could be. That is a given. As to how he could have prevented the murder of his 5 children, this is a little more simple. He could have not aggravated her illness by having more children, when he knew this was a large part of the problem. He could have made sure she had the help she needed, which he clearly didn't do. He knew she had a problem and just stopped doing something about it and then his kids were killed. I am not saying what he did was a crime, just that it was wrong and he now has to pay a horrible price for it. "life imprisonment if you don't meet the social norm PROACTIVELY? before the damage is done?" No, life imprisonment if you murder 5 innocent children.

As someone who considers themselves a devoted patriot, unwilling to question the leadership of this country, and put full trust and faith that said leadership will do the right thing, this is a pretty blasphemous statement. "I could care less what our fucked up legal system has to say about much of anything." want that bag of sand now?

Doesn't the husband still live in that bus? Doesn't he still takes showers in the bathtub where his kids drowned? And wasn't he 50% responsible for continuing to have children after the doctors told his wife not to? And didn't he allow his wife no more than 3 hours to herself a week? Didn't he create the family structure that would put him in a position to allow or forbid his wife X or Y? Didn't he ignore his wife when she told him she had visions of killing their oldest son? Isn't that blood on his hands?

what exactly is criminal of the above mentioned things? Charge or release. Don't get me wrong, what little i have read about this case, the guy is nearly as messed up as his wife but there's nothing criminal about being a domineering ass to your spouse.

If you ask me, he's at least partially morally responsible. If I were God, I'd smite him for scandal. But who really knows.

this does seem like a crime of biblical proportions. y'all remind me not to look back when i finally do flee texas. not that i have anybody to worry about turning into a pillar of salt in the first place.

lots of women have visions of killing their babies my sister's tv told me they tried not to be alone with their children. i don't remember how they ended it. some didn't though they were told not to worry, that they wouldn't actually harm their own babies

Spider, you explained my point much better than I could. I don't care if he is legally responsible. No one asked if he should be in jail. He is partially morally responsible for the crimes. "As someone who considers themselves a devoted patriot, unwilling to question the leadership of this country, and put full trust and faith that said leadership will do the right thing, this is a pretty blasphemous statement." I never said I was unwilling to question the leadership. I just happen to agree with things that you don't and I do question. I don't put full trust and faith in said leadership, but some things I do leave up to faith and trust. The courts and the president are two different things, related, yes, but different still. In Kansas City you are not allowed to pass through an intersection on Broadway without shooting a gun at the intersection before you go through (yes, this law is on the books), but on the same token you are not allowed to shoot a firearm unless at a firing range (in the city). These two laws contradict themselves. I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with either one of the laws, just that the laws on the books are my problem with this legal system we have. Blasphemous? Not even close. I simply think that our court system is a joke. Has nothing to do with whether or not I choose to support our President declaring war on Terrorism. Why would I need sand when I can watch you turn bullshit into art? Spin, spin, spin.

Regarless of law, I do not feel sorry for the husband. he KNEW what was wrong with her. What happened here? who is at fault? Well, for starters, it seems Andrea Yates. But where did the "system" break down. Here is where I get confused. I dislike the idea of big brother watching how I raise my children. In our household, we reserve spanks for a last resort. But we use it when we need it. My philosophy on the subject is this: If everything warrents a spank, then the spank looses it's effectiveness. The kids become numb to it. I do not think I need to go into the discipline I received as a child, anyone here that counts knows what I received as a child. So, I am stuck between the eternal rift of not enough/too much. Some people should just not be parents. Eri's sister and her husband, Andrea Yates and Mr Yates to name a few. But, now that the deed is done, what do we, as a society, learn from this? HEAVY MEDICATION DOES NOT MAKE A GOOD MOTHER. Doctors, Grandparents, and spouses should know this. anyways

The husband is being punished, but it shouldn't have taken the deaths of his children to punish him for his antiquated attitude towards women. He should just have had several hard kicks in the balls.

