Were Kids Killed for Being 'Mouthy'

[zibazinski]

At least start with sterilization and her husband should be sterilized as well.

[Opti]

Feb 2, 2011 19:45:59 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Feb 2, 2011 18:48:19 GMT -5 Opti said:

"I don't really know enough about it - but her actions were so aggregious, I guess I don't think I would ever feel safe with her wandering around the world."

Exactly you are having a knee jerk reaction instead of a logical reasoned reaction. I personally wouldn't pay the extra money to keep her in jail if it were up to me.

So we agree...so, should we shoot her or drown her

As you figured MissT, we disagree. I think we should sterilize her. I believe her husband was more responsible than she was for this happening. Sins of omission and commission, etc. To me, her quote "It's time" implies she let her husband know on more than one occasion that this is what she would feel driven to do. Until we as a society train people to blame or find responsibility within themselves there will continue to be more murders than suicides.

He's obviously able to go on with life knowing he drove his wife crazy and allowed the opportunity for the murders to occur. He's breeding more of himself too.

[thyme4change]

Exactly you are having a knee jerk reaction instead of a logical reasoned reaction. I personally wouldn't pay the extra money to keep her in jail if it were up to me.

I don't think knee-jerk is exactly the proper term. The reality is that she killed 5 children. If she was sane or not, the cost to keep her locked up is the same. I don't see value of her to society. I suspect if they let her out she will just sell her story, and I don't think she should become rich for murdering her own children.

I find it interesting that you have basically ZERO blame for her, and she shouldn't be punished at all.

(Didn't she say "It's time" after she had done all the killing?)

[Opti]

Snerdley, you are intentionally being obtuse. Postpartum depression is unique in that the onset is caused by having a child and if one does not continue having children it goes away and stays away FOREVER!

Its is very specific, has very distinct actions on the brain, i.e. the desire to harm one's children and/or oneself. Because it has this unique cause if the cause doesn't exist neither does the problem.

Yes, I'm not into blame like some. At the highest sense I am a closet buddhist and believe many of the things we believe to be horrible were agreed to by souls before they incarnate on this earth. There's a reason the Dali Lama has never intervened even to save his own monks when he forsaw they would be killed by the Chinese. I was thinking about this when I woke up and another example of culpability is that to my knowledge no children who have killed other children have ever been executed or put in person for their entire lives.
The odds of their recidivism, i.e. liklihood to commit murder is much higher than
a person who committed murder due to postpartum depression again if she never physically bears children again.

Why do we let these children enter society?
If jail were purely about punishment irregardless of the circumstances all those
people convicted of involuntary manslaughter would be executed as well. Guy ran out in front of the car? Yes. You killed him? Yes. Death for you in your equal blame you did the crime world.

[Opti]

"Do you not understand the criminal justice system? "

Yes, I was making a point which was apparently missed. Involuntary manslaughter is when you kill someone through no intention of your own usually, person runs out in front of your car, kid runs behind your car to retrieve something without you seeing them, etc.

I believe when postpartum depression gets bad enough it gets very close to that involuntary manslaughter line. I believe that the constant thoughts of wanting to harm your children and/or yourself become so relentless that some cross the line and carry it out. I'm not sure where I fall on how much punishment they should get as society has already determined significant prison time is the start of it.

The difference between a Jeffrey Dahmer and an Andrea Yates is likely repeatability of their crimes. Jeffrey Dahmer is very likely to repeat, I know of no successful treatment of serial killers at this time so keeping him in jail for life makes sense as a protection for society. On the other hand, Andrea Yates is only likely to repeat and on her own biological children if and only if she continues to get pregnant and have children.
Sterlized and released when she's sane she is not a danger to society.


Lastly for those who have never experienced anything close to postpartum depression hell or similar you may choose to not understand or find empathy being afraid if you did understand you could be that.
Really loud rock music that never shut off was used successfully by the US military to rattle others. I've never spoken to a person in Andrea's situation to know enough what thoughts were in her head that brought her to those actions. I feel I understand where Andrea's head might have been at due to experiences in my own life. She went to jail. Killing her or keeping her in jail won't change the past.

"There are children who have killed other children who have been given life sentences. Once they are of age, they go from the juvenile faclity to the adult facility to serve out there sentences. Sometimes they are eligible for parole and it's granted and sometimes not."

Do you have any examples of kids who murdered other children when they were at most 6 years of age where this is true? I believe in England
there was a 6 year old boy who killed two kids younger than him on two separate occasions and I recall its was said he would not serve time as an adult for this. I used the child example as an illustration of dimished capacity and how it is treated different under the law.

ETA: Removed my story now that MissT has read it.

