Andrea Yates was convicted of Capital Murder

Thank God this one's over. Let's pay attention to the upcoming Jayson Williams trial!

And I have no opinion on the legal stuff re either Yates or Jayson Williams, just like I had no opinion re OJ or JonBenet Ramsey. So please don't ask.

ANYONE WHO DOES WHAT SHE DID IS NOT SANE. ITS TOO BAD THE IDIOT TEXAN JURY SENTANCED HER TO THIS- SHE NEEDS DRUGS AND A PADDED WHITE CELL.

There's a decent piece on Slate getting at some of our perceptions about filicide. The upshot: we tend to view mothers who kill their children as disturbed, insane, irrational, or tragic, while we are more likely to view fathers who kill their children as (disturbed) violent criminals. Commonsensical interpretation offered: we still view children as essentially "property" of the mother, and thus accept narratives where a man destroys a mother's property, but cannot deal with narratives wherein a woman destroys "her own" property. Both happen in equal amounts, incidentally.

The hot-button issue, though, always revolves around our immense terror at seeing the mother-child bond -- something we're raised to see as utterly sacred and universal -- not functioning quite as we'd like it to. Thus do we get narrative after narrative wherein a mother kills her children out of some sort of disturbed, misguided love for the children, a little excuse to reinforce our comforting belief that mothers always want the best for their children.

nitsuh i agree that it's important to question the idea of a mother's immutable love for her kids but in the case of this woman i reckon she suffered some variant of psychosis. she demanded a crown of thorns from her jailors and ... some other strange manifestations of a religious mania that i've forgotten. she was on heavy anti- psychotics. the morning she committed the murders she'd taken her medication and was scooping breakfast cereal out of a box into her mouth. (just an interesting detail.) i read she had a reason for killing her kids that was part of the religious mania.

Not to say at all that I agree with it (although I do have some views on life and death that may not make me very popular, so I won't share), but surely it's more understandable that a mother should kill her children? If (and I would like you to note that if) the mother is still seen as closer to the children (and I _can_ understand this in some ways, the mother actually having them inside her for several months, although once out of the womb everything comes down to circumstance), then surely there are more pressures put upon her? Taking into account everything from the alteration of her own body to the weight of expectation that she must love her children, surely this is a position more likely to push someone over the edge?

Oh, Maryann, my linking that wasn't meant as specific to her case, which to be honest I haven't followed at all.

I don't know how you can say she is more or less sane than any other murderer (especially at an armchair's distance). She has certainly heard of the legal ramifications of murder, so I don't see why her sanity even matters.

Kris and Dan in mind-meld shocker!

There are three--three!--articles in the latest Salon expressing shock and dismay that she could be convicted; can't you see she needs help, etc, ad nauseum. Ok, so she has some emotional problems. Ok, so she's on medication. She killed her five young children!! If the father had done this, would he ever in a million years get off? This bullshit makes me sick. She even admitted she knew it was wrong, and called 911 afterwards! People sticking up for this woman are pathetic.

No, not pathetic, disgusting. Reading those Salon articles really made me sick. Can I continue ranting? Yeah, ok, kill all five of your children, then get some counseling, etc, and back on the street you go. Is that what these bleeding-hearts want?? I know I sound conservative here, but so what.

May as well kill her because (and follow my warped and generaly uncaring logic with this one):

1) She killed her children

2) She was (presumeably, and continues to be) insane.

3) She should be rehabbed.

4) When coming out of rehab, she (were she a genuinely loving mother) would have to bear the grief of killing her children with her everyday of her remaining life. I'm sure many people, when coming out of a haze to discover their violent pasts, would become crippled under that weight. We should kill her as an act of mercy should she become sane.

5) If she does not feel remorse upon rehab, then she is truely wicked and we should have killed her anyway.