i guess i'm pretty embarassed, as a texan, that the jurors didn't even PRETEND to take their time in such a major decision...(only three hours?!) i don't feel the mentally retarded should be put to death...and i don't think that the mentally ill should either (heaven forbid the jury decides to put her to death too) if andrea yates isn't mentally ill..then NO ONE is and we should kick everyone out of care homes, hospitals and take away their disability payments...you think you're hearing voices? or so confused you cant thinks straight? can't control your actions or words? you're a liar! get back to work! raise those kids and shut up! but andrea had alot of negilgent people around her..and fell through the cracks..i don't blame her..because she was mentally ill..you have an altered reality...with her degree of incapacity, other people have to help her..and intervene..which they obviously failed to do.. what she did was horrible..and in one sense i can see why the jurors made their decision...they weren't made aware of the fact that if she was found innocent (for insanity reasons) that she would not go FREE..but would probably spend most of the rest of her life in a mental institution..

it shouldn't be innocent by reason of insanity, but guilty by reason of insanity. with this the prosecution could go for a realistic charge, and justice could be met. you might argue that any murder is mentally ill. do you have the capacity to kill someone? drown your children?

on some days that answer could be YES

The thought of killing my child has never, not once, entered my mind. I cant imagine even thinking about killing her let alone doing it. No way. The truth is, that woman could have very well went secretly on birth control and avoided spitting out 5 kids. But she didnt. She laid on her back, willingly, and chose to have those kids. I had Kim 11 years ago and have not been pregnant since. Why? Because I take care of myself and my well being. Anyone can do that. Including evil Andrea Yates. One pill a day keeps the babies away. She deserves whatever she gets.

"but andrea had alot of negilgent people around her..and fell through the cracks..i don't blame her..because she was mentally ill..you have an altered reality...with her degree of incapacity, other people have to help her..and intervene..which they obviously failed to do.." In some ways I do agree with this. She wasn't taken care of properly and because of that she did fall through the cracks. She is mentally ill and does face an altered reality. I don't, though, think that she should be free. She needs help and serious help. She needs to be locked up. She did commit this crime. "One pill a day keeps the babies away." I don't think it was quite that simple for her. She was under too tight of a leash, and on top of that, did she know the effects that the pill would have in combination with the different drugs she had been on? I couldn't take the pill. I had too many reactions to it and it made me VERY ill. I don't blame her for not taking the pill. In this aspect, I blame him for not taking care of his wife and pushing for more kids when he knew it could do this to her. I have never dreamed of hurting my kids and never would. I am not Andrea Yates. I can't say why she did or didn't do something. She was ill, but obviously knew what she did was wrong. 5 babies have been murdered. I guess that is my bottom line.

having 5 kids isn't the issue. plenty of people have had many more than 5 and never killed a one of em.

The pill was just an example. Foam. Inserts. Shot in the arm. Any of them would have worked for her. It's her own fault for allowing her husband to control her life. She must have liked it because she allowed it to happen. When people grow up, they have to take care of them selves. She didnt fall through any cracks. She took the easy way out. It wasnt the responsibility of her husband, her family, or the state to take care of her. She took the time to sit there and kill all 5 of her kids AND call the police when she was done. So she knew what she did was wrong. There are times when Kim makes me so mad. She's never been hit, and never will be, so she knows sometimes she can push. But, the ole evil eye of mine and a little talk from her Dad puts her right in her place. When I get super mad at her, I know to walk away. It's called control and everyone has it. Sadly not everyone uses it.

Dani, the woman developed post-partum psychosis (not depression, but psychosis) after the birth of her second child. And since she had 5 kids in 6 years and didn't receive adequate treatment, it's safe to say she was in a state of psychosis from the birth of the second kid up to the present. Any choices that she was free to make (which I bet were few and far between) were strongly influenced by her mental illness. WTF was wrong with her husband that he would allow his wife, the woman he loved, to remain in this condition? He tortured her, if you ask me. There's little difference between what he did to his wife and what that woman in Texas did to the man in her windshield. They saw someone in agonizing pain, had many chances to help them, and did NOTHING.

