Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Andrea Yates Not Guilty Of Killing Her Children


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Heretic Monkey

Heretic Monkey

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NCSU
  • Local time:08:33 PM

Posted 26 July 2006 - 12:20 PM

I want to know what the general opinion of the members of these forums is regarding the case of Andrea Yates drowning her 5 children. I admit that i haven't been following it that closely, but i have been catching bits and pieces for about 4 years.

Apparently, Yates drowned her children (all appeared to be under the age of 6), then claimed that there was a voice in her head telling her to do it. I've heard that she thinks it was god, satan, or just some random evil spirits telling her to do the act.

So, the jury deliberated, and after 2 trials (first was a mis-trial), she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Apparently, the jury thought that it wasn't her fault taht she killed them, and she didn't understand what she was doing......... interesting......

Now, i don't claim to know wtf is going on in the judicial system, and i don't really care about all the technicalities regarding law.... i just think it's !#@*%(! up that this chick gets to spend a few years in a mental institution instead of going to jail. Even worse is that fact that she was found "not guilty" of killing her children.

Me, personally, i don't care how "insane" you are, or how much you claim to have no idea what's going on at the time of the crime. If you do something, you should have to face up to the consequences. Just because they're supposedly insane doesn't mean they shouldn't be held responsible. Hell, that means a lot of people could plead insanity, regardless of their true mental state, and still be able to get away with it.

So, i'm stating that my official opinion is, as Penn and Teller love to say, BULLS***. Both to the Yates case and the general "insanity plea".

Edited by Heretic Monkey, 26 July 2006 - 08:01 PM.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 mooniniteman

mooniniteman

  • Members
  • 226 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:33 PM

Posted 26 July 2006 - 08:09 PM

Dude.... All I can say is.. ******* A!!!

Edited by Scarlett, 24 September 2006 - 10:29 AM.


#3 seafox14

seafox14

  • Members
  • 266 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Bossier City, Louisiana
  • Local time:06:33 PM

Posted 26 July 2006 - 10:43 PM

Got to agree with you on this one Heretic (scary huh? :thumbsup: ). The insanity plea is definitely being abused in this case. At the very least she should get life in a mental ward with no chance of release. I know that you may be asking "Where is the christian forgiveness here?" I'll tell you. I have forgiven her, but God, even though He forgives us, does require that we face the consequences of our actions in this life (isn't it just like a father?). This applies to all people without exception (though sometimes the other side cheats).


Seafox14
5 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Donít be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world

#4 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:07:33 PM

Posted 27 July 2006 - 12:22 AM

Since I did not sit on the jury and hear all the testimony or partake in its discussions to arrive at the verdict, I think it would be absurd to venture an opinion about it. They were certainly following the law instructions as provided by the judge, so if one has qualms about this verdict, it is the law itself that should be questioned.
I only note in passing that her husband, who has divorced her, thought the verdict was just.
Regards,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#5 Heretic Monkey

Heretic Monkey
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NCSU
  • Local time:08:33 PM

Posted 27 July 2006 - 12:47 AM

It's not so much the verdict, but the general idea of the insanity plea that i disagree with. I'm sure thousands of people have played the insanity card before, and succeeded in receiving a MUCH more lenient sentance than someone not "insane" would've gotten.

Even if people AREN'T merely using the "i'm insane and i didn't know what i was doing *snicker*" defense, why should insane criminals be treated any differently than "normal" criminals. Sure, they may need different living arrangements, but the sentence should NOT be shortened, and they definately should NOT be pitied for their "mental condition". I'm all for giving equal rights to people, and if some need special arrangements/treatments to get by, that's fine with me. But even if truly disturbed individuals break the law, especially something so serious as multiple murders, the "special treatment" should be immediately revoked.