So there ya go. *makes sound of axe falling*

I have just read the confessions of Carl Panzram. This guy was much worse than Andrea Yates. He boasted that he liked killing people; he definitely was not insane; he killed 27 mostly innocent strangers, including young boys, often simply for pleasure. Yet the cruel and violent punishment that he received in prison was wrong. It is obvious that there are only two reasons why people become murderers, and usually it's a combination of both: either they have witnessed sufficient violence to have learnt from it, or they are psychologically different to almost all other people. Murderers often long to be punished: to receive justice and to make atonement. They should be punished because it's fair, and possibly kept from people for the rest of their lives - at least some have been too scarred by other people to ever reform in their own lifetimes. But they should be punished in as just and humane way as possible. We should demonstrate to them the things that they didn't get to see much of in their lives: fairness, consideration, kindness, mercy, compassion. If you bother to read what the murderers themselves have written, I think you will come to the same conclusion very quickly. Responding to murder with hate will come back on YOU or, even worse, someone who's more innocent than you are.

I'm quite prepared (from what evidence I've seen) to believe she was totally psychotic, and am quite amazed at some of the rabid remarks on this thread.

The bitch must die.

no, she should be treated like hte ill person she is .

...so we should put her in a white padded cell for the rest of her life and medicate her to the point of non-responsiveness....

Or we could kill her and be done with her.

She has almost no chance of reoffending, she feels enough guilt ot be tortured by it for the rest of her life . I dont see how 40 years in the pen would be better for society then treatment .

Ummm, I don't know maybe other women would be less apt to kill their children? Assuming this is in society's best interst, of course.

Yeah, 40 years inside, that'll really teach totally psychotic people with little or no grasp of reality a lesson!

It is obvious that there are only two reasons why people become murderers, and usually it's a combination of both: either they have witnessed sufficient violence to have learnt from it, or they are psychologically different to almost all other people.

Contemporary scholarship does not agree with you, I'm afraid.

Yeah, 40 years inside, that'll really teach totally psychotic people with little or no grasp of reality a lesson!

Exactly. So why not kill her and save yourself the money! (Granted, there are statistics that show it costs more to kill someone than to keep them alive [what with extended appeals and all] but there IS the space issue, esp. in Texas, where criminals grow on trees)

I dont see how 40 years in the pen would be better for society then treatment .

I don't see how treating her is better for society than killing her.

I haven't followed this case at all, so I don't have a specific opinion, but I'm wondering if the Kill Her Now! contingent on this thread has even the slightest knowledge of US legal/penal history.

I'm wondering if the Kill Her Now! contingent on this thread has even the slightest knowledge of US legal/penal history.

In what sense?

Phil, I meant that in a society that's not in a state of war, killing is rare ... do you mean that scholarship shows that most people will kill? Sounds interesting.

In the sense of being familiar with sentencing laws, appeals processes, precedents for this sort of case, defenses based on some sort of mental incompetence and how they relate to legal and psychological definitions of insanity, etc etc.

Even though I don't know any of the particulars in this case, your sputtering vituperation still looks silly.

In the sense of being familiar with sentencing laws, appeals processes, precedents for this sort of case, defenses based on some sort of mental incompetence and how they relate to legal and psychological definitions of insanity, etc etc.

Why should waxing philsophic about the plusses (many) of killing her and the plusses of not killing her (many, but far less fun to consider) be curtailed in Anthony's question based on some suppoused ignorance of the posters?

At this point, I'm interested in discussing the precedents you suggest we consider especially seeing as how ignorant we all are of them to begin with.

This could be very interesting, seeing as how I've always had a hard time accepting the logic of rehabbing a killer and what that brings to society other than satisfying the notion 'everyone deserves a second chance.'

Perhaps you would like to provide a list?

If you had read my posts more carefully you would have noticed that I said I do not have an opinion as to whether there should be an attempt to rehabilitate Andrea Yates or not. Personally, I am skeptical that someone who has murdered their five children can be rehabilitated, whether she knew what she was doing was wrong or not. But that is a gut reaction which is not based on any research or extensive knowledge of this sort of crime. That is why I did not feel the need to share it. My post was made in response to a few of your other comments. Advocating killing someone because there is a "space problem" in Texas jails is asinine, regardless of the specifics. You're obviously not interested in having a reasoned discussion, and I was merely pointing this out.

I am not going to "provide [you] with a list" because I am not interested in arguing on behalf of rehabilitation. This is obviously something that greatly obsesses you, since you insisted on reading it into my posts. Considering this is Texas, there's probably a good chance she will get the death penalty, and soon. But your arguments are so far from any legal reality (even Texas "reality"), they're not worth much, except for their "fun" value.

