And...as I was going to post before getting booted by a credit card purchase....was that our Justice is the engine that is making sure she is being held responsible, not society. Mark those words, it's one of the very few times I agree with the punishment of the justice system:-) tHE majority of society, or what the liberal media wants us to see, does NOT agree with the legal case in this situation and that is just sad. I agree with the death penalty is the most severe cases and this is one of those cases. This woman has no room in our society. She has deemed herself weak and has chosen to not be a part of our society. WE said that killing your own children is illegal and punishable by law and she chose to ignore that...5 TIMES... sHE can never be part of the progress of this society and we have no room for her here.

Would you feel better if the media advocated for her to be dragged out in the streets and strung up from a tree?

Maybe penalizing her with upmost extreme punishment will prvent similar incidents, maybe more attention will be paid to women's mental health issues and prevention/intervention, maybe just maybe it will let potential criminals know that if you decide to kill your children you better be ready to accept the consequences.

I just can't figure out why you have a problem with the woman getting a good defense. Death penalty cases are expensive. They are round the clock. A good lawyer has no time for any other case in his or her practice if their client is facing the death penalty. If you want to execute somebody, then the least you can do is avail her of a decent lawyer.

Would you rather the State pay all of her defense expenses? I.e., taxpayers like you who want her dead? A good alternative to that unconscionable demand on the public is to solicit private donations.

I will openly admit it, in this particular case I AM unfeeling. I have no sympathy and I especially have NO empathy for this woman. I cannot feel anything but total disgust and utter opposition for this womans existence. That may sound strong and harsh, and albeit, I do not feel this way about every situation...because I don't, this is an exception. I just cannot and will not accept this woman's behaviour and her actions with or without a mental illness. I cannot, in good conscience, support this womans well being and existence at all. She is the epitomy of true evil in my eyes. A mother is one of the most sacred individuals in this society and it sickens me that she could ever consider herself a mother.

Fortunately, a statement such as that would keep you off her jury as surely as one that precluded you from implementing the death penalty. You've admitted that you lack objectivism. Your hatred is obvious. That leaves little capacity for reason. Enjoy the dark. Keep those eyes closed real tight.

~Gene Harrogate

I am glad I am not a member of that jury. I would NOT want to be on that jury. It would not be FAIR if I were on that jury. Also, I resent the statement you made saying I lacked objectivism. I can be objective and usually am; this case being an exception.

I HATE no one. HATE is a very strong word and I, personally, do not like it. I will say that I do hate what that woman did. I HATE HER ACTIONS. And, quite frankly, if living in the dark means that I stick to my morals and values, then so be it...turn out the lights. I'd rather be in the dark than be a person who condones murdering children.

I'm glad to have this opportunity to help you understand how the system works. Since she is accused of committing a felony, it will be the state who represents the victims. And I assure you that the state has considerably more funds at its disposal for her prosecution than she will have for her defense.

Crazy or sane, her actions are punishable by death and I hope and pray she gets it.

That's not quite true though. As I've posted before, we have a long history of taking into account the mental state of individuals when assessing punishment for crimes. I'm sorry you don't like that, but it is how things are done in the United States.

She doesn't any more. hehehehehehehehe

I agree that everyone is repsonsible for their own actions, but I also think that we're all responsible for everyone else, and if we refuse that responsibility (as we always do) we pay for it by the world that we live in.

I always think of that passage from Dickens' Christmas Carol:
`Oh, Man. look here. Look, look, down here.' exclaimed the Ghost. They were a boy and a girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched, and twisted them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat enthroned, devils lurked, and glared out menacing. No change, no degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and dread.
Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.
`Spirit. are they yours.' Scrooge could say no more.
`They are Man's,' said the Spirit, looking down upon them. `And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it.' cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city.

Throughout history, people (and more importantly) governments and corporations have rarely been held accountable for their actions. Usually they are rewarded with power and financial gain: slaughtering indigenous people, enslaving Africans, bombing civilians, financing dictators, explointing land and people for profit, polluting. The crimes of history are so easily forgotten.

According to Steven Fox, three or more in a single incident makes the person a MASS MURDERER.

That's what Mrs. Andrea Yates actually is, man.

She's a mass murderer.

The only defense to a cut and dry case like this one is 'under age' or insanity. She is 35 and she is CLEARLY not insane. Does she have a problem with her condition? YES.

But did that condition make her insane? I doubt it.

And after killing five people, Andrea Yates can be and IS considered extremely dangerous to society, and fully culpable for her acts. Keep in mind that somewhere out there might be another woman who is considering the exact same crime, and if so, then her execution MIGHT provide a deterrent.

But even if it does not, all Texas has done is executed a heinous killer. Big deal. Good riddance.

People made a huge stink of Susan Smith's crime. This woman killed more than TWICE as many kids as Susan Smith did. Andrea Yates made Susan Smith look like a schoolgirl.

Andrea killed FIVE CHILDREN. It doesn't get much worse than that.

The good news IS that you will see VERY FEW Andrea Yates in your lifetimes. Females don't commit much murder in ANY society.

One poster made a good point in that we have not yet seen the trial, so we don't really KNOW what happened. But my prediction is that she will be shown as very much SANE by her actions leading up to.. and after.. the crime, and she will be sentenced to death. She chose the WORST state to do that crime and the WORST COUNTY in that state to do that crime.

My guess is that Andrea Yates will eventually die by lethal injection, probably within ten years.

And if her execution deterrs even ONE woman out there, then it was worth doing for society. The real paradigm is 'how can we save the most lives?' Clearly, executing heinous killers saves lives. They kill other inmates, and guards, and visitors, and they also ESCAPE and kill even MORE innocent people.

