Yates verdict

by sammielee24 74 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  Nowman

  sixofnine,

  Maybe my comment is one of them that makes you feel ill. If you can understand my position being of mother of two, soon to be a mom of 3, its unimagineable for me to even think or understand what was going on in her mind. I completely have no sympathy, its just the way I feel about whether its the right opinion or not. I really wanted her to be convicted, I wanted her to have the death penalty. If I have no regrets about how I feel about this. Yes, Andrea is sick, she did not have to murder her children. Again, I think of my children, they are so sweet, smart, good hearted, fun, loving, etc...do not know what I would do without them.

  She drowned her children, one by one. I want her to drown too.
• 

  Gregor

  Rationalizing someones heinous acts is the first step on the slippery slope that leads to blurring the lines of right and wrong. She methodically drowned the 5 (FIVE), little human beings she was responsible for. Her 'head up his ass' husband, in spite of her mental illness, continued to collect his "marital dues" without regard for the obvious fact she was not capable of caring for herself, let alone the 5 children he impregnated her with under the age of, what? 11? They might as well have been a sack of unwanted kittens tossed in the local canal. END OF STORY. NOW IT SHOULD BE TIME TO PAY THE PIPER. But no, now she's on her way to spend her life being coddled in a mental health institution. (I see a book deal in the near future) He will visit and talk about the time little Mary said her first word or Bobby took his first step. Gag me with a spoon.
• 

  parakeet

  Any man that kills his family has to be at least as insane as Yates is.
  Yates can now join OJ Simpson and the ever-growing list of people who have gotten away with murder.
• 

  SixofNine

  ....its unimagineable for me to even think or understand what was going on in her mind.

  That's kinda the point, she was batshit crazy. Do you always want to kill what you can't understand?

  Yes, Andrea is sick....

  I completely have no sympathy...... I wanted her to have the death penalty

  Well aren't you a sweetheart.

  I want her to drown too.

  Would you like to do it with your own hands? I bet it's harder than you'd imagine when you're just sitting around fantasizing that you are a perfect god of justice.

  People like yourself and Gregor aren't particularly concerned with justice, nor are you any more concerned about kids than the 12 jurors who rendered this verdict. What you are, is ego trippers who want your feelings validated. It hurts to hear about kids being killed, and by-golly, somebody needs to pay for hurting YOU.
• 

  Nowman

  sixofnine

  I get your point. You don't know anything about me and thats OK. I expressed how I felt about it and you did too. You obviously understand her better than me and you have more compassion that I do on this particular subject. We are all entitled to an opinion and I wasn't trying to make a point like you are doing, I was only expressing my feelings because it sickens me to think of what she did. I am new here and I signed up to be able to express how I feel about certain topics when I felt it was important for me too. Therefore, I have a feeling on this case, and I posted it. It wasn't meant to make anyone ill, or for people to snap at me because I have an opinion. Yet, its OK, I understand and I am not offended and I will continue to post when I feel strongly about something or can relate, or have a story to share. Thats what this site is for.

  Sorry for offending you sixofnine, not my intention, and I do not mind saying, "I m sorry".

  Nikki
• 

  Confession

  Nowman,

  Just wanted to say I appreciate the graciousness of your reply.

  Confession
• 

  kazar

  
  This topic is very controversial. I believe if Yates was crazy, and psychiatrists have testified she was, then she should be allowed to recover her mental faculties in a hospital. True, her children will be gone forever, but from what I've read about the case, Yates' motives at heart were for the children; to keep them from suffering and send them to a better world. What parent wouldn't do whatever it took for a better world for someone we love?

  Those of us on this forum as ex JW's instantly recognize when we read of JW's killing their family so the family can be resurrected in the "new world" understand that it is the religious dogmatic teachings that influenced the killer. There is also the blood issue of JW's we are familiar with. I don't believe we have ever had such hostility toward the parents who allowed their children to die due to lack of a blood transfusion in order to be in a paradise world. I have only encountered such an attitude of vengeance in "worldly people" when I was a dub.

  It may behoove us to apply the same empathy to misguided souls in other cults as well.
• 

  sammielee24

  What you are, is ego trippers who want your feelings validated. It hurts to hear about kids being killed, and by-golly, somebody needs to pay for hurting YOU.