Of course, I'm a little embarassed for having just remembered that this is the internet, and therefore maniacally spouting off on topics you know little about is pretty much the norm. Forgive the interruption.

But that is a gut reaction which is not based on any research or extensive knowledge of this sort of crime.

Advocating killing someone because there is a "space problem" in Texas jails is asinine, regardless of the specifics.

I'd like to think of it more as a practical solution in certain instances.

You're obviously not interested in having a reasoned discussion, and I was merely pointing this out.

I'm willing to listen to the reasonable discussion, but I enjoy adding my violent two cents -- regardless of how others read them.

Considering this is Texas, there's probably a good chance she will get the death penalty, and soon.

Well that's fine to say seeing as how you haven't "...followed this case at all"

But your arguments are so far from any legal reality (even Texas "reality"), they're not worth much, except for their "fun" value.

Holla.

Of course, I'm a little embarassed for having just remembered that this is the internet, and therefore maniacally spouting off on topics you know little about is pretty much the norm.

Exactly.

Manryanne suggests that Andrea Yates should be treated with "fairness, consideration, mercy, kindness, compassion" Are these all compatible? Isn't the idea of a legal system of punishment that justice (ie fairness) can be determined objectively, whereas qualities like mercy can't be?

Having said that I don't think she should die. She should have a chance to come to terms with what she's done. Death takes away that, so there's no chance of remorse (=justice?)

Well that's fine to say seeing as how you haven't [link]"...followed this case at all"

Jimmy The Mod, Texas is well known for executing the mentally handicapped, so I'm not sure what your point is.

I'd like to think of it more as a practical solution in certain instances.

This is my point exactly. There is nothing "practical" about attempting to execute prisoners to relieve overcrowding. Thus I'm assuming this comment falls under the "fun" category.

Here's an honest question: how does saying "Dude, we should just kill her. And fast" put you, in principle, on any higher moral ground than the convicted murderer?

maybe this will work?

Anyway, all the way at the beginning I lied. I am going to speak my piece.

I've noticed how little mention is made of the possibility that religion had to do with all of this, particularly the hardcore fundamentalism the Yates adhered to. I'm not saying that their church made Yates crazy. But I'm sure it didn't help, either. My own experience is that Jesus freaks never help out and almost always fuck things up even worse, esp. with respect to people with psychological problems. I don't think that it's too far afield to question whether the non-stop doses of Jesus freak propaganda Yates was exposed to was akin to throwing gas on the fire.

I'm really getting sick and tired of these Christian fundamentalists getting a free pass, esp. since I think that they do more than their fair share of fucking up people's lives. Probably more than crack, heroin, and booze combined.

Most bad things happen because someone believes in something.

If I understand JM's point about the legal system, it is that the system is not intended to arbitarily define justice, but to reflect what society understands as justice. This seems like the democratic way to deal with crime and punishment.

But that doesn't mean that what the legal system currently calls justice is a perfect reflection of society's perception of justice, because that will evolve and change. So to say: "punishment by death is not just" is not to say smash the whole legal system, but to say "I think that society, (or at least me, as part of it) has a new definition of justice" and if enough people agree/can be convinced the system should change. So what if there's an angry mob with pitchforks, the way things are now is not the way things always should be. My point was that it seems more possible to have a workable social definition of justice, than of what seem to be far more personal and subjective things like mercy. I don't think its fair to blame christianity, even fundametalists, for the murder, but that's a whole other kettle of fish...

Most bad things happen because someone believes in something.

I'd say quite a number of bad things have happened because someone believes in absolutely nothing -- including the social contract, the value of human life, etc. A person utterly without scruples is entirely as dangerous as a "true believer" -- not that the two are antithetical, of course. But I daresay that more serial murders (for instance) have been committed in the name of psychopathic self-gratification than in the name of a deity or belief system.

