Yates found not-guilty, insane

[Black Dog]

Andrea Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity Wednesday in her second murder trial for the bathtub drownings of her young children.

Too bad they aren't locking up the husband as well.

[Charles Anthony]

Whether she is actually mentally ill or not and whether she knew her actions were wrong or not, it is a good thing that she is locked away.

Too bad they aren't locking up the husband as well.

What crime has he committed beyond a shadow of a doubt? The article cited refers to no hint of culpability on his part.

Too bad they are not locking up the neighbors across the street or the milkman or whoever .....

[Black Dog]

What crime has he committed beyond a shadow of a doubt? The article cited refers to no hint of culpability on his part.

The background to this is that the husband, Russell, ignored numerous and obvious signs of her deteriorating mental health and engaged in behaviour that undoubtebly excrabated her already severe mental problems. So while he may not be criminally esponsible for drowning the kids, he shoudl syill bear a measure of the blame.

[Charles Anthony]

What you are suggesting is not reasonable.

The background to this is that the husband, Russell, ignored numerous and obvious signs of her deteriorating mental health

In fact, the article suggested that she was hospitalized before and released more than once.

and engaged in behaviour that undoubtebly excrabated her already severe mental problems. So while he may not be criminally esponsible for drowning the kids, he shoudl syill bear a measure of the blame.

I will not dispute the possibility that he could have exacerbated her state and thus, contributed to the murders. However, how in the world could he be assigned blame in a court of law? That will never happen.

I will take your point of view a step further and dispute his level of responsibility. I can not speak about her jurisdiction but where I live, somebody must attempt a criminal act before they are incarcerated. Mentally ill people can refuse treatment.

You said "ignored numerous and obvious signs" but what should he have done? Called the "authorities" to get her committed? Remember, the prosecution tried to PROVE that she was guilty of murder and DISPROVE that she was insane. Unfortunately, your method of attributing responsibility to the husband puts him in a catch-22 and is not practical.

[Black Dog]

I will not dispute the possibility that he could have exacerbated her state and thus, contributed to the murders. However, how in the world could he be assigned blame in a court of law? That will never happen.

I'm not saying it should, but merely engaging in wishful thinking for this one case. From everything I've read about this case, the guy is a scumbag.

[Charles Anthony]

I will not dispute the possibility that he could have exacerbated her state and thus, contributed to the murders. However, how in the world could he be assigned blame in a court of law? That will never happen.

I'm not saying it should, but merely engaging in wishful thinking for this one case.

In that case, I understand.

However, I will still play the devil's advocate and err on the side of due process. I honestly prefer letting criminal scumbags free than condemning people without beyond-shadow-of-a-doubt evidence.

[Wilber]

However, I will still play the devil's advocate and err on the side of due process. I honestly prefer letting criminal scumbags free than condemning people without beyond-shadow-of-a-doubt evidence.

I believe the legal test is "reasonable doubt". Lets hope it never becomes "a shadow of a doubt".

[margrace]

You know evertime I hear this story I think back to my mother's anger. Sometime around the late 1940's or early fifties there was a young woman in Toronto who hung her children, I am not sure if there was five or not, on the clothesline in the basement. I believe one or two survived but I am not sure.

This young woman went to prison for murdering her children and eventually she was let out on weekends to visit her husband. He got her pregnant. My mother was so angry she wanted to go down and strangle that man herself.

It always takes two.

[geoffrey]

What crime has he committed beyond a shadow of a doubt? The article cited refers to no hint of culpability on his part.

The background to this is that the husband, Russell, ignored numerous and obvious signs of her deteriorating mental health and engaged in behaviour that undoubtebly excrabated her already severe mental problems. So while he may not be criminally esponsible for drowning the kids, he shoudl syill bear a measure of the blame.

At the end of the day, the person that actually did the action needs to be punished. It is their ultimate responsibility. It's a dangerous concept to say other people can be responsible for criminal behavoir, are you and I responsible (to the point where we need to take blame) for the burgler breaking into our house because we have stuff to steal?

[Black Dog]

At the end of the day, the person that actually did the action needs to be punished. It is their ultimate responsibility. It's a dangerous concept to say other people can be responsible for criminal behavoir, are you and I responsible (to the point where we need to take blame) for the burgler breaking into our house because we have stuff to steal?

I would expect his actions would fall under the category of criminal negligence. This is a man, after all, who knew his wife was depressed and suicidal, yet took he roff her meds just to get her pregnant again. To apply your analogy, he didn't commit he burglary, but he left the door unlocked.

[FTA Lawyer]

What crime has he committed beyond a shadow of a doubt? The article cited refers to no hint of culpability on his part.

The background to this is that the husband, Russell, ignored numerous and obvious signs of her deteriorating mental health and engaged in behaviour that undoubtebly excrabated her already severe mental problems. So while he may not be criminally esponsible for drowning the kids, he shoudl syill bear a measure of the blame.

At the end of the day, the person that actually did the action needs to be punished. It is their ultimate responsibility. It's a dangerous concept to say other people can be responsible for criminal behavoir, are you and I responsible (to the point where we need to take blame) for the burgler breaking into our house because we have stuff to steal?

On a quasi-documentary of this case last night on tv (sorry missed the network and name of show...just caught a bit of it while wife was watching) it was reported that her doctor told the husband that she was not safe to be left alone with the children...he figured that an hour or so couldn't hurt.

That's getting pretty close to criminal negligence if you ask me.

But it's kind of starnge to me...are we only debating the possible culpability of the husband because we are left with a bad taste in our mouth about the fact that she has been found not guilty by reason of insanity (i.e. is our thirst for vengence unquenched by that verdict so we're looking to lay the blame on someone else?

FTA

[geoffrey]

At the end of the day, the person that actually did the action needs to be punished. It is their ultimate responsibility. It's a dangerous concept to say other people can be responsible for criminal behavoir, are you and I responsible (to the point where we need to take blame) for the burgler breaking into our house because we have stuff to steal?

I would expect his actions would fall under the category of criminal negligence. This is a man, after all, who knew his wife was depressed and suicidal, yet took he roff her meds just to get her pregnant again. To apply your analogy, he didn't commit he burglary, but he left the door unlocked.

I didn't know those details, my apologies, it was very negligent of the husband. But it shouldn't be an excuse for her actions, just damning of his.