Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity

[The Second Law]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/26/ya...ict/index.html

(CNN) -- A jury on Wednesday found Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity of drowning her five children in a bathtub five years ago. The verdict, reached after nearly 13 hours of deliberation over three days in Houston, means Yates will be committed to a state mental facility in Texas until she is deemed to be no longer a threat. The 42-year-old defendant then hugged one of her attorneys, George Parnham, who had argued she suffered from postpartum psychosis at the time of the drownings on June 20, 2001. Her former husband and father of the victims, Russell Yates, who has since remarried, exclaimed, "Oh, wow!" and became teary, Court TV reported. "We're happy," Russell Yates told reporters outside the courthouse. "To me, this is really about Andrea's quality of life for the balance of her life. Is she going to spend her time in a prison cell with barely adequate medical treatment and no interaction with other people and family members or is she going to spend time in a hospital and get good medical treatment and have hope of a possibly somewhat normal life later?" Andrea Yates' mental illness predated the killings. She had been on anti-psychotic medication and attempted suicide before killing Noah, 7, John, 5, Paul, 3, Luke, 2, and Mary, 6 months. Russell Yates said the prosecution failed to understand "that Andrea was ordinarily a loving mother who fell to this disease and did an unthinkable act." He added, "Yes, Andrea took the lives of our children. That's the truth. But also, yes, she was insane. Yes, she was psychotic on that day. That's the whole truth." He said the state "never attempted to get to the whole truth." He said he was proud of the jury for reaching its finding in Harris County, Texas -- "the death-penalty capital of the world." Russell Yates rejected criticism that he should have known his wife was a danger to their children. "We took her to a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist failed us," he said. "She needs help," one juror told reporters. "I think she will probably need treatment for the rest of her life." Yates' attorney Wendell Odom expressed a similar view: "It's this simple: this lady never did anything wrong in her own life. She's mentally ill. She wakes up one morning, she drowns her five kids. Come on, we all know she's insane. It's a shame it took this long to finally get the right verdict." But Harris County Assistant District Attorney Joe Owmby told reporters he was disappointed by the verdict. "Yates was not insane when she killed her children," he said. "She knew it was a sin, knew it was legally wrong and knew society would disapprove of her actions." Still, he said, he would not recommend that the district attorney bring further charges related to the drownings. "The charges we filed were intended to conclude this case one way or another," Owmby said. He said the heavy media coverage, including a series of editorial opinions in the local paper, "must have had an effect, in a general way, on the jury." In 30 days a hearing will be held to determine whether Yates represents a danger to herself or others and whether she will comply with a treatment plan. Every year thereafter, a hearing before a judge or a jury will be held to decide whether she should be released into the community. "The state is not going to be watching Andrea Yates," Owmby said. "This thing about her now being under supervision for the rest of her life is rather misleading."

Ugh. She murders her kids and won't be held accountable for her actions. Fantastic.

--Second

[tinybear]

It doesn't mean she walks out of court a free woman.

[bishop]

perhaps it's wrong that i'm not ruled over by emotional hysteria, but i think this was a just ruling. killing all of your own children is most certainly an act of insanity.. i always thought her ex-husband should've been brought to court since he was the one who kept pushing her to give him more babies, despite her well-known problems with depression.

[tinybear]

I agree with bishop. The woman does not deserve the death penalty, nor would it serve any useful purpose to punish her by locking her up for life.

[bishop]

there are always fanatical people watching these high-profile trials that look forward to the guilty being killed. like it's a big turn-on to hear that so-and-so is going to be put to death..

as if being shipped off to a maximum security is a picnic.. she's going to be so doped up on anti-depressants and sedatives, that she'll probably forget her own name in a couple years.

[The Second Law]

After possibly being released as a free woman after thirteen months?

--Second

[tinybear]

Then so be it. She's a sick woman. If she is cured and released, that's fine, provided the doctors are certain she really is cured.

[brien]

She is being remanded to a mental hospital for the criminallly insane where she belongs. I heard she won't have much of a chance to be released at all.

From Reuters:

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A Texas judge committed Andrea Yates to a state mental hospital on Thursday, one day after she was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the 2001 murders of her five children.

Yates, 42, showed no emotion during the brief hearing in which Judge Belinda Hill issued the order sending her to the state hospital in Vernon, Texas, 186 miles northwest of Dallas, for a 30-day evaluation of her mental state.

Defense attorney George Parnham said he expects that after the evaluation, Yates will go to a state hospital nearer to Houston where she was treated before her retrial in the murders.

"She's going to be in a mental-health facility for a very long period of time," Parnham said to reporters after the hearing.



Yates, who has suffered from severe mental illness since 1999, remains heavily medicated on anti-psychotic drugs, Parnham said, which restrains her reactions.

"She understands what's going on," Parnham said. "She has lots of questions."

Under Texas law, Hill will evaluate Yates' mental health annually. Yates cannot be released from the state hospital without court approval.


So do you think a court will approve her release anytime soon? This woman belongs in a mental hopsital rather than a prison. I consider her very very ill and we treat illness in hospitals, not prisons.

[Mia]

Quote by: bishop perhaps it's wrong that i'm not ruled over by emotional hysteria, but i think this was a just ruling. killing all of your own children is most certainly an act of insanity.. i always thought her ex-husband should've been brought to court since he was the one who kept pushing her to give him more babies, despite her well-known problems with depression.

He urged her to go off medication to have their last child. What a moron. He is definitely also responsible.

