Comments on: Andrea Yates Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (Video)

By: Charlie (Colorado)

Charlie (Colorado) — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:36:02 +0000

Uh, Randall, I think a man who tried a post-partum psychosis defense would have to be crazy.

He's have trouble getting his gynecologist to testify, too.

By: randall

randall — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:34:29 +0000

I knew it was coming when she got a new trial. Fathers who do the same thing are said to be evil and given the death penalty while woman are ruled insane and given medical treatment. Talk about a double standard! Keep your eyes open, there is a new defence in town and some woman are going to use it for all it's worth. (Sorry men your excluded).

By: Kent G. Budge

Kent G. Budge — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:16:33 +0000

And the trials are very dull.

By: legion

legion — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:11:56 +0000

James,
They're not criminals until _after_ they blow themselves up. But they're a lot harder to prosecute then...
(/snark off)

By: Caliban Darklock

Caliban Darklock — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:11:17 +0000

I think the insanity determination is not so much because she believed that satan was inside her - a valid religious belief, though most would not share it - or because she believed her children would be better off in heaven than with her (few could dispute that in light of the events), but because she believed the solution to the problem was to kill them.

The solution to the problem of "I am not fit to care for my children" (regardless of any involvement by satan) is to FIND SOMEONE ELSE to care for them. Such as their FATHER. Instead, she said nothing to the father, and deliberately waited until he wasn't around to go and kill the children. This is an insane decision.

By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:43:21 +0000

Yates Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity...

A jury found Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity in the drowning deaths of her young child...

By: TechBlog

TechBlog — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:21:35 +0000

Bloggers react to the Andrea Yates verdict... The blogosphere's reacting to today's not guilty verdict in the retrial of Andrea Yates. Here is some of what's being said -- newer items will be placed at the top: From Outside the Beltway: While I'm pretty sure that most......

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:12:29 +0000

Charlie: But that's because you don't share her belief system! I think people who strap bombs to themselves to blow up kids in a public place in order to get 72 virgins are crazy, too. But that doesn't mean they're criminally insane.

By: Charlie (Colorado)

Charlie (Colorado) — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:08:22 +0000

I don't find it all that difficult to see someone who drowns her kids one-two-three-four-five in order to save them from otherwise inevitable damnation because she is sure she is possessed by Satan as insane.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:51:44 +0000

Bizarre, either way.

Although she claimed she was trying to protect her kids FROM Satan, so she would be insane by this definition as well.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:45:06 +0000

Try this out (from USAToday via News of the Weird):

The Texas insanity-defense law requires that a delusional person acting under "orders" from God be judged not guilty by reason of insanity, but that a delusional person acting under "orders" from Satan be considered sane, according to prominent forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz (according to a June USA Today story). Thus, Dietz believed that Andrea Yates (at press time being retried in Houston) knew that drowning her kids upon command of someone "without moral authority" (such as Satan) was wrong and thus that she did not qualify for insanity-law protection. Dietz later concluded the opposite in another Texas child-killing case because God had supposedly assured that mother that her kids would be better off dead. [USA Today, 6-20-06]

Seems like that can't possibly be correct (and it didn't turn out like that, obviously), but interesting to ponder.