  It is not my intent to be disrespecfull, but do you not think it hurts society to hear about kids being killed? It isn't the ego validation of one person alone that questions any punishment meted out to a criminal in these crimes, its simply the ethics and parameters of a society where we believe in protection of the weaker and the innocent. I think when we allow ourselves to be passionate about some things, it can be used most productively in bringing about positive change. In the case of the little Florida girl who was buried alive - her father has taken that passion and worked on bringing a child predator bill to the senate. Compassion cannot be continually overextended to the point it eliminates the rights of the rest of society to live in peace - in this case, compassion can be felt for Mrs Yates, but do we overextend our compassion and rationalize it by shrugging and telling ourselves 'the kids are already dead'. In some hospitals, there is no mandatory medical intervention which means that if she is in one of these hospitals, she has the right to refuse her medication which she may have to take to keep her 'sane'. Should she be released, and the probability is that in the future she could be out for day visits, what if she chooses not to take her medicine? Has our compassion overextended itself to the point where at that time, another murder takes place, that we shrug and say 'she's mentally ill'. Where do we draw the line at the purpose and general outcome of hospitalization, institutionalization and prison? If someone can be cured(?) and become a productive member of society then the outcome is positive but what is the positive outcome for Andrea Yates or others like her? It has been noted by most doctors that pedophilia is an illness which is incurable...hence there is some sort of mental illness going on in the brains of people who committ such acts, yet we do not feel such compassion for those persons even when they kill their victims. I just find it all so interesting in how we view these things but I'm most interested in what people think the outcome should be for anyone we 'put away' for any length of time. If they are never going to 'get better', what is the value to society? Think of how many scream about people on welfare, or unemployed, or homeless people - how they scream about what a waste those people are and a drain on society - yet any number of those are ill but don't kill anyone yet are subject to far more derision than Yates has been. Just my thoughts...sammieswife.
• 

  SixofNine

  but do you not think it hurts society to hear about kids being killed?

  I guess I don't understand, I thought you just quoted me saying pretty much that same thing. If you mean collectively, then no, society doesn't "feel" the way individuals feel. If you mean "hurt" as in "harmful", well, sure, but we don't allow vengeance even as individuals, and we certainly shouldn't be seeking it as a society. It's primitive, stupid, and lowers society to the level of that which society seeks vengeance on. Or in this case, MUCH lower, as this person is mentally ill.

  its simply the ethics and parameters of a society where we believe in protection of the weaker and the innocent.

  Yes. And there are few people more weak or even innocent (in the "naive" flavor of the word) than a woman suffering postpartum delusional psychosis who has been fed a steady diet of apocalyptic fundamental christianity. We're ex-JW's, we all should understand that when God speaks, you listen.

  but do we overextend our compassion and rationalize it by shrugging and telling ourselves 'the kids are already dead'.

  I think using the term "overextend our compassion" is creating a false dilema. As for telling ourselves "the kids are already dead", well, it can be done w/o shrugging, believe it or not (go ahead, try it), and what's more, it's a fact that needs to be faced by the pointy stick and pitchfork crowd; you simply won't be able to kill Andrea Yates enough times to make up for her 5 children. You won't even be able to balance the scales of justice for ONE of them by killing her, not even a little. You will just have made yourself a monster who picks on the mentally ill.

  Should she be released, and the probability is that in the future she could be out for day visits, what if she chooses not to take her medicine?

  I don't know that her illness is such that she needs medicine even now.

  Has our compassion overextended itself to the point where at that time, another murder takes place, that we shrug and say 'she's mentally ill'.

  You seem to be aware of some little known aspect of the justice system, "the shrug defense", that I am unaware of. Personally, while I think myself a compassionate person, I do not advocate turning anyone loose on society that presents a foreseeable danger. Call me rightwing and conservative, but that's just me.

  If someone can be cured(?) and become a productive member of society then the outcome is positive but what is the positive outcome for Andrea Yates or others like her?

  I'm not sure what you're asking? They of course have to live with what they've done, so they are permanently damaged. Can they overcome that? I would think it possible.

  It has been noted by most doctors that pedophilia is an illness which is incurable...hence there is some sort of mental illness going on in the brains of people who committ such acts, yet we do not feel such compassion for those persons even when they kill their victims.

  IMO, it's a big stretch to compare a delusional psychotic episode in a postpartum mom to pedophilia. Andrea Yates never did anything wrong from a legal standpoint in her entire life, until the day she drowned her 5 children. By all accounts she was a caring mother, even though he delusions were convincing her that she was a failure as a mother.
• 

  sammielee24

  I'm not sure what you're asking? They of course have to live with what they've done, so they are permanently damaged. Can they overcome that? I would think it possible.

  I only know what I've followed in the news and reports but according to those reports, Andrea Yates was very mentally ill for quite some time prior to her murdering her children and post partum psychosis heightened whatever instability she already had. It was pointed out by her legal team and supporters that she appears stable now because she is taking the prescribed medicine she needs in order to remain so. My understanding is that she must take it for the rest of her life but I could be wrong. As for being permanently damaged because they have to live with what they have done - I take the stand that they are already damaged and therefore, the ramifications of what they have done can never truly affect them as they would in a 'normal' person. Take a sociopath. He/she may inflict pain and violence on someone or something and feel nothing at all - therefore, the belief that they will suffer somehow emotionally or mentally because of what they did doesn't hold. By all accounts she seemed to be a good mother - however, lets realize that her oldest was only 7 years old and she had already sought help because she considered him unruly. In that 7 years, she had 5 kids, contemplated suicide and thought about murdering her children during that time. What constitutes being good mother? Feeding and clothing? We know nothing about what her mental illness or their lifestyle did to the kids, we don't know how affectionate she was or was not, we don't know much about her mothering at all. Lets also recognize that she murdered her 5 kids - they didn't drown - they were murdered. It's not that big a stretch to connect an incurable pedophile with a penchant for violence toward kids, to Andrea Yates. One child murdered by a sick pedophile is no less or important than the 5 children that she murdered and in both cases, mental illness prevails. sammieswife.