Quote by: The Second Law After possibly being released as a free woman after thirteen months? --Second

n 30 days a hearing will be held to determine whether Yates represents a danger to herself or others and whether she will comply with a treatment plan.

This makes it sound like it could be as soon as 30 days. This is the criteria for being released.

[Mia]

Quote by: tinybear Then so be it. She's a sick woman. If she is cured and released, that's fine, provided the doctors are certain she really is cured.

There's no such thing as cured. Her depression wasn't just post-partum, it was present throughout.

She has to be on medication for her life if psychosis is always a possibility.

These things are very tricky....there is no way to tell if she will be psychotic again and what she might do.

If she doesn't have her own children to focus on, she might harm someone else. She definitely can't be allowed to have kids. If she gets out and gets pregnant I hope they restrain her in a hospital until it is born and adopt it out right away.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: bishop perhaps it's wrong that i'm not ruled over by emotional hysteria, but i think this was a just ruling. killing all of your own children is most certainly an act of insanity.. i always thought her ex-husband should've been brought to court since he was the one who kept pushing her to give him more babies, despite her well-known problems with depression.

Did you guys know that they lived on a school bus for quite sometime, and I believe they had three kids then. The husband at that time was the more religious one. Then somewhere in all of it she became the more religious one. That was probably the clue that something was going haywire.

I partially blame the community, the family, and especially the husband. I know everybody says he wasn't guilty of anything, but that's hogwash to me. He was producing too many children too quickly, and as an educated man he should have known a woman needs to heal before becoming pregnant over and over. Plus, he's blaming the psychiatrist, but looks to me like he had some problems, too, and why did he leave those kids alone with her knowing she was nuts, and he knew she was nuts. Negligence, plain and simple.

That was what was wrong with the prosecution. They were blaming the wrong person, and vehemently so.

[Mia]

I'm shocked he wasn't charged with anything. The whole thing is so unbelievable. Yes, they lived in a bus, and that is where she had her first psychotic break.

[bishop]

the husband wasn't charged because he didn't break any laws.. obviously, he played THE key role in his wife's descent into madness, but again, he didn't break any laws. if he did, i'm sure the prosecution would've gone after him in a heartbeat.

Quote by: marilyn Did you guys know that they lived on a school bus for quite sometime, and I believe they had three kids then. The husband at that time was the more religious one. Then somewhere in all of it she became the more religious one. That was probably the clue that something was going haywire.

gotta wonder what could've happened had she not decided to become indoctrinated..

[Osborn F Enready]

bishop said: gotta wonder what could've happened had she not decided to become indoctrinated..

I say:
Echoing my thoughts exactly.

[bishop]

seeing people pick up religion and end up getting consumed by it is a bit troubling imo.. especially when they go to the more radical sects - like evangalism.. i'm religious, but nondogmatic at the same time (probably something that irks the hell out of those who follow dogma in lockstep who believe their way is THE way)..

[brien]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I partially blame the community, That was what was wrong with the prosecution. They were blaming the wrong person, and vehemently so.

Whoaaa here Marylin. Just where and how does the community step in and take the blame for this woman murdering her children. I don't think we can blame the community. It would be like blaming you, or I, for Ted Bundy's killings. Sorry, I won't shoulder the balme for his eveil deeds.

Somewhere along the line we must have people take responsibility for their actions, even if those actions are founded in either sickness or ciminality. Because one commits a crime, and sickness is a mittigating factor, it does not relieve that party from responsibility for that crime. It may absolve them from culpability in the eyes of the Law, but surely not the responsiblity.

I think the community does its part in responsibility when it sets the standard for behavior and enforces them through the laws of society. It is up to the citizens to be responsible to the community, not the other way around.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Brien It would be like blaming you, or I, for Ted Bundy's killings.

Except for the fact that Ted Bundy showed no outward signs of being mentally ill which was one of the reasons why he was able to manipulate and get close to so many women. The difference was that there were plenty of displays of Andrea Yates' mental state and she was left to watch... 5 kids?

That said, the fact that she tried to use the "devil made me do it" excuse seems to imply to me she's faking it. Obviously there's something wrong with her but I personally don't think she was legally insane at the time of the murders. Medically, she was mentally ill but legally, she knew what she was doing when she did it. This is evident to me from her attempted use of such a widely used and ignorant excuse for the murders in the first place. Sure creativity isn't necessary to prove someone legally insane but when they pick something like what she claimed it really hits their credibility.

[Mia]

Quote by: bishop the husband wasn't charged because he didn't break any laws.. obviously, he played THE key role in his wife's descent into madness, but again, he didn't break any laws. if he did, i'm sure the prosecution would've gone after him in a heartbeat.

I haven't looked into it, but there's got to be some kind of charge of negligence for leaving your children with someone unsafe.

"devil made me do it"

She didn't say that at all.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Mia She didn't say that at all.

It's a figure of speech applicable to such things as the Son of Sam who was going around cleansing the neighborhood because his dog was telling him to because it was possessed by an "ancient demon". People tend to use it when they're faking an insanity plea which is why i brought it up.

In Yates' case particularly she said because she was evil her kids were damned and she had to cleanse them by killing them.

EDIT:
Also her jailhouse psychiatrist says she was fixated on Satan. So... yeah. This definitely applies.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/1268306.html

[Mia]

No one will ever know what went on in that woman's mind. I happen to believe her.

There is no other motive, she didn't run off after she did it....she simply had nothing to gain and didn't behave as a person who committed a crime they wante to get away with.