Maryann -- my point was more that human behavior, criminology, and criminal psychology all seem to indicate that human behavior can best be described in terms of a continuum, and that the dividing line between those who transgress, and those who do not, is far from clear or cut-and-dried. I really enjoyed Roy Baumeister's book Evil, which discusses the above, among other things, and underscores the fact that, if anything, the notion of the "evil Other" is more pernicious than the supposed reality of it. So I guess my problem with your equation was that there are so many causes for evil acts (including murder) that don't really have their origins in the two categories you described -- categories which seem to reduce too easily to "they're either crazy or a victim", the latter half of which is particularly at odds with what I hold to be true --and that, in any event, the cause for a particular murder is quite often very complex. Baumeister has a great example of a barroom brawl that, after mutual insults and provocation, turns deadly; despite the fact that one man killed the other, it's difficult to feel that an equation in which one's the perpetrator and the other the victm really makes sense -- but it's reasonably clear which factors were mainly behind the escalation and eventual murder: egotism, rage and the inability to control it, and fear of loss of social standing are three of the key ones.

isn't "believes in nothing (except self-gratifiation)" the same as "sociopathic" (ie psychologically different)? Genuine nihilism as a considered philosophical position is (virtually) non-existent: faux nihilism less so, sure, but there the problem is the actual buried philosophy that is disguising itself as nihilism.

One of the reasons armies have to engulf recruits in everything they put them through — humiliation, stress, intense anxieities about "manliness", extreme intensification of group loyalty — before they get onto the battlefield is that it's quite hard to undo the hardwiring in MOST ppl (tho NOT all) whereby empathy kicks in just as you're about to kill them, empathy i guess being the instinctual precursor to acceptance of the social contract, valuing human life and so on. The last thing armies want to instil is nihilism (though I imagine being caught up in war engenders it in not insignificant amounts, in soldiers AND bystanders)

I sort of assume the reason there's a public fascination with sociopaths is that they're fairly rare, not that they're everywhere (also possibly that it links at a subconscious level to a widespread present-day disenchantment w.politics, and therefore functions as buried envy: as in "the serial killer believes in nothing => he is free from all ideology and all disappointment"?): either way surely more violent death results from clashes between belief systems?

How would the threat of execution impact on a genuine sociopath? Albert Fish — little old man who kidnapped, abused, murdered and ate several infants in America in the 20s — is said to have said he was looking forward to the electric chair: "the greatest thrill of all". Maybe the social value of studying what was going on Fish's head — which would surely take time, in an non-threatening context — outweighs the social value of scaring off other Fishes, if you CAN scare them off... If I was in charge of making sure moms didn't kill their kids any more, I'd want to know WHY Yates did it, the real genuine actual reason, which may or may not be the reason the trial just decided on: prediction is (ultimately) far more effective than rule-by-fear, isn't it? Doesn't execution as ultimate threat, by playing on the desire for self-preservation, merely exacerbate the self-absorption which is already at pernicious, not to say dangerous levels, in a small number of murder-inclined people?

Prison for life by contrast is fantastically drearily endlessly BORING and POINTLESS, a deliberate UTTER WASTE of the PRISONER'S TIME: wouldn't the threat of being turned into an interchangeable powerless number be more dislikeable to a potential thrill-killer than the serious negative glamour of death row? (I realise many serial killer lifers ARE celebrities, kinda: haha a very American punishment, not as yet instated in the prison system, to DEPRIVE ONE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR CELEBRITY... )

("whereby empathy kicks in just as you're about to kill them": erm "them" here refers to eg enemy soldiers etc, not to anyone earlier mentioned in my ramble)

In answer to your questions; 1. Why'd she call 911 and report her actions if she were so far gone? 2. Probably - ask the husband who was told prior to child 5 that she should not have any more children as she was severely depressed. 3. Probably did snap - you ever tried to deal with 5 kids (stairsteps we call them when they are that close together in age) with a husband who expects you to defer to him? Throw in the religious rant on top of that and it may have become too much. 4. None of the above doesn't seem to apply. 5. I believe whole heartedly in capital punishment for those who are sound of mind and understand what they are doing. In these extenuating circumstances, would it be less cruel to execute by lethal injection or to lock her up for all enternity in a system where treatment would consist of medicate, medicate, medicate...

I am an American and do know how the system works here. Even given the death penalty, she will live for years on appeals.

Economic costs: it is reported that it costs almost a million dollars each year to keep someone on death row. (where does that money go??). It costs approximately 40,000 US for life in prison. She would probably go to a mental institution, which would cost even more. For what? Would she be rehabilitated?

