|
|
Post by SevereA on Jul 26, 2006 14:02:18 GMT -5
I just can't fucking believe this shit. It just goes to show you that the world is truly in a sad state, people aren't responsible for their actions, and no one really gives a fuck anyway:
Andrea Yates Found Not Guilty
July 26, 2006 1:36 p.m. EST
Richard Rittierodt - All Headline News Staff Writer
Houston, TX (AHN) - On Wednesday, Andrea Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity by a jury for the drowning deaths of her children. If she had been found guilty of the charges, she would have been sentenced to life in prison.
However, she will now be committed to a state mental institution, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine when she is sane enough to be released.
Yates' attorney never argued against the fact that she had drowned her five children, but stated that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis and believed that she was trying to save them from hell.
The jurors spent 11 hours between Monday and Tuesday deliberating to determine if she was legally insane or not.
On Wednesday morning, they reviewed the state's definition of insanity and requested to view family photos of the five smiling youngsters.
After about an hour of deliberation on Wednesday, they had announced that they had come to a verdict.
This was the second trial for Yates.
In 2002, a jury deliberated for about four hours before finding her guilty of the charges. That guilty verdict was overturned on appeals.
Now, who in their right mind (apparently, no one on the jury), would let this woman off with a verdict of insanity. She took the lives of 5 defenseless children. Shouldn't she meet the same fate as her children. I'm sorry, but this case cries out for justice, not compassion. Now, the taxpayers of Texas will have to feed, clothe, and otherwise support this fucking cunt until the day she dies, or some asshole judge lets her out of the mental institution for good behavior. I say let's save everyone the trouble and give her a "double-tap" to the back of the head. She committed the act, let her deal with the consequences: DEATH! She will serve no legitimate purpose to the human race after killing 5 kids.
Let's look at this another way, gentlemen: What if this was the father? Do you really think he'd get off with insanity? I smell a double-standard here that also makes me want to puke. If you kill one kid due to some mental condition, maybe you were temporarily insane, but 5? No, this wasn't a single act of murder, but 5 separate ones. She drowned these kids, one-by-one in a bathtub. What is wrong with this picture? More like what isn't wrong?!
I guess Texas is just full of incompetent assholes. Oh ya, that's where Dubya came from. That explains everything now...
|
|
|
|
Post by purerockfury414 on Jul 26, 2006 14:14:23 GMT -5
are you saying that a sane person would drown her five children?
|
|
|
|
Post by SevereA on Jul 26, 2006 14:46:03 GMT -5
are you saying that a sane person would drown her five children? Did I say that a sane person would drown her five children? Are you saying that because she drowned her five children, she MUST be insane? |
|
|
|
Post by purerockfury414 on Jul 26, 2006 15:26:52 GMT -5
are you saying that a sane person would drown her five children? Did I say that a sane person would drown her five children? Are you saying that because she drowned her five children, she MUST be insane? Yes. How else could you explain a mother killing her 5 young children in such a manner? |
|
|
|
Post by SevereA on Jul 26, 2006 15:38:23 GMT -5
I can't. We're not talking cause and effect here. Can you explain why she did it, Dr. Rodney? What was your PhD in, again? Or are you clairvoyant?
I don't care why she did it. All I know is that she did it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sayten on Jul 26, 2006 19:15:34 GMT -5
Being a parent I can honestly say that I would have to be complety fucking wacked to harm my kids in any way....
other then the usual fart in the car and locking the window trick.....
She has a serious issues that won't get addressed in jail... what we should do is take her apart.... see what's wrong... do testing of drugs and other products that might have safety issues...subliminal ... legalize it..... turn her into a work in progress for the creation of a faster birth control device.... find out what makes people insane and sterilize them before they have the chance to be mental....
whew I can honestly say that I've had too much coffee in the past half hour....
