2006-07-26 20:17:18 · 12 answers · asked by juan m 2 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
this verdict is such BS. she should fry.
2006-07-26 20:21:03 · answer #1 · answered by Rufus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wooo. Such a cruel question. It is not reasonable that you make that question as a conclusion from the Andrea Yates trial. We know a little about the chemical and hormonal problems that lead to mental illness. We also know something about women who suffer mental problems after bearing children.
The Andrea Yates incident is an example of behavior with at least these two underlying causes as well as external religious and social factors that contributed to her behavior. One thing is certain: she was not in a healthy state of mind and should have been hospitalized. When an adult refuses medical treatment, it is very difficult to force them to be treated. Andrea Yates' friends and family did not believe that she was a danger to her children. To herself, perhaps, since she had evidently tried to kill herself before, but not to her children.
This tragic event in no way gives women any rights regarding the killing of their children. It should give society the motivation to care more carefully for all people who have mental problems. We have come a long way from the days when people such as Andrea Yates were locked up together in prison like 'snake pits' to wallow in squalor. But it is still too easy to let them try to take care of themselves, with the consequences that we have seen in this case.
The only worthwhile thing that should come out of this tragedy is the increased reverence for human life. We need to take better care of each other, all of us, not just our friends and family.
As society fragments into smaller parts, each caring only for itself, the society as a whole will eventually disintegrate. The only way to stop this is to practice a little generosity and kindness to people we don't know, without expecting anything in return.
2006-07-27 01:27:07 · answer #2 · answered by China Jon 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I don't know what that lady did but so many insane people are hurting children. In my country a few weeks ago a lady was caught drowning her 2 year old baby, 6 years old child and her nine years old child, why? Because the father is not paying maintenance. I think they should make it a law that if you kill or harm a child intentionally you will go to prison for a minimum of 15 years. People should learn to deal with their problems and stop taking them out on the children.
To all adults that harm their children, if we cannot protect our kids whom do we expect to do so?
2006-07-26 21:22:43 · answer #3 · answered by sweetdivine 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i do no longer consider the call!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She killed her infants separately. Her oldest son walked in on her interior the bathing room whilst she became drowning his 6 month outdated sister, the boy ran in the time of the residing house and Andrea Yates chased him and dragged him back to the bathing room and then drowned him too (she knew what she became doing!!!). She would desire to circulate to reformatory the place she gets tortured daily! somebody would desire to stick her head underwater long sufficient for her to think of that she is going to drown and then do an identical element to her day after on the instant, and day after on the instant, and day after on the instant after that. She shouldn't of gotten off so honestly for killing her infants. A 6 month outdated, 2yr outdated, 3 300 and sixty 5 days outdated, 5 300 and sixty 5 days outdated, and a 7 300 and sixty 5 days outdated, how are you able to kill your individual flesh and blood!!?? they are literally asserting that that's ok so which you will kill your infants in case you plead insanity! I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH the call.
2016-12-10 16:29:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
not guilty by reason of insanity is a helluva lot different than innocent.
do i wish she'd get strung up by her privates? yep. but to not know what you're doing is wrong during the course of a crime (no matter how heinous) is legally insane so ... off she goes to the nut house. let's just hope she stays there...permanently.
2006-07-26 20:23:49 · answer #5 · answered by pyg 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
...by reason of insanity. She will never see the light of day. I think she is genuinely nuts. They will put her in a room with a tiny window possibly for the rest of her life. It is tragic what she did. The sheer magnitude of it is what makes me believe she is out of her mind. That and her expressions in court and her reasons for doing it...loopy as can be.
2006-07-26 20:27:02 · answer #6 · answered by frogspeaceflower 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't get it. I mean, yeah she's insane, but why does that make her any less guilty? If anything, she's even more of a danger to herself and society because the woman is CUH-RAZY! Aren't all murderers homicidal maniacs and therefore INSANE? I just don't know...
2006-07-26 20:23:46 · answer #7 · answered by yumyum 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i dont understand how a woman can kill her kids and get very little if anything out of it let it be an adult and the killer is so fried
2006-07-26 20:35:54 · answer #8 · answered by trisomy11q 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it had been the Daddy the Daddy would've got fried in no time at all
2006-07-26 20:22:22 · answer #9 · answered by DaddyOf2Princesses 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
when the woman did it, she was nuts.
she is still nuts.
court of law found her nuts.
then there's people like you that feel they have
a right to judge harshly!
2006-07-26 22:49:19 · answer #10 · answered by john john 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shes nuts .... exactly, she wont see the light of day again.
2006-07-26 20:28:59 · answer #11 · answered by Open Your Eyes 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