TX - Five Yates children drowned, Houston, 20 June 2001 *Insanity*

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
OneLostGrl said:
Here is an interesting article I came across while reading things having to do with a different thread here and it made me think of this thread while reading it. So I'll put it here rather than over there to allow the others here to be able to decide for themselves what life in a state mental hospital can be like.

Although this was written in 2001 and is 6 years old or so, it is years past the 1990's "sweeping reforms" you were refering to..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/07/22/MN122212.DTL

"Shortly after midnight on Christmas, Orrin Patrick, a 45-year-old mentally ill patient at Napa State Hospital, led a young orderly into the starkly lit dayroom on Unit T-7.

There, lying in a pool of blood on the speckled linoleum floor, was John Reed, 48, of Yuba City. He had been pummeled in the face and strangled.

To hospital employees and patients' rights advocates, Reed's slaying exposes a fundamental flaw in California's mental health system: Criminally inclined, often violent patients are now in the majority at state hospitals - and the hospitals are ill-equipped to handle them.

The problem has reached a critical stage at Napa State Hospital, which has a severe employee shortage and where staff members are given only rudimentary training on how to deal with criminal behavior. With more than 100 job vacancies at the hospital, the nursing staff has barely enough time to clothe, feed and medicate patients, let alone deal with violent outbursts.

"This particular death is the result of some serious long-term problems in providing care for people who have been committed to this hospital," said social worker Joan Bartos, who worked at Napa State Hospital until a year ago. "It's not a safe place for patients to be treated. It's also a very dangerous place for staff."

In the last four years, the once sleepy campus-style hospital has become a holding pen for men and woman incompetent to stand trial on criminal charges or found not guilty of crimes by reason of insanity. It is a dramatic shift from its founding purpose: Since 1875, the hospital had mainly served mentally ill patients committed by civil courts....."

Much more @ link. Yeah, like this is a nicer place than prison- no one here being punished or at risk of being murdered!

The world hasn't changed that much and people housed in these hospitals *are* indeed being punished and living in fear of other inmates just like in Prisons.. except in prison, the cells of violent, maximum security prisoners are locked- the doors in these places are not!

and your point is?????????
Which way do you want it? Do you want Andrea in prison so she can be protected from being pummeld, or do you want her in a mental institution because she isn't guilty by reason of insanity? So there are flaws in the system. The original point for this thread was to discuss ANDREA. Obviously she is being treated well in a nice facility or we would have heard of her pummeling and subsequent death by now.I can't speak for California, all I know is the two facility's I worked for in the state of KY were very nice and the patients were given MUCH oportunity to have therapy and reform done on them. Wouldn't lie to you about this, have no reason to. I am not sure why you keep trying to prove my statement wrong. It is from my own personal experience, nothing else, hope that clarify's this issue for you.:doh: :doh: :doh:
 
kcksum said:
and your point is?????????
Which way do you want it? Do you want Andrea in prison so she can be protected from being pummeld, or do you want her in a mental institution because she isn't guilty by reason of insanity? So there are flaws in the system. The original point for this thread was to discuss ANDREA. Obviously she is being treated well in a nice facility or we would have heard of her pummeling and subsequent death by now.I can't speak for California, all I know is the two facility's I worked for in the state of KY were very nice and the patients were given MUCH oportunity to have therapy and reform done on them. Wouldn't lie to you about this, have no reason to. I am not sure why you keep trying to prove my statement wrong. It is from my own personal experience, nothing else, hope that clarify's this issue for you.:doh: :doh: :doh:


My point, kcksum, is that people, not only you, have been saying on this thread and the older Yates threads that Andrea is not being punished because she was found not guilty by reason of insanity and is in a Forensic hospital rather than Prison. It has been implied , several times, that she may be having a grand time while locked up in the facility.

My point is that Forensic hospitals DO practice punishment as well as therapy. My point is that a locked ward is not a fun place! She is locked up, she is being punished and she should stay locked up for the rest of her life!! But I think she should remain locked up in a place where we know she is also getting the treatment she so obviously needs along with keeping her off of our streets!

So those are my points- I'm not directing this stuff at you, kcksum, although I used your quote about your experience with Forensic hospitals, I was trying to show that Andrea is indeed being punished-she doesn't need to be in a Prison for that to happen... it's part of what happens in the hospital she is commited to as well!