|
|
|
|
Post by purerockfury414 on Jul 26, 2006 19:50:12 GMT -5
I can't. We're not talking cause and effect here. Can you explain why she did it, Dr. Rodney? What was your PhD in, again? Or are you clairvoyant? I don't care why she did it. All I know is that she did it. What do you mean we're not talking about cause in effect? The cause of a crime the first thing that is looked at when judgement is being decided? I don't believe one needs a PHD to figure that out...more like common sense. I don't need to gaze into my crystal ball or read tea leaves to see that what she did was horrible, and she doesn't deserve a special place in Hell. But it seems pretty obvious that her situation is very different from someone that is say a serial murderer or rapist. |
|
|
|
Post by sayten on Jul 26, 2006 20:41:52 GMT -5
What do you mean we're not talking about cause in effect? The cause of a crime the first thing that is looked at when judgement is being decided? I don't believe one needs a PHD to figure that out...more like common sense. I don't need to gaze into my crystal ball or read tea leaves to see that what she did was horrible, and she doesn't deserve a special place in Hell. But it seems pretty obvious that her situation is very different from someone that is say a serial murderer or rapist. What the hell are you arguing here? Your literacy skills completely ruin any chance you have of having an intelligible conversation! It's cause and effectCause and effect is the relationship between two things when one thing makes something else happen. She killed her children and no one on this board is saying she didn't. OK we agree on that... We all feel she should be punished and be it Jail or the insane aslyum... we all know that her life will forever be worse then ours because there is a slight glimpse of hope that she will come to the full realization of what she did some day.... The thing that makes me a little geeked is the way her husband acts... I would have broke her back and made her a quad.... still alive but forever not moving... |
|
|
|
Post by purerockfury414 on Jul 27, 2006 8:23:57 GMT -5
What do you mean we're not talking about cause in effect? The cause of a crime the first thing that is looked at when judgement is being decided? I don't believe one needs a PHD to figure that out...more like common sense. I don't need to gaze into my crystal ball or read tea leaves to see that what she did was horrible, and she doesn't deserve a special place in Hell. But it seems pretty obvious that her situation is very different from someone that is say a serial murderer or rapist. What the hell are you arguing here? Your literacy skills completely ruin any chance you have of having an intelligible conversation! It's cause and effectCause and effect is the relationship between two things when one thing makes something else happen. She killed her children and no one on this board is saying she didn't. OK we agree on that... We all feel she should be punished and be it Jail or the insane aslyum... we all know that her life will forever be worse then ours because there is a slight glimpse of hope that she will come to the full realization of what she did some day.... The thing that makes me a little geeked is the way her husband acts... I would have broke her back and made her a quad.... still alive but forever not moving... Your attempt at insulting me is only proof that you don't understand just what it is that I posted. Had you taken the time to understand what it is that I said instead of jumping the gun you would see that we are essentially saying the same thing. I wasn't on the jury and neither were either of you. I can only assume that they the jury was more qualified to judge her than we are. Cutting and pasting an article you found on the internet does not make you an expert on the case or warrant such a knee jerk reaction. It seems pretty obvious to me that she shouldn't be in a prison and instead in an institution. What you need to look at is the motive. She wasn't killing for money or power or whatever. It's completely different than someone who is a serial killer or someone who has been scheming to kill her kids. |
|
|
|
Post by scotchboy on Jul 27, 2006 10:05:26 GMT -5
Put her in the asylum until she realizes what she has done and then give her a gun to kill herself with.
|
|
|
|
Post by voxboy on Jul 27, 2006 11:12:13 GMT -5
AMEN!
|
|
dinsewistle
Junior Member
"I had a Roger Daltrey cape on..."
Posts: 90
|
Post by dinsewistle on Jul 27, 2006 12:28:41 GMT -5
Internet debates are pointless unless you cut out namecalling and clearly make your points. Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by SevereA on Jul 27, 2006 13:54:54 GMT -5
Here's what I'm trying to say:
1. I think this case warrants the death penalty. I don't care whether anyone agrees with me on this. Its my opinion and you are entitled to yours. We can agree to disagree on this issue.
2. I don't believe that insanity is an excuse for murder, but it may be a reason or mitigating circumstance. It just bothers me that people conveniently argue temporary insanity at the time of the crime. There were times in my life when I went "fucking nuts" but I never killed anyone. Maybe I punched a wall or two but was always able to retain a minuscule amount of restraint and to recognize that my actions have consequences. Unfortunately, her current state of mind wasn't at issue in the courtroom, only her state of mind when she committed the murders. Its impossible for anyone to ever know the truth. Maybe the jury got it right, but I don't agree with their verdict.
3. The argument that she must have been crazy due to the heinousness of the crime is absurd. It only shows that she is pathological, not necessarily insane. Again, we'll never know, but because these killings took more than a few minutes (she drowned the kids one at a time), and she should have been able to stop and think about what she was doing. If she was truly insane, then I guess she couldn't. She'll know when she meets her maker...
