Texas Mother

[Cindy Hamlin]

Originally posted by Steve Machol
Well for the record I never said it was all right to release John Hinckley or anyone sentenced to life. That is certainly a flaw in our system.
P.S. I'm sure you'll all be happy to know that my wife disagrees with my views on capital punshment and is more likely to agree with most of the views expressed here. I've learned to sleep with one eye open because of this! :D

Steve,
I never said you said that. I use it as an example of the last person we ever thought would be released! I just get really sick of all the insanity defenses.

I empathize with people with mental illness, my neice has recently been diagnosed as a manic depressive and refuses to take her medicine and disappears for days on end. She is 16! I must say though as much as I love her and worry about her, if she did something like this I would not be so forgiving! I couldn't take the husband's viewpoint.

I cannot comprehend his (public) support of her. Maybe deep down it is driven by guilt that he did nothing to prevent it! The old "if onlys". I have to agree with Darris, she would be dead by my hand!

I guess we really struck a nerve here with this post. I guess the enormity of it all is overwhelming.


Steve, maybe you should share these views with your wife and then sleep with both eyes open! LOL! I still think you are the bestest even if you are a liberal! LOL!

~Cindy

[Steve Machol]

Don't worry Cindy, I know you didn't say or imply it. However it's a fallacy that people use very often; i.e. the only way to keep people like John Hinckley from doing harm again is to kill them.

That doesn't necessarily have to be true. This may be a good reason to change the system to keep people like him locked up, but I don't believe it's a a good excuse for killing someone.

It's just my opinion!

[Cindy Hamlin]

I admire person who in the face of much adversity holds true to thier beliefs! Cudos to you Steve!

~Cindy

[Jo]

The scariest thing about the Texas murders is that it isn't the worst. There have been cases of women with some variation of Munchausen Syndrome who have killed 8 or more of their children over the course of years. The families just didn't want to believe that these seemingly nice mothers would kill their own children.

[Cindy Hamlin]

And the worst part about the Munchausen deaths is that all of these children suffered for years! I don't beleive any of those mothers were given the option of the mental illness defense.

What is the value of a life? Why do people kill children? We could get into the horrific issues of child abuse. Oprah had a story recently about a boy that was killed by being beaten to death and had over 200 fractures on his body. The parents were convicted (mother was a stepmother) and later they were released by a knucklehead judge because she had other children to care for? What the HE-double hockeysticks is wrong with that!

Here's the link about the case:
http://oprah.oxygen.com/tows/pastsho...0001220_b.html

I just get really tired of people thinking of children as expendable. Kill a child and you kill the future! I still feel completely that she and all others should die! I cannot fathom giving them a second chance!

~Cindy

[CuriousCat]

In light of the current discussion, do those of you who approve executing Andrea Yates, now believe that Lionel Tate deserves the same judgement?

[Cindy Hamlin]

Judy,
We discussed Lionel Tate previously in this forum. Here is the link:
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...ht=Lionel+Tate

I absolutely believe he should be put to death if it were an option. That little girl suffered tremendously at his hand. I also feel the mother and father of Lionel should bear sone of the burden, too. His mother was upstairs when this incident occurred and heard nothing. You know she had to scream and cry for mercy!

Anyway, you can read the posts!

~Cindy

[CuriousCat]

Cindy,
I read the posts on Lionel Tate before I posted last. Your own feelings were that his sentence was excessive. I am not anti-death penalty, however, since this is a sentence that, once carried out, cannot be changed, I believe that it must be very carefully considered. According to many of the legal experts voicing opinions in the Yates case, the insanity defense is rarely successful. However, it is a defense option and until all the facts are known, I cannot and will not change my mind.

[Cindy Hamlin]

Judy,
I never said I thought his sentence excessive. I feel that it was the harshest thing they could do given their choices and warranted given the circumstances of her death.

Just as I feel that is warranted for Mrs. Yates given the circumstances. The deciding factor was her oldest son walking in on the aftermath of his sister's drowning and her chasing him down and drowning him. I cannot comprehend either Susan Smith standing there and watching as her car, with her sons strapped tightly in their car seats, submerge!

