Yates case

I was just wondering...does anyone know the particulars of this case? From what it sounds like this woman was mentally troubled to begin with and subsequently suffered a severe post partum psychosis. It sounds like the prosecution won the case by arguing that even though she was "mentally disturbed" she still knew the "difference between right and wrong". My question is, if someone is psychotic, which right away means they have a disturbed perception of reality, how do you differentiate between right and wrong? I believe this case sets a dangerous precedent. Let's say I am on a medication that has a rare side effect of inducing psychosis. If I now go out and do something horrible, am I "responsible for my own actions"? Something about this case troubles me very much.

I have a rule for dumb, crazy people: SIT STILL IN THE CORNER WITH YOUR HEAD BETWEEN YOUR KNEES, AND DON'T MOVE UNTIL YOU STARVE TO DEATH.


Anything else is just arrogance. I don't presume myself to be capable of writing an exhaustive volume enumerating every aspect of right and wrong in every situation. Meaning, the easiest way to differentiate right from wrong is to run it by your peers. If this woman had run it by her peers, they would have said "Don't drown your children." It is not given to us as individuals to play God. So, sure, I may have a twisted idea of right versus wrong, but that only becomes dangerous if I choose to act on it in violation of popular notions and the law. And to go against the world isn't just crazy, it's arrogant.


This woman was not just crazy, but arrogant when she took such a serious moral calculation into her own hands. She is not being punished for craziness, but for arrogance. Whatever her higher ideals may have been, she simply has to put them on hold in this lifetime, or be locked in a cage. That's reality.


eLROY

She was psychotic, but not legally insane.

It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she was aware killing her children was wrong. She locked all doors..hid all keys..took phones off of hooks..placed each child in the bed after she drowned him/her...so that the remaining children would not see what she had done to their siblings and thus become more alarmed. This points to her being aware of the fact that what she was doing was wrong. Her eldest son, Noah, begged and pleaded for his life, screaming that he was "a bad boy and that he was sorry." She thought about herself..and her husband. Many people that kill their children do it to hurt their spouse. It was proven that her husband had been very critical of her home-shcooling efforts and general raising of the children. She must have felt hopelessly trapped. What chance does a woman with five babies have of making it on her own..and maybe the thought that being stuck with an imbecile like Russell Yates was unacceptable to her any longer.

When an officer that had just emerged from the back bedroom after viewing the dead children asked her, "Do you know what you have done, lady?" She responded, "I killed my children."

She was not insane..she knew that killing them was wrong. The legal criteria for insanity has been, for hundreds of years, the ability to discern between right and wrong. I firmly believe she knew she was committing murder that day. And that she could have called for someone to save those lost angels from their mother had she wanted them to live. She was an ice-hearted monster that day. I do believe she may have gone insane post-event. How could she not? How could anyone deal with the fact that they killed five innocent babies. And, if there is a God, I truly do believe the worst punishment for her is yet to come.

Insanity is still a viable defense. It was proven in my mind..and in the mind of 12 jurors..that she, with deliberate thought and awareness of her actions, massacred those five babies.

The world is a messed up place.

"She was psychotic, but not legally insane."


Psychiatrically speaking, there is no such thing as "insanity." At least I don't remember learning about any such condition every existing in the DSM IV. Psychosis refers to "A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning." I think she fully qualifies for this definition. I disagree with what you said about her knowing what she did was wrong. If what she did was wrong, why did she openly admit to doing it immediately afterwards to the police? How can a person who has lost touch with reality be able to discern between right and wrong?

almost all of these killers have been on mind altering drugs like prozac.


i believe in this specific case the woman was on 4 or 5 such drugs.


brad

I guess we are arguing semantics here.


I believe in varying degrees of psychosis. I believe she was in desperate need of medication and treatment. However, I dont believe she did NOT know that killing her children was wrong. Her actions before, during and after the murders leave that to be the only viable conclusion. I also believe she made a choice to kill them and willfully did so. And I believe she could have decided not to kill them. An insane person does not do and say the things she did to accomplish that unspeakable act.

'I believe she was in desperate need of medication and treatment.'


im pretty sure she was on 4 or 5 mind altering medications (which have homicidal tendencies as side effects).


brad

almost all of these killers have been on mind altering drugs like prozac.


Prozac is an antidepressant. Its effects against psychosis are probably none or at most minimum. All psychiatric drugs are "mind altering" to some extent. I am pretty sure she was not on any anti-psychotics.