4. If a man had committed these murders, do you think he'd receive the same brand of justice? Open for debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by SevereA on Jul 27, 2006 14:16:19 GMT -5
I can't. We're not talking cause and effect here. Can you explain why she did it, Dr. Rodney? What was your PhD in, again? Or are you clairvoyant? I don't care why she did it. All I know is that she did it. What do you mean we're not talking about cause in effect? The cause of a crime the first thing that is looked at when judgment is being decided? I don't believe one needs a PHD to figure that out...more like common sense. I don't need to gaze into my crystal ball or read tea leaves to see that what she did was horrible, and she doesn't deserve a special place in Hell. But it seems pretty obvious that her situation is very different from someone that is say a serial murderer or rapist. Is it common sense that "The cause of a crime the first thing that is looked at when judgment is being decided?" "Criminal statutes spell out the exact circumstances which constitute a crime. These circumstances are known as the elements of the offense. Unless all the elements are proven by the prosecuting authority, the defendant is not guilty of the offense. There are three kinds of elements: the act itself, the actus reus, guilty act; the requisite mental state, the mens rea, guilty mind; and the attendant circumstances."In this case, apparently the prosecution did not prove the requisite mental state, or they did prove it and the jury disregarded it. Either way, she's found not guilty by reason of insanity. "it seems pretty obvious that her situation is very different from someone that is say a serial murderer or rapist."So, you think that serial murderers are not insane? There have been many documented cases of serial killers being mentally ill or insane. This is a pointless argument because, no one, not even doctors will ever TRULY know what goes on in a person's mind. It's all subjective interpretation by so-called experts. A defense team can get an expert to refute the prosecution's expert. Science hasn't yet given us the tools to determine insanity beyond interviews and observed behavior. Some day, maybe a CAT scan or MRI will show regions of the brain that indicate insanity. |
|
|
|
Post by SevereA on Jul 27, 2006 14:31:14 GMT -5
I wasn't on the jury and neither were either of you. I can only assume that they the jury was more qualified to judge her than we are. Cutting and pasting an article you found on the internet does not make you an expert on the case or warrant such a knee jerk reaction. It seems pretty obvious to me that she shouldn't be in a prison and instead in an institution. What you need to look at is the motive. She wasn't killing for money or power or whatever. It's completely different than someone who is a serial killer or someone who has been scheming to kill her kids. I feel bad for you if you assume people on a jury in Texas are more qualified to judge her than we are. ;D What makes them more qualified? They are just regular people like us: a jury of her peers. I never claimed to be an expert by copy/pasting the article. I was expressing my outrage over the verdict. I think that is a warranted knee-jerk reaction. So, motive is how we differentiate between people who kill for certain reasons and others who kill due to "insanity." True, however motive is not an element of the crime. It helps the prosecution to show it, but its not necessary to prove guilt. At the end of the day, she killed the kids. I hope she never gets out of the maximum security mental institution she's been sentenced to. |
|
|
|
Post by purerockfury414 on Jul 27, 2006 15:07:21 GMT -5
So, you think that serial murderers are not insane? There have been many documented cases of serial killers being mentally ill or insane. This is a pointless argument because, no one, not even doctors will ever TRULY know what goes on in a person's mind. It's all subjective interpretation by so-called experts. A defense team can get an expert to refute the prosecution's expert. Science hasn't yet given us the tools to determine insanity beyond interviews and observed behavior. Some day, maybe a CAT scan or MRI will show regions of the brain that indicate insanity. What you're arguing is semantics. No one truely knows what is going on in someone's head at anytime. But that doesn't mean that educated guesses can't be made about her mental state. You're posing an argument on the validity of any sort or expert wittness in any insanity case. Can you imagine what the courts would be like if it mearly came down to a he said/ she said sort of system? What makes them more qualified? They are just regular people like us: a jury of her peers. [/quote] They are more qualified because they sat in an listened to the case rather than just reading an article about it on the internet. [/quote] So, motive is how we differentiate between people who kill for certain reasons and others who kill due to "insanity." True, however motive is not an element of the crime. It helps the prosecution to show it, but its not necessary to prove guilt. [/quote] It was in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by SevereA on Jul 27, 2006 15:23:13 GMT -5
What you're arguing is semantics. No one truely knows what is going on in someone's head at anytime. But that doesn't mean that educated guesses can't be made about her mental state. You're posing an argument on the validity of any sort or expert wittness in any insanity case. Can you imagine what the courts would be like if it mearly came down to a he said/ she said sort of system? Verdicts are to be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not educated guesses. Trials essentially are he said/she said. Both the prosecution and defense tell their stories. I'm not posing an argument on the validity of any sort or expert wittness in any insanity case, I am simply stating that for every expert opinion, there is another opinion that refutes it. What makes them more qualified? They are just regular people like us: a jury of her peers.
