Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2MinsToPost
well ok here it goes she killed some innocent children, five, and has the chance now to live in a kosher mental institution and the possibility now exists that she may live to see the freedom she does not deserve. i think it is best for me to say nothing else bout this cause i have VERY, VERY STRONG emotions surronding this case. i will ask you one question,
what seperates her "mental" state from one who comes home after work and catches his wife cheating on him and in a fit of "whatever" kills her? what seperates her from the child molesters? what seperates her from the rapisits? please, she did this METHODICALLY! one BY ONE SHE DROWNED THOSE KIDS, STARTING WITH THE YOUNGEST! i hope she gets what she deserves, a painful death by the hands of someone with nothing to lose.
rehabilate? i'll do it, by means of what she did to those poor children of hers.
just my STRONG, STRONG OPINION.
|
S'okay, 2Mins, post strong opinions away. With a few exceptions, no one seems to get awful in discussion on derbytrail. For which I am grateful!
What makes it different is that a child molester is molesting children because that's how he (or she, I'll be fair) gets his/her rocks off. A man shooting his cheating wife is acting in a fit of rage. Andrea Yates heard voices in her head telling her she was saving the children from Satan by killing them. She really thought she was doing the right thing by killing them. Whether her mental illness was genetic or brought about by circumstance, I don't know. She was (is) a very religious woman, and to her Hell is a very real place. And her holy book has many instances of major characters hearing God speak to them, and then there she was, hearing voices herself (which many, many, many people suffering from severe depression do). How was she to know it wasn't God speaking to her?
And here's something else-- it is very, very difficult to dupe a jury into thinking someone is insane when he or she is not. Many serial killers have tried it and failed. Psychologists and psychiatrists aren't stupid-- they can tell the difference between someone who is really ill and someone who is faking. And the only way the prosecution could guarantee their conviction in the first trial was by presenting false evidence. Let's think about that-- the prosecution, the state of Texas, felt it necessary to LIE TO THE JURY in order to convince those 12 men and women that Andrea Yates was sane. And it worked, and thank God for justice that the lie was discovered. And without that lie, 12 different men and women found her incapable of comprehending her own actions.
And if she is ever "cured," I guarantee you she will be waiting for death to take her, too. Because I fully believe she loved her children, just as I believe she was too sick to understand what was happening to her sanity, or how to get out of the situation she was in (though I don't know, as do none of us, I can't help but believe her home situation contributed to her illness). In some ways, putting her to death might have been more merciful to her. But not as punishment for her crime. She didn't understand what she was doing. The child molesters, the man shooting his wife, for that matter the man who shot his 13-year-old daughter when she tried to abort his child (I just learned that lovely story this week)-- they know they do wrong. Andrea Yates didn't. She just didn't.