how come her husband was not charged with with the same thing he knew she was ill and he is the one who left her alone with them,he has married again i wonder if its going to happen to her
2006-07-30 13:40:28 · 12 answers · asked by mellissa c 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I agree with you. At the very least he knew she was ill and needed help. I suspect that his treatment of her did contribute to her state of mind. I certainly hope that his new wife and any children they may have do not suffer the same fate.
2006-07-30 13:47:51 · answer #1 · answered by Cindy Sue 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I just think everyone should leave them alone. I feel so bad for that family. Seriously, we all want to point our fingers, but they ultimately experienced the greatest loss in losing their children because the mother suffered from a mental illness and should have still been in a hospital. I mean, he had to run out for a second. It's like a mother that leaves her kids at home for a few minutes to run to the store and buy some milk and in her absence the kids burn the house down. The tragedy is horrible, but mostly horrible for her and when the intentions are not ill, why should we punish them.
He should not be charged with the same thing as Andrea Yates, as he was not the person who drowned his children, like a mother who leaves her children and her children burn the house down is not charged with arson or murder. She might be charged with neglect though, which her husband maybe could be charged for... but I don't think he was at fault totally.
2006-07-30 20:46:25 · answer #2 · answered by Stephanie S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So then why not also charge her psychiatrist, he also knew she was ill and let her go home. He knew she was a danger to her children. Where do we stop. She was charged because she was the one who committed the crime.
2006-07-30 20:45:10 · answer #3 · answered by Jim T 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Plenty of people share the blame, including the family's pastor, who a lot of people think is in the Jim Jones category, and her father, who taught her never to give up, and that the "hard" way is always the best way. She never had a chance, it was a bad roll of the dice for her in life.
2006-07-30 20:47:01 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
who knows, it is truely sad..but Andrea Yates husband may have never forseen it beig so bad, however he should have gotten help for her nad someone to keep an eye on her
2006-07-30 20:45:17 · answer #5 · answered by Lilmisssassy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it is one thing to know your spouse is ill, but that does not mean you think she will commit an act of murder. He was not charged, because he did not kill anyone. She did, she is guilty, and should have received prison or death.
2006-07-30 20:44:41 · answer #6 · answered by mjcariati1971 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
U R Right
2006-07-30 20:44:53 · answer #7 · answered by nicnoo23 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who cares she got away with it. that's all that matters anymore. she is victorious. Maybe some whacko freak in the nut house will drown her in a bath tub. I would just love to hear that in the news. Child killing b_ tch.
2006-07-30 20:52:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
your what gives women a bad name why is he so responsible he didn't drown not one of those kids and if i'd been on the jury i would have been prepared to have her executed because thats what she earned for her actions he probable just wanted to get away from the psycho b&%#@
2006-07-30 20:54:25 · answer #9 · answered by Wyatt Earp 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i disagree with the verdict. i believe she should have got the death penalty. but, she will be in a mental facility for the rest of her life.
2006-07-30 20:46:58 · answer #10 · answered by sarah 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