They are more qualified because they sat in an listened to the case rather than just reading an article about it on the internet.
Anyone is qualified to have an opinion about the case. The jury sat and heard the entire case, making them more qualified to render a verdict in this case only. Please use the spell checker. |
|
|
|
Post by sayten on Jul 27, 2006 18:39:38 GMT -5
Your attempt at insulting me is only proof that you don't understand just what it is that I posted. no shit..... that seems to be the going consensus |
|
|
|
Post by purerockfury414 on Jul 28, 2006 8:18:29 GMT -5
What you're arguing is semantics. No one truely knows what is going on in someone's head at anytime. But that doesn't mean that educated guesses can't be made about her mental state. You're posing an argument on the validity of any sort or expert wittness in any insanity case. Can you imagine what the courts would be like if it mearly came down to a he said/ she said sort of system? Verdicts are to be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not educated guesses. Trials essentially are he said/she said. Both the prosecution and defense tell their stories. I'm not posing an argument on the validity of any sort or expert wittness in any insanity case, I am simply stating that for every expert opinion, there is another opinion that refutes it. What makes them more qualified? They are just regular people like us: a jury of her peers.
They are more qualified because they sat in an listened to the case rather than just reading an article about it on the internet.
Anyone is qualified to have an opinion about the case. The jury sat and heard the entire case, making them more qualified to render a verdict in this case only. Please use the spell checker. Again what you are arguing is the very basis of having expert witnesses, which is foolish. Based on this logic how are verdicts to be rendered in extraordinary cases such as this? Perhaps instead of using logic it should be based solely off of feelings....which are what you have already done. You can argue your opinion until the cows come home, but until you have all of the facts you are not able to make a rational decision about this case. I mean to think that you are in the know because you read something off of the internet, as opposed to a jury who sat in the court room and listened to both sides of the case is preposterous. Please use your brain |
|
|
|
Post by purerockfury414 on Jul 28, 2006 8:19:01 GMT -5
Your attempt at insulting me is only proof that you don't understand just what it is that I posted. no shit..... that seems to be the going consensus Nice argument.  |
|
miket
Board Rookie
Posts: 26
|
Post by miket on Jul 28, 2006 10:13:14 GMT -5
Wether she is nuts or not (I assume she is), I think she should get the chair!!!
Im soooo fucking tired of hearing how innocent children are being harmed in this world and not jack shit is being done about it.
Just my 2 cents...have fun with pure rock!
|
|
|
|
Post by SevereA on Jul 28, 2006 12:08:41 GMT -5
Verdicts are to be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not educated guesses. Trials essentially are he said/she said. Both the prosecution and defense tell their stories. I'm not posing an argument on the validity of any sort or expert witness in any insanity case, I am simply stating that for every expert opinion, there is another opinion that refutes it. What makes them more qualified? They are just regular people like us: a jury of her peers.
They are more qualified because they sat in an listened to the case rather than just reading an article about it on the internet.
Anyone is qualified to have an opinion about the case. The jury sat and heard the entire case, making them more qualified to render a verdict in this case only. Please use the spell checker. Again what you are arguing is the very basis of having expert witnesses, which is foolish. Based on this logic how are verdicts to be rendered in extraordinary cases such as this? Perhaps instead of using logic it should be based solely off of feelings....which are what you have already done. You can argue your opinion until the cows come home, but until you have all of the facts you are not able to make a rational decision about this case. I mean to think that you are in the know because you read something off of the internet, as opposed to a jury who sat in the court room and listened to both sides of the case is preposterous. Please use your brain I don't know that the fuck you're talking about. Apparently, you just read through my posts and interpret them into twisted ideas and attempt to make an argument against them. You need to read more carefully, think about what it is you're responding to, and definitely learn some grammar skills. Let's break down your latest bullshit response to my comments to demonstrate how inept you are at making a logical argument: You: Again what you are arguing is the very basis of having expert witnesses, which is foolish. Based on this logic how are verdicts to be rendered in extraordinary cases such as this? Perhaps instead of using logic it should be based solely off of feelings....which are what you have already done.