We need to stop killing our children!

I respect your beliefs Judy and will agree to disagree on this one.

~Cindy

[Cindy Hamlin]

Judy,
I did reread my post and I did say what you said I did. I guess as it is a woman's prerogative I will change my mind!
~Cindy

[clf8018]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darris Chambless


Murder is a death penalty in and of itself, it is simply not administered by the legal system. Morally speaking does that not carry the same objections to you? Morally speaking if your life or the lives of others were in immediate danger and you could get rid of that danger by administering your own death penalty would you not take the opportunity? Or would you let yourself or others die because of moral convictions? If you could let others die because of moral convictions could you live with yourself after that knowing you could have prevented it? [QUOTE]


I agree with your first sentence, but I am against the death penalty. I am PRO ALL LIFE. The government carries out the death penalty in our names. To me, that is as good as me pushing the stopper and killing him. I don't like that feeling. Three men have been put to death in my home state within the past month, 2 Federal prisoners and 1 State. I also don't agree with your "immediate danger" argument, because these people have already committed their crimes and are in custody. There is no immediate danger. That is a completely different situation, I do believe in self defense.

Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-punishment. I think these people should be locked up in solitary for the rest of there lives with no possibility for parole, but I can't support state killing in my name.


Chris

[Jim G]

Just think Steve, before Lasix, you'd have had to sleep with one lens on too!

First, a caution...we are responding emotionally based upon our own (very) personal views without knowing the true, complete facts in this case. Possibly we could hypothesize a situation where a mother, CERTIFIED to be "INSANE" BY THE COURTS , murdered her x children. (Use John Hinckley as an example of certifiably insane. By the way, I thot he was still hospitalized but simply allowed some visits home on weekends.) What punishment/treatment would be appropriate?

This is an extremely interesting debate that goes to the core of our society. Hammurabi's Code worked well for centuries but has recently been modified by many societies. Not one nation in Europe has the death penalty (Darris, it's a good thing you live in Texas). (As an aside, how about the 2-19 year olds in England who killed a child 8-9 years ago and are now being released and given new identities?) Has "society" developed mores that should change our views on punishment? Can those certified as "insane" be rehabilitated and eventually set free? Can a "murderer" be rehabilitated? Are there different types of murder--some worse than others? Etc.

[Darris Chambless]

Hello everyone,

You know it's going to be bad when I start my post with a disclaimer ;) This won't be for those easily offend or faint of heart. It's going to be blunt and void of political correctness (no profanity or slurs just not sugar coated in any way) I feel this subject warrants both barrels (no pun intended :-)

First Lionel Tate- kid or not he killed another human being. I've heard the arguements of "He's just a kid and didn't know better." Unfortunately that's a BS arguement. Why? Because at the age of four I knew that if I even hit another kid I would be in big trouble, so why does a 12 or 13 year old get prefferencial treatment? Well, let me answer that for everyone. It's because we can't hold people responsible for their actions. Oh no! It must have been accidental. They must have been mentally unstable. They didn't know what they were doing. Etc., etc. Got news for everyone. That is the whole reason why we have **** like this going on like we do. There are no consequences to our actions so run amok, it don't cost nothin' ;)

The value of life has decreased so much that it's almost worthless. Think of this, if you rob a liquor store with a gun in your hand you get 10 to 20 in the can. BUT if you shoot and kill someone on the way out you're elegible for parole in 6 years. Sad but true people.

Next lets go to the Yates ordeal. "She didn't know what she was doing because she was mentally ill." More BS. Why? Because I said so that's why ;) Not really, but to put it in perspective lets play this little game. I'm sitting by myself in an empty room and you (anyone) walks in and says "Hi, Darris how are you today?" I respond with "Very well. Thank you. And you?" "Fine" you say. You leave the room and return a few minutes later. "Hello Darris. I was wondering..." I respond with "YOUR MOTHER SEWS SOCKS THAT SMELL YOU WORTHLESS SACK OF bleep bleep bleep bleep." then I get up and charge at you, but fortunately you get out of the room unscathed. You check on me a little later by peeking in the door and I'm sitting there wringing my hands together and crying uncontrollably.