It has nothing to do with how I want anything to be- I'm giving links and information on what happens to people, and where they go, after being found not guilty by reason of insanity- in a thread that is discussing someone who was found not guilty by reason of insanity! :banghead:
 
OneLostGrl said:
My point, kcksum, is that people, not only you, have been saying on this thread and the older Yates threads that Andrea is not being punished because she was found not guilty by reason of insanity and is in a Forensic hospital rather than Prison. It has been implied , several times, that she may be having a grand time while locked up in the facility.

My point is that Forensic hospitals DO practice punishment as well as therapy. My point is that a locked ward is not a fun place! She is locked up, she is being punished and she should stay locked up for the rest of her life!! But I think she should remain locked up in a place where we know she is also getting the treatment she so obviously needs along with keeping her off of our streets!

So those are my points- I'm not directing this stuff at you, kcksum, although I used your quote about your experience with Forensic hospitals, I was trying to show that Andrea is indeed being punished-she doesn't need to be in a Prison for that to happen... it's part of what happens in the hospital she is commited to as well!

It has nothing to do with how I want anything to be- I'm giving links and information on what happens to people, and where they go, after being found not guilty by reason of insanity- in a thread that is discussing someone who was found not guilty by reason of insanity! :banghead:

it's obvious this discussion is getting under your skin by way of your bold type and itallics. I did not mean to start an argument. move on......please. It isn't that important to me really.
 
kcksum said:
it's obvious this discussion is getting under your skin by way of your bold type and itallics. I did not mean to start an argument. move on......please. It isn't that important to me really.


Then stop answering her posts. OK?
 
Yes Andrea did chose to be off her meds and a lot of MENTALLY ILL individuals do. They do not think they are ill and don't think they need meds. Some think that their medication is being poisoned and therefore stop taking it (They are paranoid) for that reason.

Excellent point. Yes it's not a good idea to stop taking meds when you're insane but hey, insane people do insane stuff. I don't understand why some people here accept that Yates was pronounced not guilty because she is insane and yet blame her for not taking her prescribed drugs as if she should have been rational in this regard when she obviously wasn't, insanity is not selective. This woman should have been institutionalized long before the murders according to people who knew her, her condition was wayyyyy beyond postpartum depression.
 
and sadly,, her husband had too much faith in his religion and was waaaaayyyyyy beyond denial.
 
And her doctor took her off her meds - a strong one you are never supposed to cut off that sharply.

The insanity defense is ridiculous, outrageous, insulting... except for the rare case where it really applies, and there it is essential. Andrea Yates is one of those rare cases.
 
unless i missed something.. i don't think anyone has brought up the possible built-in 'darwin' factor of this kind of infanticide. i really believe that those who are that psychotic often kill their children in order to prevent their own genes from being carried on.. plus they know they can't care for them so they kill them so no others will raise them, or they won't get carried off by a wolf, or starve or something. kind of built-in euthanasia system. it's a phenomenon that no one has really researched (well.. maybe they have & i just don't know about it!) it's nothing new, really... it's happened throughout history when women who happen to be unstable or sick or are starving and in poverty have been left alone with their children, to fend for themselves... remember we have been cavemen for far, far longer than we have been civilized human beings... and in this case the gentic built-in mechanism took over. (IMO).

