so is it ok to kill our kids now that . That yates lady was found not guity What is wrong with that texas jury

Answer 1

Not guilty by reason of insanity, does NOT mean not guilty. The jury's verdict ensures that Andrea Yates will get the psychological help that she obviously needs.

Answer 2

She was found not guilty by reason of insanity. That means that at the time she committed these horrid acts, she lacked the mental capacity to control her actions. In the trial, the procecution needed to prove that she knew full well what she was doing (ie..intent). They were not able to do so.

Post-partum Depression is a terrible illness that can unfortunately lead people into doing things they would never even consider if not for the illness.

The real guilty person is the husband. From all the information I have heard, he continued to pressure her into having more children even after she had less severe bouts of post-partum depression with her other children, and he also did not allow her to seek professional help for her illness. If I were the procecutor, I would look into possible criminal negligence on his part.

Answer 3

sHE HAD A BAD DAY, IT WASNT HER FAULT, she was mentally ill, overwhelmed couldnt pick up the phone and call for help, couldnt tell her husband she felt like killing her kids and couldnt take it anymore. So now she'll go to a mentall hospital hang out for a few years , then write her Lifetime story make a few million and have more kids. And the texas jury will go home tonight and drink some beers and forget about it Dont think just because she is in a state mental hospital she might not get out, she will , I know work in a State Hospital and I am literally surrounded by killers, rapist, aronists , and they do go back to the community and some do repeat their crimes.

Answer 4

First, contrary to what one respondent states, the verdict is NOT usually "guilty by reason of insanity". That is completely wrong. The term is "NOT guilty by reason of insanity." That respondent, like you, seems to be ignorant of a basic fact of criminal law: conviction depends on proving BOTH a criminal act AND a criminal state of mind. We do not generally punish people for actions they did not mean to commit. Otherwise, drivers in fatal car accidents could be prosecuted as murderers, even though they had no intention that anyone be killed. It is pathetic that you need this point spelled out for you.

A finding of insanity means that doctors have examined the defendant and determined that she had no more ability to intend her actions than if she had been sleepwalking. Without the intention, there is no guilt. (This is why the stupid suggestion that there is a "guilty by reason of insanity" verdict in ANY jurisdiction makes no sense by its own terms.)

Although there is no finding of guilt, there is a finding of insanity, which results in the defendant being committed to an asylum. They are not set free, as you seem to think. Visit your local sanitarium, if you have delusions that these are nice places to be sent to. While a person convicted of most severe crimes may be eligible for parole within ten years or so, a person committed to an asylum will remain there indefinitely, until they are dead or rehabilitated. Normally, a person found not guilty by reason of insanity can expect to spend all or most of their remaining days in an asylum, even where a "sane" murderer would have gone free decades earlier. Your "question" indicates that you are ignorant of these facts and would do well to consider them.

Your ignorance is aggravated by arrogance when you presume that you know the Yates case better than the jury, which sat day after day looking at evidence and listening to both sides of the arguments before making its decision. You have only a tiny fraction of the information they had about the case, you clearly do not understand basic legal and psychological concepts, and you apparently are not accustomed to hearing both sides of ANY argument, but you seem to have decided that you are still an expert on this case and capable of judging the jury's conduct. Your ego must be millions of times larger than your brain.

Lastly, you jump to the conclusion that the acquittal of one person for reasons that will land her in a sanitarium indefinitely somehow amount to permission for others to commit the same wrongful act Yates did. No one questioned whether she committed the act, only whether she could have really intended to do wrong; you, however, would have the criminal intent, so your commission of the criminal act would probably lead to a conviction. Sadly for you, insanity is a defense, but ignorance is not.

You probably make a habit of mouthing off about subjects like this, where you are extremely ignorant of the facts and think you can sound clever by misconstruing the few facts you do have. I just hope that you someday do something by accident and get charged for it like you did it on purpose. That might be the only way to get fundamental distinctions like intent through the extraordinary thickness of your skull.

Answer 5

don't know what's wrong with the jury, but in the event of something like that people need to be told not to have anymore kids, and watched so that if they do have kids, they can be removed from that environment immidiately. It's funny how this happened yet my sister in law gets 14 years for passing two bad checks yet she wouldn't hurt anyone, wish some one could tell me when money became more important than a human life.

Answer 6

Ok, "not guilty by reason of mental insanity" does not mean she didn't do it. To be guilty of committing a crime, you need two things:
1) the guilty act - "actus rheus" (i.e. ya did it.)
2) the guilty mind - "mens rhea" (you knew the difference between right and wrong, and willingly chose to do the wrong thing.)

To get her finding, the jury said that she had #1, but not #2. She did not know the difference between right and wrong when she did it.

This does not mean that she "gets off easy". Being in a mental hospital of the level she's going to is MUCH worse than being in a maximum security prison.

Answer 7

In most juristicitions, the term is "guity by means of insanity"

Answer 8

First of all i'm from texas, and have no idea what is wrong, but she should hve been founded guilty, she called the police and told them she killed her kids. she chased them around the house just so she could get them, after she killed them she laid them out on her bed.

Answer 9

Not sending someone to the death chamber is a rare act in texas. So she truly must be out of her mind.

Answer 10

Who says women are the weaker sex? This nutter obviously had what it takes. She should be put into the Israeli military and sent to Lebanon, they're in the market for child-killers.