Yates not guilty

So you are sitting in your cubicle one day, and suddenly, a man in a cape comes at you with a screwdriver. You bash him over the head with a coffee mug, but he keeps coming. You hit him with a stapler and kill him.

Only thing is, you are schizophrenic, and the man with the screwdriver wasn't really a man with a screwdriver, he was your boss.

Murdering your children is one of the two or three worst things a human being could possibly do. But it isn't bleeding-heartism to acknowledge that severe mental illness is a mitigating factor in certain circumstances.

 

Then I just, out of the blue, killed an innocent man and I should either be:
1) locked away forever
2) executed
Those are the only two ways to make sure I never kill another innocent person.

 

Exactly, mustard.

Although in my hypothetical (which I don't offer as an existential equivalent of Yates' act), only (A) would make sense.

I guess I was trying to make a more philosophical point. It isn't "rationalizing" or "excusing" a despicable act to consider the implications of a legitimate mental illness.

 

When I first heard this story, I, like everyone, was all for shipping this crazy woman off to prison and killing her quickly.

But the more I've read, the more I've heard and the more I've come to understand about this, I just don't think there's anything any of us could do to this woman that would be worse than what she'll go through the rest of her life, assuming she does at some point regain her mental stability.

I'll give you all a scenario here that a friend of mine offered me: If you're not a sleep-walker, you very likely know someone who is. They've gotten up at night and done all sorts of goofy shit. Now, imagine that's you -- you're the person sleep-walking. And while your stumbling around in dreamland one night, you have a dream that a loved one is actually someone else, someone who's coming after you to harm you. And you, in your mind, defend yourself and kill this person. Now, do you feel like you should go to jail, receive the death penalty and etc. for that action? And I'm not talking about what would happen and who would believe that you were really asleep or who wouldn't. I'm talking about in your mind.

That's what we're dealing with here. Outside of this psychotic state, this woman was a caring, loving mother. She took care of those kids and raised them the best she could. But one day, she slipped off in this dream world and some very, very bad shit happened. I'm sorry. I just can't get behind the idea that we've somehow improved this world by killing her or sending her anywhere in which she doesn't receive the help she needs to get better.

And blaming this husband, come on. Why do that? Just because this woman is too sick to accept the blame, it's not required that we pass the blame on. The guy lost his entire family. I think that's enough.

 

Why not cure the sickness?

 

That's not a bad theory, the 'dream world' thing. But it doesn't wash for me in this case. Here's why:

In many of these cases, the kids are asleep when crazy Daddy or Mommy murders them. I could buy that argument in those cases, even though I don't like it. But this is what Yates herself told police: [from an AP report of a 2001 Houston Chronicle story]

The fact that she had the presence of mind, as crazed as it was, to chase the oldest child and kill him, tells me her brain hadn't completely shut down.

 

This might qualify as the most ignorant post of all time.

 

Is she allowed to get pregnant again?

 

Poor choice of words on your part. I'm pretty sure the truth of it is inarguable.

No matter what anyone's poltics, it's far from "ignorant" to note that if someone's dead, they can't possibly commit the same crime.

 

Anybody advocating the execution of a seriously mentally ill person is ignorant. Period.

Not a poor choice of words at all.

Anybody knows that if the state kills her she can't commit the same crime. And she can't commit the same crime if they're locked away for life.

So what exactly is your point?

 

Actually, there's always the possibility of parole, clemency and such in our system.

My point remains. Simple disagreement is not grounds for the "ignorant" card to be played. There are those who would say that asking for leniency for a woman who murdered her five children - regardless of what the courts and her fascinating religious beliefs say about her mental state at the time - is "ignorant" as well. I am not one of those people.

Me, I find it difficult to believe that someone who would kill their own children for any reason isn't an incredibly disturbed individual. And you would be hard-pressed to tell me there isn't something horribly wrong with them mentally. Doesn't mean such a heinous crime shouldn't be punished in an appropriate way, within the laws of the land.

EDIT: The PrimeTime report last night noted that the doctors had warned her after the fourth child that having another would lead to horrendous consequences as far as her mental state and post-partum attitude, etc. My wife was cursing the "bastard husband" for persuading Ms. Yates into having another child. He is far from blameless. The video they showed of one of her religious fanatic influences was priceless as well, dude in a mask. The religion's influence clearly was key as well.

But she should still be punished, as should Mr. Yates and religious leader dude in a Halloween mask.