obviously it's a complex case and the blame lies a little bit on everyone. rusty, perhaps her family for not being more aware and stepping in, DEFEINITELY the doctor, and maybe a little bit of Andrea herself for not being more vocal about what she was experiencing (which was probably terrifying). i don't think rusty meant to be neglectful.. he just seemed to be an optimistic guy who wanted a large family (and she said she did too).. plus obviously (and, unfortunately) they didn't believe in birth control. they believed it was up to "god" and not them to decide how many kids they should have... and although he did help andrea get treatment, he ultimately kept hoping for the best and kept having faith that things would be alright and everything would be normal again. kind of hard to blame him for that. and as for andrea, obviously she loved her kids and took good care fo them before she snapped. how many times have you heard "i thought i was saving them by killing them" (especially by women who have gone insane from too much religion)...? by all acounts she was a loving mom and then she snapped... in her mind she was helping them. but this kind of insanity is FAR different from the sociopathic behavior you tend to see in males.. those who stalk their prey and have piles of bodies under their houses... THAT is true evil to me. whereas this is an unfortunate psychotic break. and no, i'm not just 'letting her off the hook' because she's female.. i truly believe there is a huge difference between this and the way most criminal behavior works. obviously there is huge difference between her and some selfish person who kills their kids for the insurance money or to get drugs, or to get back at her husband. i.e., the outcome of this was truly 'evil'... but the cause was that she was psychotic... not an inherently evil, bad, sociopathic person.
but on another level (comparing her with other psychopaths).. IMO there is also a big diff between andrea and other psychopaths such as john wayne gacy, jeffert dahmer & ed gein. obviously she did not hunt down victims for years to kill them and do strange, bizarre things with their bodies. she was a good loving mom, with mental problems,, who suddenly snapped and killed her kids.
i think the courts made the best possible decision.. the only other one being humane euthanasia (which probably would have been more merciful considering what she has to live with)... and again i don't think any one person is at fault here.. sometimes there are just tragedies that are a lot of factors building up and then something bad happens. the main factor here being, that she seems to have some kind of genetic flaw, a predisposition for psychosis, that was brought on by stress & postpartum depression.... and whose fault is that...? it just happens that way sometimes.
 
and sadly,, her husband had too much faith in his religion and was waaaaayyyyyy beyond denial.

I agree 100%. In fact I had a very similar line in my original post but I edited it out to avoid controversy. :chicken:
 
Wow- very insightful post! No kidding.. it's crazy enough to make sense, reb! Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
 
Susan Smith drowned her Children for a "man", and is put in prison. Andrea Yates drowned her Children for "God" and she is deemed mentally insane and is put in a mental institution. Something seems terribly wrong here. How come if you kill your kids because the guy you are dating doesn't want kids, you are just a common murderer, but if you kill your kids so that they will go to heaven instead of hell you are insane. There is no difference in these women. They both killed their children, and they both premeditated their actions. They should both be locked up in the same place.
 
Susan Smith drowned her Children for a "man", and is put in prison. Andrea Yates drowned her Children for "God" and she is deemed mentally insane and is put in a mental institution. Something seems terribly wrong here. How come if you kill your kids because the guy you are dating doesn't want kids, you are just a common murderer, but if you kill your kids so that they will go to heaven instead of hell you are insane. There is no difference in these women. They both killed their children, and they both premeditated their actions. They should both be locked up in the same place.

Seems to me you've got both ends of the spectrum covered.
 
Susan Smith drowned her Children for a "man", and is put in prison. Andrea Yates drowned her Children for "God" and she is deemed mentally insane and is put in a mental institution. Something seems terribly wrong here. How come if you kill your kids because the guy you are dating doesn't want kids, you are just a common murderer, but if you kill your kids so that they will go to heaven instead of hell you are insane. There is no difference in these women. They both killed their children, and they both premeditated their actions. They should both be locked up in the same place.

Even though both women committed the same crime (for different reasons) I believe that due process was followed. In our justice system the first two things a court must determine is if the accused is fit to stand trial and, if found fit to stand trial (not the same as being found sane), if the accused was able to tell right from wrong at the moment of the crime. Both women were found fit to stand trial and initially both were convicted of first-degree murder. But there are major differences between these two cases, starting with the locale.

It is important here to keep in mind that in many states Yates would probably not have been found fit to stand trial because she was obviously nuts but in the most judicially conservative state in the Union one would have to be one heck of a raving lunatic freshly escaped from the Beyond Hopeless wing of a maximum-security mental institution in order to be found unfit to stand trial, which would result in an automatic acquittal on the grounds of insanity. There are politics and PR at play in such situations, the state must ensure that the public is convinced that every other avenue other than insanity has been explored to explain the motivation for the crime before a verdict of not guilty can be reached. This also explains why in Texas verdicts of insanity are almost always the prerogative of higher (appellate) courts where the risk of political repercussions for the prosecution (DA, Sheriff) is greatly reduced. A good indication that the prosecution is aware from the start that an accused meets the legal definition of insanity is the fact that once such a verdict is reached in an appellate court it is almost never appealed. Of course the judge presiding at the first trial may not be overly thrilled by the fact that his court's verdict will be overturned but he/she knows that's the way it has to be for junior judges and they can always blame the jury, it's not a career killer.