You are wasting your time. You cannot teach people to think. Certain people only react. They are governed by their emotions, not by their intellect.

This is why, when challenged, they respond with opprobrious insults and invective. "Gene is an ass..." etc. The most telling characteristic of the conservatives who post on this board is their anger. They are always spewing bile about how pissed off and outraged they are. And if you say the slightest thing to challenge them, they assume they're being attacked and lob their whole arsenal of dirty names at you.

I have conservative friends who can actually engage in rational dialogue without pitching a hissy fit. So they're out there. They're just not here.

Cheers,

Hmm...I could REACT to the statements or allegations you made but then I'd be overgeneralizing and that's more of your forte. I'm a more Proactive, rather than Reactive, woman.

I never called anyone a name. I welcome arguement, I don't get "pissy." I can actually engage in rational dialogue without pitching a hissy fit. I don't have to resort to name calling and be littleing and overgeneralizing...which could be defined as being prejudice by the liberals....uh-oh!Just kidding.... It wouldn't be any fun if we all agree'd, now would it? How boring this place would be?! But what's even worse is when people cannot deal with opposition to their beliefs and resort to classifying everyone based on their own narrow view.

You generously acknowledge that there are "real" mentally ill people. That would seem to suggest that you think there are instances where criminal acts are not a result of an evil person, but of a sick mind.

As for your assessment of this case, I would like to know how you arrived at your diagnosis. To me, drowning five of your own childred is indicative of mental illness, not malice. Recall that the father of these children, someone whom I suspect feels this loss a good deal more than you and who likely is in a better position to assess the woman's mental state, does not feel that the act was one of murder, but a result of mental illness. Please explain what information you have that would indicate otherwise.

~Gene Harrogate

On this particular interview the husband remarked that the woman had acted "strangely" after the birth of their SECOND child and she didn't seem to get "completely better." The woman had made comments to family members and friends way before the incident that she wasn't feeling like "herself" and she was feeling moments where she waas "out of control." SO, I conclude that she knew she had a problem before the inicident took place. She knew she needed help and she chose to do nothing about it. You could say "well, she clearly made cries for help to her family, friends, and to her own husband. Why didn't they do anything to help her?" My comment to that would be in a perfect world they would have helped her. She made cries for help, she is the only person she can count on. So when she made no attempt to seek outside help, she, in essence, decided that placing her own children in severe danger was less important than what others perceived of her. She made that decision knowing that there were risks, she put her children in danger and she should be held responsible for that decision.

Interesting that you don't blame him as well. Does this make him an accessory? What about the other family members?

So when she made no attempt to seek outside help, she, in essence, decided that placing her own children in severe danger was less important than what others perceived of her.

Again, I take it you've never been around someone who's completely lost their shit. You assume that she had the mental faculties to reason -- something not supported by her actions. Is all human action decided? Particulary those decisions that result in a lack of action rather than an action? To me, there's a fair amount of evidence to suggest that she was mentally ill, including the statements you reference. I have yet to hear anyone (aside from yourself) suggest that she was capable of reasonable thought at the time.

And I haven't seen anything presented by anybody to suggest that this was a crime of malice. Hell, even by your reasoning it's a crime of negligence. Should someone who's parked car rolls down a hill and kills children at a bus stop be treated the same as someone who intentionally runs down school children? Is negligence the same?

It's easier for him to accept she is crazy than to believe the woman he chose to marry could ever be sanely capable of committing such a haneous and unthinkable act.

And yet it's easier for you, someone who has never met her, to assess her mental state, her ability to reason? What he accepts is based on his personal experience with her for many years. What you have selected to believe is based on unfounded prejudice.

I bet Susan Smith's husband could offer him a little advice.

I really don't think Susan Smith is in the same ballpark with this case. There are a significant number of factors that are different (not the least of which that she lied to cover up the event). Perhaps the only coincidence is that they both killed their children by drowning. It would seem that for you, this is reason enough to paint them with the same brush.

But fortunately, our justice system is not founded on such muddy thinking. Our courts weigh each case seperately, and the 8th Amendment to our Constitution prescribes compassion when determining punishment. They take into account motive, and state of mind. It's unfortunate that you don't see the wisdom of this.

Finally, let me say that it is very shortsighted to think that all bad events involving humans can be traced to an individual's faults, or that all fault is compelled by intentional evil. As my friend The Idiot admonished in his post to JJJ, "Making sweeping generalizations makes the world easier to navigate, but it doesn't really explain anything, or come closer to finding answers."

So you go ahead and hate the sinner instead of the sin. It will make your world and the people in it so much easier to judge. And isn't judging people really what it's all about for you? Then you don't have to think very hard at all. There are simply good people and bad people. Black and white. Sure, it's lazy thinking. But it's easy.

I thought she had been under treatment previously?

I really feel for those kids. Especially the eldest, Noah, he KNEW what was happening to him.

It's a pity that narrowminded halfwits out there scream 'toast her!' when they don't see the real problem.

Instead of bigger prisons, more executions, & more 'legal costs', put the money into finding cures for mental illness or at the very least some sort of monitoring of 'at risk' children so wisely left in the care of 'god-fearing but completely whacked parents'.

There are all kinds of these kids around here.
Say, those babies in Blount county comes to mind. (By babies, I mean both the mother & the child she left for dead.)

one must mock effectively those who he considers not as cool as himself....

hence his attacks on me.

He HAS NO real abilility to debate a social issue, and he counts on his acidic wit to destroy a poster.

He probably thinks that if he can insult someone enough, then they'll leave and he can claim triumph. But when faced with a serious adversary, such as I, all he can do is look increasingly frustrated...

Coming from the likes of you, that's a compliment.