Now, which one of those was the real me and which one didn't know what the other was doing? That's my question and answer all in one. They were all me and my ability for cognative reasoning was alway there only in a different format. I was me the whole time. No one else entered the room and no one took my place. Regardless of the personality trait that was present at the time IT WAS STILL ME ALL THE TIME. It was like "Darris TV" all me all day:)

So in the Yates case, what if this evil trait has taken over and it's the only one left? "Well, we need to institutionalize her to find out." Why? What would you expect to find? The nice, sweet, even keeled Mrs. Yates? Got news for you, if you were abe to find that person she would be worse off than she is now. She would then be in such shock and so remorseful that her depression would turn her raged in on herself. There is nothing good that can come from institutionalizing this woman and Yes she did know what she was doing when she drown her children she just wasn't being "nice and sweet" about it.

I'm not discounting depression, however, even when you're depressed you know the difference between right and wrong. Mrs. Yates called the police and her husband for goodness sake. She knew what she was doing and five children are dead!

I've heard the term regarding the death penalty as a persons "feelings" about it or "...how I feel about it." You know what my "feeling about this woman are? Complete and total hatred. Guess how I feel about the death penalty? I hate it. Yes, Darris hates it because it isn't exercised often enough. There is no reason an inmate should ever be on death row for 18 years. That's stupid and it's not becuase these guys could be innocent, it's because of legal rangling which is a game played by lawyers for monetary gain and recognition. Which brings me to Steves statement of "In the last three years, 89 death row inmates have been shown to be innocent through DNA testing and were released from prison." Where'd this information come from? Where do I find it? I would like to read it because this is a new one on me. Not that I haven't heard about people being on death row that were innocent, but that 89 were. I heard a little different scenario in that a few people (no where near 89) were exhonorated of rape charges but were still guilty of the murder or other violent crimes perpetrated against the victims. Perhaps I misread the information.

I would like to say that regardless of "feelings" this was a crime and crime is judged under the law (or at least it use to be until liberalism crept in) The punishment for murder? Death by gas, lethal injection electricution or hanging. "Feelings" can only be cast at the living. What about the dead children? Are they less important than the mother because they're dead and no longer underfoot or in plain veiw for us to see? To me they are the only important people in this case and the rest are human waste and should be treated as such. I don't care whether anyone agrees with me and my stance on this or not, I'm not here to win a popularity contest. My veiws aren't very popular most of the time anyway so what do I care. I just tell it like it is, not how I wish it could be "And in a perfect world..." It isn't a perfect world gang and as long as we extend the helping hands to the wrong people we will move farther and farther away from that perfect world, not closer. Victims have no rights anymore because people spend too much time wondering why the perpetrator did what they did. Don't help the victims, help the wrong doers find were they made their mistakes so that they can return to society as a productive citizen. I hope I'm not the only person that see that as completely void of intellectual thought and I hope I'm not the only one with compassion for the victims.

Chris "I am PRO ALL LIFE. The government carries out the death penalty in our names." Um, no. The COURTS (emphasis) carry out the penalties under the LAW. There is a reason for why we have the laws that we do and that is because there are some pretty bad people out there. But for arguement sake, when they run out of space for these people is it okay if they come live with you at your house with your family? Surely you wouldn't have any objection and I'll put in a good word for you. You could give them the love and support that would turn their lives around, because that's all they really need isn't it? Any other takers? Anyone? Speak up. I'll start the list of people willing to take these people in. A show of hands? Maybe a hickup or something? NIMBY.

Well I guess I will await the bashings, I can take it. ;)

Darris C.

[Cindy Hamlin]

Darris,
I for one am not going to bash you! I applaud the strength of your convictions. I agree with you!

~Cindy

[Steve Machol]

Darris,

I'm glad you called me on my numbers because I misspoke. It was 85 deathrow prisoners exonerated since 1973, and not all by DNA testing.