There is little doubt that Andrea Yates was obviously, totally, completely insane and that the reason she wasn't locked up in a mental ward long before she committed murder is due to her husband's well-meaning but misguided faith and naive idealism, combined with Dr. Saeed's incompetence and/or negligence. Yates' motive for killing her children were not anchored in reality, these motives were the product of a sick mind.

Smith's crimes were in contrast the product of a sicko mind. She knew exactly why she was doing it and she lied about it until the evidence against her was so overwhelming that she had no other choice but to confess. She may have had a personality disorder but deception is not insanity, insane people don't fabricate stories implicating other people to cover up their role in a crime. They don't need to because they are convinced they haven't committed a crime, that their actions were justified.

Personally I dislike seeing cunning criminals get away with a crime because they have managed to convince a court that they are or were legally insane when they commited the offense but in the case of Andrea Yates I have no doubt that she was nowhere near sane when she killed her children and that this would not have happened had she been treated properly for her condition. Hopefully the physicians who didn't perform their duties properly will somehow have to answer for their conduct so that they and their colleagues will be more vigilant towards the patients in their care in the future. I don't think AMA's or other medical review boards' slap on the wrist qualify as proper sanction since these are self-regulating bodies prone to put the blame anywhere but with one of their own.
 
onelostgirl... you're welcome, anytime! ;)

karl-- sick and sicko... hhhmm. good point and interesting,, the difference in those words....!
 
Even though both women committed the same crime (for different reasons) I believe that due process was followed. In our justice system the first two things a court must determine is if the accused is fit to stand trial and, if found fit to stand trial (not the same as being found sane), if the accused was able to tell right from wrong at the moment of the crime. Both women were found fit to stand trial and initially both were convicted of first-degree murder. But there are major differences between these two cases, starting with the locale.

QUOTED EDITED BY MODERATOR DUE TO SPACE CONSIDERATIONS

:clap: :clap: :clap: Excellent post!

Sadly, there are still people in our society that do not believe that mental illness is real. In some ways I can even understand why- so many people blame and excuse their impulsive, childish, selfish and/or criminal behavior on mental illness that when society does see an actual case of "insanity", we are so jaded from the people who have been crying wolf that we blow off the "real" case! We (society) assume they are faking it too.
 
Did someone say she wanted another kid? Omg please tell me that is not true.
 
I totaly agree 110% with Jeana post...

Jeana, thank you so much for your articulate and insightful posts on Andrea Yates. If anybody should be found not guilty by reason of insanity it is she. Remember, everyone, she had been hospitalized prior to this incident and her mother in law was staying with her and the family because they were so worried.

Now, would I feel comfortable staying on the same hall as Andrea? Frankly, no. Wonder if she has another psychotic break and tries to drown me? But this problem is taken care of at alzheimer's homes (where my mother was). Very disturbed patients who could be violent to others or themselves had a personal nurse. My strong hope is that Andrea has such a person watching her at all times.

This Andrea Yates case is a no-brainer. There are many more troubling insanity cases -- John Hinckley, for one -- to worry about.
 
Jeana, thank you so much for your articulate and insightful posts on Andrea Yates. If anybody should be found not guilty by reason of insanity it is she. Remember, everyone, she had been hospitalized prior to this incident and her mother in law was staying with her and the family because they were so worried.

Now, would I feel comfortable staying on the same hall as Andrea? Frankly, no. Wonder if she has another psychotic break and tries to drown me? But this problem is taken care of at alzheimer's homes (where my mother was). Very disturbed patients who could be violent to others or themselves had a personal nurse. My strong hope is that Andrea has such a person watching her at all times.

This Andrea Yates case is a no-brainer. There are many more troubling insanity cases -- John Hinckley, for one -- to worry about.


You're welcome darlin. I agree with your post too!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
97
Guests online
1,711
Total visitors
1,808

Forum statistics

Threads
605,243
Messages
18,184,695
Members
233,285
Latest member
Slowcrow
Back
Top