----- Original Message ----- From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 8:58 PM Subject: Re: Andrea Yates was: Re: Honest GOP?
> cd4d$f3a9ec60$6601a8c0@dendrite> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <015801c1cd56$73f48210$6601a8c0@dendrite> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 7:36 PM > > Subject: Re: Honest GOP? was Re: Steel tariffs > > > > > > > > > > > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Texas is already a laughing stock over the Andrea Yates trial. > > > > > > > > > How so? > > > > > Texas law does not allow juries to be informed of the potential results of > > their decisions. IOW the jury was allowed to think that Yates would walk > > free if found "Not Guilty Due To Insanity". In actuality she would likely > > have been commited to a psychiatric facility for the rest of her life. > > Basicly Texas does not recognise insanity as a *real* medical condition. > > Texas believes that you can go nuts a kill a philandering spouse, and thats > > ok. But if you kill your kids (and who hasnt wanted to<G>) there must > > secretly be a motive. > > > > Before you start correcting me, I'm just being "over the top". > > I am really angry about this trial. It is obvious to me that mental health > > is not taken very seriously in this state. RE: State regulated insurance and > > my experiences with my ex-wife. > > Actually, from all the reading I've done on this case (and I'm pretty > angry about this trial, as well), the only question the jurors were > supposed to consider with regards to the insanity defense was, Did the > defendant know right from wrong at the time the crime was committed? There was that too. > The laws in Texas in the 1970s were better for constructively dealing > with this sort of thing, but Texas changed how the insanity defense goes > after Hinkley was found not guilty by reason of insanity after he shot > Reagan. The mindset being that the insanity defense was a way for criminals to escape punishment. > > Now some of my fury has turned to wanting to have a few people, > including the husband, charged with negligence in this matter. The last psych people to treat her were pretty irresponsible too. Andrea > Yates wasn't given the death penalty, thank God and the sense of the > jurors, but Russell Yates shouldn't have even gotten her pregnant with > the fifth kid in the first place, based on the advice given him by the > doctors treating her for postpartum depression after the fourth kid was > born, and should have recognized that you shouldn't leave a suicidal > person alone with babies the way he did every day when he went to work, > and maybe HE should be executed, if anyone in this tragedy should. Its true that the entire thing begins with Russell Yates and his somewhat odd religious beliefs. The bastard moved his family into a trailer with no running water a few weeks after the first child was born. Whats commented on mostly is the lack of emotion shown by the man even on the day his children died. > > OK, that was *way* over the top. I apologize if I upset anyone with > that little tirade. Anyone who got upset can go piss up a rope. <G> > > BTW, Rob, are you in Harris County? Not only am I in Harris county, I live just a few blocks from the Yates home. *He* works across the street at NASA and lives here in the neighborhood. > xponent Dysfunction Maru rob