"It's her own fault for allowing her husband to control her life. She must have liked it because she allowed it to happen." You are very lucky that you have not been in one of these type of controlling abusive relationships. I can't say the same. I was young and naive. I let him take advantage of me without knowing it. It took a long while, a marriage and a baby to get out of it, and if my parents didn't have my gun the night I kicked him out, I wouldn't have survived it. It is really easy to get sucked in, and once you are in, you don't know how to get out. "When people grow up, they have to take care of them selves. She didnt fall through any cracks. She took the easy way out. It wasnt the responsibility of her husband, her family, or the state to take care of her." For you and me this is right. She was not like you or me, she was mentally ill. She had been in and out of institutions. If she is incapable of taking care of herself, then shouldn't her husband be the one to do it for her? Would you say that a child with genetic disorders who isn't able to take care of himself should get kicked out at 18 and do it anyways? Most of them end up in institutions or hospitals or with their parents for their entire lives. Maybe it wasn't apparent in her when she was young, but it was apparent when she started having children. One of the things she was diagnosed with was Schizophrenia, which is definately a disease of sorts and is not always successfully treated with medication. If you were diabetic and your spouse took away all access to your insulin and you had absolutely no way of getting the medication you needed and something happened, would you not blame your husband for not making sure you were taken care of or of neglecting your medical needs? I am not saying that she is innocent. She did kill those kids and that is horrible. She should be punished for this. She should never be able to do this again. I don't know if killing her is the answer. "It's called control and everyone has it." I wish that were true. Maybe, if it was, then my nephew would be allright today. He is still developmentally behind by about 4-5 months, and he is slowing down, so I wonder if there won't be permanent delays. I am not sure at this point if he will grow up to be able to function on his own in society. Sadly, none of it is his fault.

i read that the jury had three individuals with psych majors, for what thats worth. put three psych majors in a room with a handful of others...3 hours seems like an eternity to come to such a conclusion.

3 hours do anything with a psych major seems like an eternity.

I was a psych major, you twit.

Which could be a good or bad thing, depending on the activity. RIGHT??

i don't think it is the psych major that is the problem, but rather the stereotypical person who is attracted to the psych major. people are responsible for their own actions. if i get drunk and run down a bunch of school children it is my own goddamn fault. even if i'm an alcoholic. even if my wife bought me the likka.

there are stereotypical people attracted to psych majors? i had no idea.

(my mother was a psych major) * Subject: you never call Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 08:07:57 -0600 well, i'm feeling better. the low grade nausiace [nausea] has gone - thank heavens but do feel like i have been accouple of rounds with a kangaroo. and speaking of animals, was sad to hear that babe' s calf was still born... that really is a bummer. if it is just the same to you, would like let's plan on sunday lunch by then i should be up to 100%. ( : =) * i don't know who babe is

Thats exactly how I feel. People are responsible for their own actions. I dont believe she is as mentally ill as they claim she is. It's all an excuse. It dont matter to me if they decide to kill her or just lock her up forever. As long as she is never to have freedom again. Andrea Yates and Susan Smith will eventually be in hell together. No matter what the outcome is.

"Get the facts first. You can distort them later."

"there are stereotypical people attracted to psych majors? " to the psych major. the major that is psych. i think she is mentally ill and shouldn't be in society anymore because of it. i don't recall such an outpouring of sympathy when jeffy dahlmer was run up the flagpole. he was obviously insane-- talking to body parts and all. but he was not tried as such. his bad luck he wasn't born a woman, i guess.

"I dont believe she is as mentally ill as they claim she is. It's all an excuse." what is your basis for this dani? were you in the courtroom? why kind of education do you have about mental illness? Do you know Mrs Yates personally?

"hush little baby, don't say a word, mama's gonna buy you a mockingbird." my parents had me, then they had my sister, then my dad had a vasectomy. all i know is from reading this board, and there are such differeing opinions so i won't take a side. just remain logical. (1) five kids are dead, drowned by their mother. (2) the mother may be psychotic, and has been since the second child. (3) the father allowed the mother little time to herself, little privacy. there are just some people who aren't supposed to have kids. the guilt is poorly drawn from my information sources, but no-one can change the past. who is a victim in this case, who is guilty. the children are very obviously victims of circumstance. no known guilt. the mother is a victim of her husband's domineering ways. she is also guilty of murder. the father is not a victim, knowingly at least. he is guilty of pushing his wife in ways that may have made her emotionally unstable. oh babies.

"i don't recall such an outpouring of sympathy when jeffy dahlmer was run up the flagpole. he was obviously insane-- talking to body parts and all." Was Dahmer insane because of an illness? No. He had these tendencies to kill as a child, but hid it so that noone knew of it. He did it to create a sex zombie, which always failed. I do believe he was fucked in the head, that is for sure. He didn't get the death penalty (at least not by the courts). This proves what I have been saying about Yates. She is sick. She did it. She knew it was wrong. I am not sure if the death penalty is warranted in this case. I am for life imprisonment. I am not saying that she isn't to be held responsible for her actions, by any stretch of the imagination. I am just tired of the husband being proclaimed as a victim in this whole thing when "morally" he was a contributor to it. Not a criminal, not an accesory, but morally wrong.