Nonetheless, in my view, there are serious flaws with the way the death penalty is handed out in this country. There is no doubt that innocent people are being convicted and put to death. The question is: How many innocent deaths are acceptable in order to make sure the truly guilty ones are killed?

My answer to that is: none. I'd be interested in knowing how many you think is acceptable. Or do you believe that no innocent people are being put to death and that the system eventually corrects all its mistakes? (This is not meant to be sarcastic. I really am interested on how people view this issue)

Here are a few links I found on this subject. To me, the mistakes being made are troubling enough to question the fairness and morality of how we administer the death penalty in this country. That's not to say there aren't many people who deserve to die for what they've done. I just don't think our current system can do that without taking the innocent down with them.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000612/execute.htm

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000626/26edit.htm

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/0.../25atlarge.htm

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/010205/death.htm

Illinois's reform efforts come at a time of increased national scrutiny of the death penalty. DNA testing has freed 10 death row inmates and some 80 total convicts across the country. Former FBI Director William Sessions cites a dozen years of bureau statistics showing that 26 percent of all rape/homicide suspects are cleared through DNA testing. "I expect in death penalty cases you'll be likely to find a similar result," he says.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000619/execute.htm

It's not the only one, though. In a study of the more than 4,500 death penalty appeals filed from 1973 to 1995, Columbia University law professor James Liebman found that a plethora of mistakes led to reversals in an astonishing 68 percent of the cases nationally. "Capital trials produce so many mistakes," he says, "leaving grave doubt about whether we do catch them all."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/000214/execute.htm

It's no idle concern in Illinois, where 13 prisoners have been exonerated and released from death row since 1977, one more than the total executed.

Similar cases have been uncovered in the other 37 death-penalty states: 85 death-row inmates have been exonerated since 1973, says the Death Penalty Information Center. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and several other states are considering death penalty moratoriums.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/8death.htm

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/981109/9deat.htm

Mistaken convictions. For every 7 executions - 486 since 1976 - 1 other prisoner on death row has been found innocent.

[Darris Chambless]

Hello again Steve,

I'm pleasnatly surprised with this exchange in that so far these are not the responses I've expected to get from you (not meaning anything bad, just unexpected) Anyway:

"Nonetheless, in my view, there are serious flaws with the way the death penalty is handed out in this country."

No doubt about that and wouldn't disagree with that at all. The system isn't perfect and the reason is because humans run it.

"There is no doubt that innocent people are being convicted and put to death. The question is: How many innocent deaths are acceptable in order to make sure the truly guilty ones are killed?"

I'll answer that with a question of my own; How many of the guilty go free only to commit the same crimes(i.e. murder) again?

"My answer to that is: none."

I agree, but will have to go back to "...and in a perfect world..."

"I'd be interested in knowing how many you think is acceptable."

No sarcasm meant on my part either but how many innocent people have to die by the hands of the guilty that went free? We "wish" for the magic number zero when it comes to mistakes being made in our court systems, but it will never be perfect nor will it ever be fixed. You know that as well as I do. So the point is moot.

"Or do you believe that no innocent people are being put to death and that the system eventually corrects all its mistakes?"

And I believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, the Boogyman.... :)

"(This is not meant to be sarcastic. I really am interested on how people view this issue)"

Did you forget to read my post? I think I explained it pretty well and very directly. Let's get back on subject for just a moment and I'll answer your questions more literally. The woman and young boy being talked about here ARE guilty. We know they did it, by virtue or claim of insanity or not. Innocence is not the question. They ARE guilty.

My main problem is with the idea that by virtue of insanity or age these people were not rsponsible for their action. If you're insane, your insanty dictates your actions just as when you're thinking rationally and your rational mind dictates your actions. That's common sense. If I have split personalities it doesn't excuse ME from my actions. These personalities will always be a part of me like it or not and therapy won't change that. This woman will always be the murderer of her five children and anyone that says otherwise is just as loopy as she is.