#6 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:07:33 PM

Posted 27 July 2006 - 12:58 AM

Law in these cases assumes that only free agents are culpable and therefore punishable. As Aristotle noted---and here he follows the Platonic maxim--- no one willingly does what one thinks is morally evil.
One can, therefore, take a life if one is under physical compulsion (a case of self-defence or threat thereof) and, by the same token- - - and to the extent to which mental deficiencies or illnesses prevent the owner making a free decision- - - the law provides for treatment rather than punishment.
Cheers,
John

Edited by jgweed, 31 July 2006 - 03:37 AM.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#7 mooniniteman

mooniniteman

  • Members
  • 226 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:33 PM

Posted 27 July 2006 - 09:23 AM

Once more, It's the whole idea of "insanity" and the forgiveness thing, this aint about forgiveness, it's about how an "insane" person can twist the legal system in order to get out of, or at least shorten the sentence. It's funny cuz the Yates thing is on TV right now lol

Edited by mooniniteman, 27 July 2006 - 09:25 AM.


#8 boopme

boopme

    To Insanity and Beyond


  • Global Moderator
  • 73,058 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ USA
  • Local time:08:33 PM

Posted 27 July 2006 - 10:26 AM

I can see the application of the "insanity " defense if the person truly warrants it. Say ..as in a person with severe Down's Syndrome. They could say, push you off a ledge killing you, yet are oblivious to the conseqences. I believe an instance as this comes under the plea umbrella. Because this person was and always will be in that state. If the Yates woman became isnane prior to the acts but now is no longer in the condition,I feel the plea is as HM said wrong. First of all you don't just slowly and methodically commit 5 heinous murders then call the police.That shows she knew she did wrong. Especially if they are children and doubly if they are yours. When she was shown the clothing of those infants she was moved and that means she knew she did wrong. There needs to be some adjustment to this Plea.. She's no longer out of contact with reality if she ever was. But as with OJ , the jury has ruled and I wasn't there so I must accept it's verdict.
How do I get help? Who is helping me?For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear....Become a BleepingComputer fan: Facebook

#9 mooniniteman

mooniniteman

  • Members
  • 226 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:33 PM

Posted 27 July 2006 - 11:34 AM

And THAT is the sad truth.... *gasp* dont look now it's Andrea Yates>>>> :thumbsup: lol

#10 seafox14

seafox14

  • Members
  • 266 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Bossier City, Louisiana
  • Local time:06:33 PM

Posted 29 July 2006 - 07:39 AM

Law in these cases assumes that only free agents are culpable and therefore punishable. As Aristotle noted, no one willingly does what one thinks is morally evil.



Which is why I have said that one of the biggest scourges of the modern era is Moral Relativism. The destruction of solid moral values in society have led to increases in aberrant behavior because of the "If it works for you,do it" mentality. Cases in point: The attempts to legalize pedophilia (the ACLU is representing the N.A.M.B.L.A group), attempts to legalize having more that one spouse, the attempt to legalize many illegal drugs..... To quote the song "and the beat goes on..."

Moral Relativism and Situational Ethics, if left unchecked, will destroy society as we know it.

Seafox14
5 So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual immorality, impurity, lust, and evil desires. Donít be greedy, for a greedy person is an idolater, worshiping the things of this world

#11 no one

no one

  • Members
  • 843 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:PCLinuxOS Land
  • Local time:07:33 PM

Posted 29 July 2006 - 12:19 PM

Allow me to input my 2 cents
I think the premise for the Yates "Event" is that "You would have to be :thumbsup: crazy to do that" as that most people (certianly I) would like to think so anyways. I guess it would be easier than having to ask yourself if you could consider the existence of Demonic Possession, a prospect almost too horrific to even acknowledge for most, even though it's mentioned in the Bible. or the fact that a human being who walked among you could have done such a truly malevolent act. "Crazy" is what you call someone when you don't want to consider that the Devil or true evil exist. I have always been a proponent for the death sentence in some cases( how very Old Testament of me), even though it clashes with some of the teachings of the New Testament. Should she be locked up for life? You betcha ! But I'd go with the "Asylum" over prison in this case as it would be less costly to the tax payers of Texas I believe, and just as effective in this case. JMHO.

something I wrote awhile back

I have awakened, and its Hell I do see
Hatred encouraged, on you and on me
Kill each other, Sister, Brother and Child
Kill them with poison, bathtubs and with cars
Show no remorse or weep if you want
Put on a good show, you're on TV you know
b*tch if you want to ,moan if you must
Scream if you want to, It's you we should trust
You weren't in your right mind ,must been in your left
You killed cause you're Crazy
Lets make sure it's your last

Edited by no one, 29 July 2006 - 04:39 PM.