[Opti]

"I find it interesting that you have basically ZERO blame for her, and she shouldn't be punished at all. "

I don't have zero blame for her nor did I say she shouldn't be punished at all.
What I have said is since she has served her time and is up for parole I personally would be OK if she got it if she were sterilized.

I've said nothing about what I think an appropriate punishment is and I won't.
My closet buddhist worldview encompasses the possibility that in a former life one or more of her children chose to kill her and now they've switched parts in this lifetime. Per Buddism what we consider real is a dream and what we believe are our dreams is the true reality.

I'll try to stop posting on this because I am aware if one comes from an eye for an eye belief system and not a reincarnation all things happen for a reason system its hard to comprehend what I post let alone be able to read it without seeing red one time or more.

[Opti]

"You still seem to be excusing her behavior which was not involuntary. Please don't imply that it was. I'm sorry for what you went through but I don't think the blame should be laid solely at your husbands feet either. Perhaps he didn't realize, understand or even know what he could do if anything at all. "

I am explaining her behavior and finding it not as heinous as you do because I believe it was much less voluntary than you think. I don't think we'll come any closer to agreeing and that's OK.

If I got to write her life story she would have left him after that first psychiatrist told her to not get pregnant and left the kids for him to raise. Shockingly I wasn't asked to.

Was my hubby soley responsible for my condition, No. Had I had the mental strength then to ignore what I was told by society and people in my life to not give up on the marriage so quickly, I never would have got to that situation. I would have left before the combination of a bad marriage and a job I didn't enjoy sent me into a depression. Once I was clinically depressed I do blame him more than me for not saving me from the worst of it, but I realize it was because who he was he wasn't able to do better.

[zibazinski]

I think that Optomist is trying to say is that because you are a RATIONAL person, you find it a horrible act, as most RATIONAL people would. Andrea Yates is not RATIONAL. She is nuts, plain and simple. Whether it only comes from post partum or other issues, I don't know but you cannot hold her to the same standard as you would a sane person because she is not. IF she were sterilized, MAYBE she could function in the real world, I don't know because I don't know about her other issues, if she has any. But I do blame her husband for having more children with her when he knew she wasn't capable of dealing with it. He, also, should have been brought to trial and if she is to be sterilized, so should he for being a lousy parent as well. But according to posters, he's gone on his merry way and breeding more children.

[Opti]

"Involuntary manslaughter, like hitting someone who ran out in front the car, if you stop and try to render aid and stay until help and the police arrive.. you usually won't even be arrested, much less sentenced unless you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

"If you do a hit and run and are caught you most likely will be charged with felony hit and run and vehicular manslaughter. (Same event, different crime). "

Before these laws were passed, more people died from vehicular manslaughter.
As a solution to we don't want people dying even if you hit them by accident these laws were created.

In the same vein, I propose Andrea's law as a way to protect children from possible death at the hands of someone under severe postpartum depression.
It would be modeled in part after the child abuse laws in that all medical practioners would be required to report to Child Protective Services or whomever it is now when a woman was considered to be at risk of harming herself and/or her children. CPS would be given the ability to remove the children from the home if it was believed the kids safety was not adequately protected.

A spouse, usually a man or could be a domestic partner, would be found culpable under the law if against medical advice the spouse or domestic partner was responsible in getting the postpartum individual pregnant and the child carried to term. If any children of this union were killed while the postpartum spouse was under the influence of this type of depression, this instance, the minimum mandatory sentence would be 1 year in jail for the non-depressed spouse. 6 months if conception occurred prior to medical advice advising no further pregancies if adequate provisions to protect the children were not taken.
In the event medical advice states postpartum individual should always be supervised with the children if this provision is not met, i.e. spouse not supervised round the clock and it can be proven the lapse is more than 5 minutes the non-depressed spouse will incur a mandatory minimum sentence of half what the postpartum spouse receives for any crimes against the children.
(Verbiage would be added to assign this consequence to the supervising adult
who failed at their round the clock duties, so if Grandma decided she could safely leave every one at home and run to McDonalds for 15 minutes she would
have the legal consequences not the non depressed spouse.)

The non-depressed spouse can be found not legally responsible in the event all reasonable and neccessary actions to protect the children are taken. These include, but are not limited to, divorcing the spouse and having full custody of the children with at most supervised visits of the children until a medical professional has determined the postpartum depression is under control enough that the children are not at risk from their mother. Having the children raised by relatives with no visitation permitted by the postpartum individual until
again said postpartum individual deemed not a danger to her children by medical advice. And so on.

Blame and horror do not solve the problem of how do we stop children from being killed by their severe postpartum depressed Moms. My above proposed law is at least is a start. It is also much more likely to be effective than getting better drugs or getting everyone truly on the same page that killing anyone is only acceptable if and only if that person is directly trying to kill you, i.e. self defense.