Now to answer your questions:

Innocent people should never be die in order to make sure the truely guilty are put to death. Those five children were innocent but unfortunately the system wasn't involved until the mother killed them first.

Innocent people do die. It is a fact of life unfortunately. If you have the answer to how to solve this problem I wish you'd speak up and quit keeping us all in the dark.

How many do I think is acceptable? Well, the magic number zero comes to mind but again we're not talking about innocent people here; though we should be (the children) Please don't take offense but that is a stupid question.

I'm glad you corrected your numbers for me. Thanks. I would like to leave you with a question of my own though. How many of those 85 exhonorated inmates were put to death? ;)

Take care,

Darris "I fight for the rights of the good and have no love for the evil" C.

[Steve Machol]

Originally posted by Darris Chambless
No doubt about that and wouldn't disagree with that at all. The system isn't perfect and the reason is because humans run it.

Sadly, that'll always be the case.

I'll answer that with a question of my own; How many of the guilty go free only to commit the same crimes(i.e. murder) again?

I knew this response was coming. ;) The truth is I don't know and neither do you. However that really isn't the point. I'm not in favor of guilty people being set free to kill again any more than I am of killing innocent people. Both are actions are wrong.

I believe the question you're really proposing is this: Will more innocent lives be saved by executing all people found guilty of capital crimes, even if some of these people are actually innocent themselves?

That's an extremely valid question and one that has no easy answer. It's kind of a reverse Ultilitarianism, the pholosphy proposed by John Stuart Mills which states that all human actions should be judged based on the overall happiness they produce. In this case we are to judge the death penalty based on the least amount of harm it causes.

My belief at this point is that we need to reform the system to reduce the potential harm all the way around. It's not acceptable to simply release dangerous criminals into the populace. However the current system is heavily weighted towards those defendants that are White and able to afford decent legal representation. This is indefensible, particularly when something as irreversible as the death penalty is involved.

Unlike many, I don't pretend to know what the ultimate answer to this problem is. But I do believe we all need to open our minds and work together to correct the existing problems without introducing even more harm.

I agree, but will have to go back to "...and in a perfect world..."

With all due respect to The Supreme Leader, the only perfect world is one where I get to call all the shots! ;)

No sarcasm meant on my part either but how many innocent people have to die by the hands of the guilty that went free?

Partially answered above, however no one has suggested setting guilty people free. Until an improved justice system is developed, I would accept a system in which all people convicted of capital crimes remain in prison forwever. This would both protect society and allow justice to be served if someone is ultimately proved innocent of the crime they were convicted of.

Now to answer your questions:

Innocent people should never be die in order to make sure the truely guilty are put to death. Those five children were innocent but unfortunately the system wasn't involved until the mother killed them first.

Has anyone suggested that these children weren't innocent and that this wasn't a horrible crime that deserves justice? I'm not sure why you assume the most negative motives of anyone who has trouble with the death penalty.

Innocent people do die. It is a fact of life unfortunately. If you have the answer to how to solve this problem I wish you'd speak up and quit keeping us all in the dark.

I never claimed to have all the answers. Why the hostility?

How many do I think is acceptable? Well, the magic number zero comes to mind but again we're not talking about innocent people here;

Uh, yes we are. Innocent people have been put on death row. We have corrected the mistakes with 85 of them over the last 27 years. Unless you believe the system caught every mistake, there is no doubt that some innocent people have been put to death and will continue to be put to death under the current system.

though we should be (the children) Please don't take offense but that is a stupid question.

Hmmm......

How many of those 85 exhonorated inmates were put to death? ;)

None obviously. Are you suggesting that everyone being put to death is guilty and that the system works flawlessly to correct its mistakes?

[Cindy Hamlin]

I think we are all very passionate in our beliefs and it is obvious to me that we can all agree on a few points:

1. The justice system is flawed.
2. Innocent people are convicted of crimes they didn't commit.
3. The Tate and Yates cases have touched a raw nerve in all of us.
4. We all realize that people are making excuses for their illegal and immoral acts.