I question how come the father was not held responsible as well since he knew of her fragile mental condition.

I don't have time to read through all the new responses since yesterday, so I'll just respond to JM real quick, and excuse me if I'm repeating things others have said.

I don't have time for a full on argument agains the death penalty (since green lager awaits), but my "typical lefty argument" is easily balanced in apparent obsurdity by your "typical righty argument"-- what if it was your family member who was murdered? There was another thread about this recently which I can't find, but the point the person who asked the question made (if I remember right) neatly sums up my personal idea of liberalism. What's unique in my case is that my family did have a chance to test this when my cousin was raped and tortured. The death penalty was not an option (since fortunately she survived), but the process by which we came to terms with what happened also involved, for us, coming to an understanding of the mental illness her attacker suffered from, and extending to him a certain measure of forgiveness. I bring this up not to parade any kind of victimhood, but simply to point out that these hypotheticals are important: I was quite young at the time, but my parents and aunts and uncles had been very committed to various liberal ideals of dealing with criminals, and keeping this in mind when dealing with their personal rage and frustration allowed them to keep in mind a sort of big picture perspective, as well as a kind of impersonal social standard by which to measure their behavior. It happened to work for them, but faced with these sort of tragedies people's reactions are all over the map, and I don't blame others for feeling vengeful. But I do agree with you that the state exists to keep this vengence from repeating itself in a vicious circle, and it's the hypotheticals that help us to imagine a way out of it.

Sorry if that's a bit incomprehensible. Perhaps I'll flesh it out later.

Phil, I will read that book, it does sound interesting. Do you know of any other good books on the topic? I like reading about this kind of thing because 'tests' of human behaviour at the extremes, for example where murder is involved, sometimes make me see things more clearly. Reading about the violent treatment of violent criminals, for example, helped me to understand more concretely why violence doesn't exactly 'work'. However, from my experience of reading so far, I want to add that I think it's good to read the ideas of sociologists, prison wardens, and criminals themselves (in their own words), as all have different perspectives. I also want to read a book I heard about on the radio that's a study of the concept of evil based upon the concentration camp at Auschwitz. I suppose there are lots of books about this but does anyone think they might know the title of this book?

Maryann - it might be 'Facing the Extreme: Morality and Heroism in Auschwitz and the Gulag' by Tzvetan Todorov.

Oh really, the Russian formalist? I think I will get it out of the library now, if they have it.

If you can fascinate a jury, who cares about the truth?

If only they had had a L&O fan on the original jury!!!

axis sally: HOLY CRAP!
tokyo rosemary: if only we had been on the jury! "dude, that wasn't an episode!"
axis sally: I had no idea about the Law and Order thing!
tokyo rosemary: me neither!
axis sally: it's true
axis sally: we'd send a memo to the judge
axis sally: while they played the tense LO music
axis sally: I wonder who the LO expert was who pointed that out
tokyo rosemary: haha
tokyo rosemary: haha!
tokyo rosemary: 'defense attorneys discovered...'
tokyo rosemary: ie they discussed it with their underemployed relatives who watch every l&o episode ever
axis sally: OMG!!!
axis sally: We can be CONSULTANTS!
tokyo rosemary: YES
axis sally: and have BUSINESS CARDS!!!

tokyo rosemary: omg do you think they will have a law and order episode about this????
axis sally: THAT WOULD BE AWESEOM
axis sally: and better since Elisabeth Rohm will be gone
axis sally: OOOhhh!!! they could even use stock footage of Jerry!
tokyo rosemary: i wonder what the fake law and order show will be called
tokyo rosemary: a la hudson u and the new york ledger
axis sally: hee
axis sally: the fake show could be called In the Criminal Justice System

what i remember being creeped out by with this case (besides the obvious killings part) was that the husband was all tammy wynette about it. he totally stood by his woman. what the HELL? SHE MURDERED YOUR CHILDREN YOU FREAK! commitment is nice and all, but i think that is a deal breaker.

but then he filed for d-i-v-o-r-c-e!

he did? thank god. i guess he would only be there for her if she was not going to serve a life sentence in prison.