[thyme4change]

What I have said is since she has served her time and is up for parole

I'm not totally familiar with the details - but didn't she originally receive life in prison with no parole?

Then she appealed for a new trial. The new trial declared her insane, and put her in a mental institution.

I don't think they do "parole" from the mental institution. Is she now petitioning to leave - claiming that she is healthy enough to re-enter society?

[Opti]

Feb 4, 2011 10:40:36 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

More laws to blame everyone EXCEPT the perpetrator. Thumbs down.

There are already laws on the books to deal with the perpetrator. I'm proposing an additional law which IMO would decrease the percentage of child deaths from this particular cause.

[Opti]

Feb 4, 2011 10:41:55 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

More laws to blame and stigmatize the family of the mentally ill. Tune into Oprah and blame your mom for not breastfeeding long enough.

Enabling someone to commit a crime is not the same as stigmatizing them for having someone in the family with this condition.

Are there mentally ill in your family Snerd that you feel the deep need to protect? Have you willfully ignored medical advice and enabled someone to kill or harm someone else? Or are you like those that don't want to stigmatize Uncle Fred the known pedophile so they keep inviting him to family events even when children are present and refuse to acknowledge any responsibility to the children who Uncle Fred abuses due to the opportunity because they actually didn't do the abuse. Uncle Fred did.
Its his fault. Just because I was unwilling to take reasonable precautions to protect my children doesn't mean I have responsibility. Right?!

[Opti]

Feb 4, 2011 11:00:52 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

Feb 4, 2011 10:58:52 GMT -5 Opti said:

Enabling someone to commit a crime is not the same as stigmatizing them for having someone in the family with this condition.

Are there mentally ill in your family Snerd that you feel the deep need to protect? Have you willfully ignored medical advice and enabled someone to kill or harm someone else? Or are you like those that don't want to stigmatize Uncle Fred the known pedophile so they keep inviting him to family events even when children are present and refuse to acknowledge any responsibility to the children who Uncle Fred abuses due to the opportunity because they actually didn't do the abuse. Uncle Fred did.
Its his fault. Just because I was unwilling to take reasonable precautions to protect my children doesn't mean I have responsibility. Right?!

You are ridiculous. How dare you accuse me of that kind of BS. I guess you true colors are showing. Too bad.

I didn't accuse you of doing that, however your arguments resemble those who would find that behavior OK. It appears you feel it was perfectly fine for Mt. Yates to ignore medical advice on at least two known occasions. Once when it was recommended that his wife not get pregnant again and the other time when he decided it would be OK to leave her alone with the kids for one hour unsupervised despite the round the clock
supervision request. In your opinion, I am stigmatizing the poor fellow. In my opinion I am pointing out he is a glaring idiot whose inability to follow medical advice got his kids killed not him.

My "true colors" aren't showing any more or less than they were in the past. I've just posted my reasoning and opinions which you disagree with.

You are ridiculous.
(Back to you prickly spongeball. )
P.S. Reread my post, you'll notice my phrases were questions not accusations or statements.

[marjar]

Feb 4, 2011 11:00:52 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

Feb 4, 2011 10:58:52 GMT -5 Opti said:

Enabling someone to commit a crime is not the same as stigmatizing them for having someone in the family with this condition.

Are there mentally ill in your family Snerd that you feel the deep need to protect? Have you willfully ignored medical advice and enabled someone to kill or harm someone else? Or are you like those that don't want to stigmatize Uncle Fred the known pedophile so they keep inviting him to family events even when children are present and refuse to acknowledge any responsibility to the children who Uncle Fred abuses due to the opportunity because they actually didn't do the abuse. Uncle Fred did.
Its his fault. Just because I was unwilling to take reasonable precautions to protect my children doesn't mean I have responsibility. Right?!

You are ridiculous. How dare you accuse me of that kind of BS. I guess you true colors are showing. Too bad.

I don't see any accusations.

[TD2K]

Chinsey has always believed the best defense is a strong offense.

[verrip1]

Feb 3, 2011 19:58:50 GMT -5 @missmargarita said:

And you do realize that Jeffrey Dahmer was very disturbed as a child and it started out with cruelty to animals... He turned out to be a productive member of society once he entered adulthood, didn't he?

Well, he was an environmental activist. Population control was his thing.

He also promoted low carb dieting.

Yes, all and all he WAS a productive member of society.

[swamp]

Feb 4, 2011 16:02:14 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

He also promoted low carb dieting.

I guess people are considered low carb..........

[swamp]

Feb 4, 2011 16:10:28 GMT -5 @missmargarita said:

Feb 4, 2011 16:03:44 GMT -5 swamp said:

I guess people are considered low carb..........

Too bad the side of bat shit crazy they're served with is pure carbohydrate...

A simple carb, even!