"the father is not a victim, knowingly at least" wtf? he lost his 5 children. even domineering asshole husbands can love their children. the more i see the posts here about this case, particularly from women who find ways to include the way the husband treated the wife into the conversation, the more im starting to side with nate's perspective involving gender.

"Was Dahmer insane because of an illness?" "I do believe he was fucked in the head, that is for sure" you answer your own question note...mental *ILLNESS* Dahlmer had mental problems just as Mrs Yates does.

There is a difference between being fucked in the head and actually having a disease. That was the point I was trying to make there. Either way, Dahmner got what I think Yates should get as well. It only proves my point. If Dahmer had a spouse who let him do these things or knew he was off and didn't get him help, I would be bitching as much about the spouse as I am Mr. Yates. Difference is that Dahmer killed the boyfriends and never had a s/o that survived. He killed them right after he slept with them, or right before. It isn't a sexist issue. If the roles of the sexes were reversed I would feel exactly the same.

Eri do you understand ther term mental illness? What you call "fucked in the head", such as Jeffry Dahlmer, is considered mental illness, a disease. Maybe Dahler didnt have a spouse but maybe he had a mother who let him foster his insanity. Hmmmm? How come no one seemed to factor in the negligent mother? Why does it have to be a spouse? Hell it could be anyone!!!!!!!!!

Hell, it could be patrick!!!!!!!

No Patty, I was not in the courtroom...nor do I know her personally...DUH. Fact of the matter is, people can not go around killing people and use mental illness as an excuse. It's way to common and it sends a very bad message to people. It is NOT ok to kill people. Same thing as self defense. Way to common an excuse. Yes I'm sure there are cases where self defese and mental illness were to blame but I dont feel that is the case with Andrea Yates. I've watched her sit in that court room and show almost no emotion whatsoever except for the occasional couple of tears. She killed 5 of her own children and the best she can do is wipe her eyes a few times? All 11 people that testified on her behalf all said they never saw a violent side to her and that she was always a good mother. Dont you think that if she was as mentally ill as they claim she is, someone would have gotten her help? Of course they would have. Someone would have seen some signs and helped her. Yeah ok, she became depressed after the 2nd child was born. But yet she had 3 more kids. We all get depressed and fed up with our kids sometimes but we dont kill them. Dont start with the education crap Patty. You know just as much as I do about this case and the opinions that we all form have nothing to do with being educated about mental illness. Once again, I look at whats in front of me. She did it..she was found guilty..and she will be punished however they see fit.

could be antigone, sugarbritches!!!!!

Jeffrey wasn't "fucked in the head". Jeffrey just had different eating habits than everyone else.

If there is a GOD and an afterlife and if children are innocent then it is every adults duty to kill all children. Everyone dies anyway. Killing children before they sin allows them to avoid the pain of HELL and of life on earth. Killing children is the ultimate act of love.

She's been sentenced to die. http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/15/yates.sentence/index.html

Wait, that's the wrong link...

Dammit, can't find it. Discuss this in the meantime: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/cover/cover.html

according to CNN shes been given a life sentence.

No, this is the blurb on the front of cnn.com: The jury has sentenced Andrea Yates to life in prison for the drowning deaths of her children. She had faced the possibility of death by lethal injection.

"Maybe Dahler didnt have a spouse but maybe he had a mother who let him foster his insanity. Hmmmm? How come no one seemed to factor in the negligent mother?" Never did any history on Dahmer did you? The deaths of the animals in the neighborhood were hidden from the parents. His parents had no idea about the insanity he was harboring. He looked and acted just like any other Joe when people were around (other than his victims). He even got the police to return an escaped victim to him. He was smooth and no one had a clue. He didn't start killing humans until after his parents divorced and left the home, and he was on his own. He was 19 when he killed his first lover, a hitchhiker he picked up. His victims (all but one) were adults in a web he made for them. Yates is completely different. She killed her 5 innocent children. There was no tangled web. Either way, Patrick, you missed my point. Even with the differences in the case, I think she should get the same as Dahmner did. Life imprisonment. Dahmer died in prison. He was killed by inmates. I think she should be in prison until she dies, though I don't wish murder on anyone.