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster"

Posted Image


#12 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:07:33 PM

Posted 31 July 2006 - 03:35 AM

Which is why I have said that one of the biggest scourges of the modern era is Moral Relativism. The destruction of solid moral values in society have led to increases in aberrant behavior because of the "If it works for you,do it" mentality. Cases in point: The attempts to legalize pedophilia (the ACLU is representing the N.A.M.B.L.A group), attempts to legalize having more that one spouse, the attempt to legalize many illegal drugs....


I thought some time about this argument, and have a few comments to make about it, for I am not sure precisely what is meant, and whether it is completely valid.
l
I wonder, which is more beneficial to society, a Moral Relativists (whatever that implies) or a Moral Absolutist. It see seems to be that someone who believes moral values not to be absolute would be more open to discussing the basis of morality and certainly more willing to allow others the freedom of belief in differing values than would someone who dogmatically held that one set of values (naturally his very own) was absolutely true. In which kind of society would the peaceful arts, science, and the advancement of mankind flourish more? A rhetorical question, at least on my part.

The "destruction of solid moral values" (read: those I believe in)" ...have led to increases in aberrant behavior...." This appears to argue that a MR would not be able to have "solid" moral values even though he did not think they were written in stone (as it were). I am not so sure this is the case, since I know many people who could be classified as MR, but who take their morality quite seriously, and perhaps MORE seriously than MAs. For example, Sartre certainly believes (Being and Nothingness, or read his translator, Hazel Barnes's An Existentialist Ethics) that knowing the one chooses one's morality implies the responsibility of choosing that morality for all men.

Then, too, one wonders if the "destruction" of SOLID moral values is a CAUSE or is a SYMPTOM of something else, perhaps more profound, that is happening in society.

Again, I am not sure what "aberrant behavior" is, outside of the definition of not adhering to the normal, or how moral relativism contributes to its increase.
If it did, then one would expect to find the absence of "aberrant behavior" in any highly ethically structured society, which is contrary to the history of mankind. Even in the Middle Ages, which is as close to a morally unified society as I can think of off hand, aberrancy certainly did not disappear; quite the contrary- - - and despite all the attempts to inforce a common standard upon all by church and state.
If one were perhaps talking about "ethical aberrancy" then surely any society dominated by Moral Relativism, aberrancy would actually decrease, because there would be no accepted (or imposed from above) standard against which to measure it, against which to "go astray." Perhaps the the word "aberrant" is not the best choice here, since one could certainly argue that - - -at least in some areas of human endeavor---"marching to a different drummer" has been a powerful agent in the advancement of humanity. Gluck, Beethoven, and Stravinski composed aberrant music in their time. Galileo or Bruno thought as "differently" in matters of science as did Luther in matters of religion. Consider the history of mankind, and the the majority of people whom we admire may fairly be said to be those who swam against the current of their milieu.

And what of the examples provided? Do these support the conclusion?
The ACLU is indeed representing NAMBLA, but only in matters of freedom of speech; certainly the ACLU is NOT attempting to legalise pedophilia, but wishes to protect (even) the NAMBLA's legal rights under the Constitution.
I am not certain WHO is attempting to legalise having more than one spouse, perhaps it comes from Biblical literalists who point out the many of God's chosen had, at least if one looks to the Old Testament, more than one wife. Again, there is indeed a movement to legalise (or perhaps more precisely to regulate) the use of certain drugs; most of these attempts, however, set limits (for example, to those with medical needs and approved by a physician). But all three of these examples, strictly speaking, are legal in nature; and law- - -unless you live in a totalitarian or Talibanized country---has never been shackled to morality and survived for any length of time (Nazi jurisprudence, for a more modern example).

Regards,
John

Edited by jgweed, 31 July 2006 - 04:13 AM.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users