Unfortunately, Steve, putting them in prison for life isn't an option either. I read somewhere that to incarcerate a prisoner for one year costs us about $80,000. These prisoners live lives that are full of perks. Cable TV, computers, workout rooms, with the pesky inconvenience of being locked up! My significant other works for the Federal Bureau of Prisons and you would be amazed some of the stories he tells me!

The federal government is having to build prisons to house the state and local prisoners by court order as they cannot afford to house or keep up the prisons. He just oversaw the construction of a local prison and it cost you and I a billion dollars to build! It will be filled the day it opens! So they will start construction on another. There were about 15 built this year and all will be full at opening. So you see the problem the justice system has. They cannot build them fast enough, so unfortunately, criminals must go free!

That is where my disgust and anger comes in! It is unfathomable to me that someone would commit a crime and that they may be unleashed on society because the prison system is overcrowded!

As I stated before, I am a victim of a violent crime and they man that attacked me was parolled from a 75 year sentence after 12 years because of model behavior! In the time he was out he had attacked 6 other people and was locked up briefly here and there, but not returned for the balance of his sentence! He attacked me and I saw to it he would never hurt anyone ever again! I wrote to the TX department of corrections and had him on his way back to serve the remainder of his sentence. The day he was convicted of my attack TX passed a law that parole violators would only serve 2 years. He ended up sentenced to 56 years for his attack on me!

You can see that I have a very personal stake in this argument and I admit freely that I am biased! I, though, want to ensure that no one else is hurt by people who should otherwise be locked away!

We must protect society! We must protect the innocent from having crimes perpetrated upon them. If that price is occasionally having a wrongly accused person locked up than so be it. Would I feel differently is I were that person-absolutely! For now though we must work with what we have, imperfect or not.

That's my 2 cents!

~Cindy

[Steve Machol]

Cindy,

I'm sorry to read about the violent crime against you. I didn't see that earlier.

What happened to you was terrible and it's made even worse by the way the 'system' handled your attacker. You're right to be angry - we all should be!

There are many injustices in our society. I wish I knew how we could correct them all, but I don't. The most we can hope for is that the crime rate continues to decline as it has over the last few years, and that we continue to elevate our concern for the victim's of crime.

[Cindy Hamlin]

Well said, Steve! I think we can ALL agree on that sentiment!

~Cindy

[Darris Chambless]

Howdy Steve,

Sorry to be such a bother about this, but when people take what I've said out of context it bugs me a little. I answered several of your questions with questions of my own which carry the same validity as yours, the only difference being mine are rhetorical; neither I nor you can answer those questions. No one can.

As to "With all due respect to The Supreme Leader, the only perfect world is one where I get to call all the shots!"

Let's hope it never comes to that :)

"Has anyone suggested that these children weren't innocent and that this wasn't a horrible crime that deserves justice? I'm not sure why you assume the most negative motives of anyone who has trouble with the death penalty."

I'm not assuming anything. I'm following what you've said based on the direction you've gone in this conversation. You're speaking about the death penalty in and of itself and I'm speaking of the Yates and Tate case. The assumption is being made by you my friend.

"Innocent people do die. It is a fact of life unfortunately. If you have the answer to how to solve this problem I wish you'd speak up and quit keeping us all in the dark."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I never claimed to have all the answers. Why the hostility?"

That too is an assumption. There is no hostility intended in it. It is a statement made in the same context as your questions to me. Did you intend hostility?

This is the part that bothers me:

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many do I think is acceptable? Well, the magic number zero comes to mind but again we're not talking about innocent people here;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Uh, yes we are. Innocent people have been put on death row. We have corrected the mistakes with 85 of them over the last 27 years. Unless you believe the system caught every mistake, there is no doubt that some innocent people have been put to death and will continue to be put to death under the current system.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
though we should be (the children) Please don't take offense but that is a stupid question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hmmm...... "

If you put the whole thing together (as it was originally written and intended)

"How many do I think is acceptable? Well, the magic number zero comes to mind but again we're not talking about innocent people here; though we should be (the children) Please don't take offense but that is a stupid question."