"Yates is completely different. She killed her 5 innocent children. There was no tangled web." eri, but its not, thats the point you failing to see. Dahler's victims were just as innocent. How were thy not? Dahler was mentally ill. Yates is mentally ill. Why is the husband in the Yate's case getting anymore attention then the people that potentially contributed to Dahler's insanity?

Kill yourself, do it now!

god said to abraham: kill me a son! abe said: where you want this killin' done? god said: out on highway 61 dahmer went insane because people kept misspelling his name.

I'm so glad I was wrong. But not about this: "Dahler [sic] was mentally ill. Yates is mentally ill. Why is the husband in the Yate's case getting anymore attention then the people that potentially contributed to Dahler's insanity?" I would say because at first he (was held up / held himself up) as another victim, when no! his hand was in those deaths, too.

'it is not ok to kill people'... unless they're on the other side of the world

It speaks! Your gag order has been lifted! And the best you can do is make that very sad comparison between a Mother killing her 5 kids to the war we're basically in? Thats sad.

Dani is made from Yak scrotum.

Thats a mighty intelligent and mature thing for you to say Antigone. You should feel proud.

Dani is made from mighty intelligent and mature Yak scrotum.

Thats better.

Why you capitalising "yak"? Is it a yak you know personally, yaktard?

Nepal, 1932 The yak scrotum is small with abundant hair, apparently an adaptation to the cold environment. When the bull is more accustomed to being handled, The herdsman will start to stroke the scrotum And testes of the bull, to pull on its sheath, And to lead a haltered bull to its feed Danny has discovered that Yak scrotum makes the best conga.

That sounds strangely erotic. I've got a yak blanket from Nepal.

*falls over*

we've made it quite clear that i'm sad. let's move on.

wtf?

for once patrick, we are in agreement~wtf?

Beats me. whats wrong Patty? Disappointed you didnt get to see a huge display of insults between Heather and I? I'm just as surprised as you are.

maybe heather leads nate around by his small, hairy scrotum. which seems sad and funny at the same time.

Maybe Nate leads Heather around by her small, hairy scrotum. That just seems funny at the same time.

maybe some unknown third party's small hairy scrotum leads them both around. then again we could all be pawns to a greater, bigger, more hairy scrotum you know.

we are all spawn of the big hairy scrotum.

dave?

no. cat. pawn. the cosmic chess game. the galactic match of Jarts. the stellar tourney of whiffle ball.

i'd much rather speak of jarts than scro... see, i can't even say it. i don't remember ever insulting dani directly, only pointing things out. perhaps that makes me a girl without, well, you know. we are not pawns, we are queens. maybe queens with blindfolds.

than scrotii? Scrotum's such an ugly word. In PA, there's a town called Scotrun. Everytime I drive on 80 and pass the sign for Scotrun, at first I swear it says Scrotum. Scrotum, PA. My scrotum's happy today because I did laundry last night and I finally have loose fitting underwear again -- you know, you get down to the bottom of the barrel and wear those cheap-ass tight fitting crappy underwear that you never wear unless you're out of underwear, the ones that might've fit 15 years ago and squeeze your boys lifeless. As my mom always told me, "A happy scrotum is a healthy scrotum."

lets see a show of hands that believe that had the this awful crime been committed by the father, he would have received the death penalty?

Dahmer didn't receive the death penalty. He got life imprisonment. So did Charles Manson in the end.

the father can't have post-partum, therefore there's no assurance that he won't, in the future, go kill some other group of kids, thus -- he's dead man walking. the death penalty verdict isn't simply based on the heinousness of the crime but the likelihood of a repeat offense if set free in the future. or so they say.

by the nature of the illness and in addition to health care provider incompetence, it's really difficult for people to get treated properly for mental/emotional disabilities, or whatever the PC term is for being insane. double the difficulty if you don't have health insurance. perhaps she should have killed herself instead of her kids. five alive children with no mother? or five dead children with a mother on death row? i hate this world.

Personally, I think they should just let her go...if her illness was any sort of an indicator than by virtue of heredity and upbringing she did the world a favor by stopping the bad genes before they could spread any further---or the toxic philosophy. Yup---let her go---but maybe sterilize her on her way out the door just to avoid future screwups. And goddammit, parole Susan Smith----she's a cute piece of ass and is probably available...

Boy....I sure know how to kill a thread, don't I?