Me: I'm not posing an argument on the validity of any sort or expert wittiness in any insanity case, I am simply stating that for every expert opinion, there is another opinion that refutes it.Did I not say that I AM NOT arguing either way on expert testimony? I said "that for every expert opinion, there is another opinion that refutes it." Your idea of basing verdicts on feelings is your own twisted thinking. I didn't mention it, you did. Your grammar: which are what you have already done. Can you see the problem with your sentence construction? The verb should be "is," not "are." You: You can argue your opinion until the cows come home, but until you have all of the facts you are not able to make a rational decision about this case. I mean to think that you are in the know because you read something off of the internet, as opposed to a jury who sat in the court room and listened to both sides of the case is preposterous.
Me: Anyone is qualified to have an opinion about the case. The jury sat and heard the entire case, making them more qualified to render a verdict in this case only.
What I read off the internet is fact, it came from reliable news sources. Either way, your response to my previous comment is "preposterous." I never said anything about making a rational decision about this case. Its ALL opinion, even YOUR comments. At the end of the day, it matters not what we think, the jury's verdict has been reached, and we are now discussing our opinions about the case. What qualifications does one need to debate this case? Because we weren't inside the courtroom, we can't debate this? Following this logic, any news report cannot be debated because we weren't there to witness it first hand.  Perhaps we should continue this conversation in private emails so we don't have to continue this useless debate in front of an audience. After reading through this, I definitely sound like an asshole. We both do. So, after insulting you publicly, I make my apology now, but I will not retract my previous comments. Opinios are like assholes, everybody has one. Like it or not... |
|
|
|
Post by purerockfury414 on Jul 28, 2006 13:06:47 GMT -5
There is no need to be so combative. I'm trying to have a discussion with you.
Every one of your posts has been based off of feelings rather than facts. Let's take a look at a few of your previous posts
Your idea of basing verdicts on feelings is your own twisted thinking. I didn't mention it, you did.
I'm sorry, but this case cries out for justice, not compassion
Your words not mine.
What I read off the internet is fact, it came from reliable news sources.
I'm sure I could produce a few "experts" to refute that.
What qualifications does one need to debate this case? Because we weren't inside the courtroom, we can't debate this? Following this logic, any news report cannot be debated because we weren't there to witness it first hand.
One doesn't need qualifications to debate a case. Although a cool head and a few rational thoughts from the other parties would be nice. Statements such as
I guess Texas is just full of incompetent assholes. Oh ya, that's where Dubya came from. That explains everything now...
or
Can you explain why she did it, Dr. Rodney? What was your PhD in, again? Or are you clairvoyant?
Aren't the greatest ways to try to get your point across.
There is nothing wrong with debating these things even though one wasn't there first hand to witness it. Obviously you feel very strongly about why she should be sent to prison or executed. But from your posts this is all based off of the fact that you believe that the defense of using insanity as a defense is a cop out, which I believe otherwise.
I'm perfectly willing to keep debating this in public. It's probably the most interesting thing on this board.
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by sayten on Jul 28, 2006 18:26:53 GMT -5
sweet mary mother of free time....
|
|
|
|
Post by scotchboy on Jul 29, 2006 1:47:14 GMT -5
I'm perfectly willing to keep debating this in public. It's probably the most interesting thing on this board. ;D It was the most interesting thing on this board.....  |
|
|
|
Post by SevereA on Jul 29, 2006 10:59:27 GMT -5
That's shitty.
|
|
|
|
Post by purerockfury414 on Aug 1, 2006 11:25:33 GMT -5
do you have any evidence of that?  |
|
|
|
Post by powerpipes1 on Aug 1, 2006 17:10:41 GMT -5
magics got a point . i can make a mean ass biscuit outta " little debbies" brownies. they look and feel just like feces. thou ,you said "shitt-y" not shit, so its a draw... (i think)
|
|