"Uh, yes we are. Innocent people have been put on death row. We have corrected the mistakes with 85 of them over the last 27 years. Unless you believe the system caught every mistake, there is no doubt that some innocent people have been put to death and will continue to be put to death under the current system."

If you look back at the refrence to (the children) you should be able to determine that I was refering to Mrs. Yates and inferring Lionel Tate. Again we're on two different subjects which seems to causing the confussion. Yours is the death penaty in and of itself, mine is Mrs. Yates and the five children. She's not innocent and neither is Lionel Tate.

"How many of those 85 exhonorated inmates were put to death?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"None obviously. Are you suggesting that everyone being put to death is guilty and that the system works flawlessly to correct its mistakes?"

My point on this part of the subject exactly. The system is trying to do what it can but it is a flawed and overloaded system. How does one fix it? (rhetorical question because we both already know the answer to that one)

What I'm suggesting now and have been is that Mrs. Yates is guilty and useless to society. Her children were innocent. Lionel Tate was old enough to know better when he killed that little girl and she too was innocent. He is not. The law dictates the penalty for murder is death. To incarcerate a person for life (as Cindy said) means that we pay their way and keep them "safe" from society and you end up with an overcrouding problem. The real problem goes back to responsibility for ones own actions. I'm an eye for an eye kind of guy. What happens with Mrs. Yates will be determined in the courts and the decision will be final. Whatever the decision it's a tragic loss of innocent lives (theirs, not hers) Not to mention I'm talking about cut and dry cases here.

One last thing before I go,

"However the current system is heavily weighted towards those defendants that are White and able to afford decent legal representation."

And your proof for this statement would be found where? Or is this just your belief? It sounds like a definitive statement which is why I ask. It's my belief that the current system is heavily weighted toward those of any color able to afford decent legal representation. On what is my belief based? Family memebers of politicians, NBA stars, NFL stars, Hip Hop and music icons, TV stars, Movie stars and a host of others. The interesting thing is that their white, black, latino, oriental. If you've got money you can buy freedom and still be guilty. Our system has problems because the parameters keep getting broader, a jury of our peers is made up of people that have no idea who the defendant is and "law" is left up to interpretation and the best dog and pony show by the legal council.

Take care,

Darris C.

[Alan W]

Unfortunately, I live about two miles from the crime scene (as the crow flies).
This place has not been in too good a shape.
The woman was diagnosed as post partum PSYCHOSIS, not depression. That changes things a bit because she was known to be mentally ill.
The neighborhood thought she was a class act as a mom. The nearby merchants thought she was a model customer. That was the part people saw overtly.
Her hubby knew better. The CPS knew better. The CPS said they didn't think it would be bad enough. That's bull. They are there to protect the children and are charged with responsibility based on know-how. They screwed up big time, and I can quote 3 other cases where if not for citizens, CPS's incompetency would have resulted in other deaths.
As for Andrea Yates . . . she is flipped out and was before she killed the kids. I don't see willfull intent, I see a very sick person with a dual personality looking good to too many people. She's got to be put away . . . but, this is Texas. We have and use drive through death chambers. More served than any other state.

This will be an expensive battle. I wish someone would dig into the CPS in Harris and Galveston County, as well as that idiot judge in Galveston County who has the final word on which drunken stripper on cocaine will kill her kid and get away with it with not even 1 night in the tank.

When the dust settles, I'd like to know what Russell Yates did to get his wife treatment instead of making her pregnant every year to keep her fulfilled as a Mom.

The smoking gun belongs to more people than Andrea Yates. At the funeral over 350 people sat for one hour in tears. Even the guys who do the road repair and don't speak English said to each other at the local convenience store . . .por que?

All asked the same question: Why?

Why?

[Cindy Hamlin]

Alan,
You indeed have a unique perspective on the situation. We have all been condemning her and you bring up an interesting point where was Russell Yates' responsibility in all of this? Her family said they knew that she was in trouble for a long time, but thought she'd snap out of it. Unfortunately, she did snap-just not out of it! I agree with you about her getting pregnant yearly, she knew she had post partum issues which she was being medicated for.

I think her husband had a right to stop the chain that caused her her problems. You don't continually feed a diabetic candy and hope they snap out of it, do you?

I am sure that it is a very sad and lonely place to be right now. I guess only time will tell how society judges her husband. Now he has our sympathy, but soon as the trial starts that may turn to rage!

~Cindy

[Cindy Hamlin]

I wanted to share with you the latest news about the case. Please note the part about the last 6 months and the friend's concern about her.
~Cindy

Mother Believes 'Devil' Is in Her

.c The Associated Press


DALLAS (AP) - A mother charged with drowning her five children in a bathtub told family members from jail that she thinks the devil is in her, her brother said.

Andrea Yates, 36, asked visiting siblings on Wednesday whether her children had been buried and told them during a Sunday visit that she feared she was possessed, her brother Andrew Kennedy told The Dallas Morning News in Saturday's editions.

``She asked me and my brother, 'How long do you think the devil's been in me?''' Kennedy said. ``I guess she's looking for answers as to why she did what she did.''

Yates told police that she drowned her children one by one last week in their suburban Houston home. The youngest was 6 months old; the oldest, 7 years.

Prosecutors said last week they will decide within three weeks whether to seek the death penalty. But several legal experts said it's unlikely Yates will face a death sentence, based on the outcome of several similar cases.

``It's important to keep this in perspective: Death rows are not filled with family murderers,'' said Jordan Steiker, a professor and death penalty expert at the University of Texas Law School.

Yates' attorney, George Parnham, has said he will likely use an insanity defense, which might prove effective.

``Statistically you have a much better chance of prevailing in an insanity defense if it's a violent crime and if you kill a member of your own family,'' said Houston criminal defense attorney George Secrest.

``Also, women fare better than men in these types of cases,'' said Secrest, who successfully defended a woman accused of killing her baby in 1997.

Kennedy said his family had been increasingly worried about his sister's mental health over the last six months, and one of her longtime friends was concerned enough that she kept a detailed diary of her emotional decline.

The family feared she might kill herself, but ``we never dreamed she'd kill our kids,'' he said.

Yates told police that she killed the children because she thought she was a bad mother and they were hopelessly developmentally damaged.

Her husband, NASA engineer Russell Yates, has said he believed his wife was suffering from ``psychotic side effects'' of post-partum depression.

Kennedy said his sister began receiving treatment for her most recent emotional problems this spring after she put a knife to her throat while visiting her mother's house and threatened to kill herself.

She was first treated for depression after trying to kill herself in June 1999 with an overdose of her late father's Alzheimer medications.

``Just about everybody in the family has had problems with depression,'' Kennedy said.

[karen]

this has turned into an amazing thread. I was afraid everyone was going to get all hostile about defending their points of view but they haven't. I applaud everyone for the courage of their convictions whether they agree or not and am once again so grateful to live in a country where I can express my opinion- whatever it may be -with out fear or hesitation.
Darris-once again I say that if we weren't both happily married folks we would belong together-but I have a question to throw into the mix. Does anyone feel that the death penalty is a deterrent?? It may be true that other countries do not have the death penalty but you can get your hand chopped off for stealing or get caned for destroying someone else's property. I think that when you know that the consequences for your act would be painful and long term that it may encourage you to not commit the crime. I don't think that happens here or at least not as often as it should. Perhaps I am giving criminals too much credit. I suppose their consciences may not be in working order so that nothing would be a deterrent but those people especially are the ones I want off the street and away from me and my family. I don't think you can grow a conscience. I don't think 20 years in jail will get you one. I imagine that some of the people on death row are sorry and if they had it to do over, perhaps they would not have killed but the fact remains that they did. I think when you purposely take someone elses life your rights have been forfeited. I don't think you get those rights just by virtue of being a human. You have to earn them and one of the ways to do that is to respect other people.
I know for myself that the idea of having to die myself if I took someone elses life is a deterrent for me. But my conscience is in full working order.