Curious

[tigger22472]

What is the name of your state? Deals with Texas.

With Andrea Yates back in the news I have a curious question as to some charges.
For those of you who have no clue who she is (can't imagine), she's the woman who drowned her 5 children in Texas. She was initially convicted but in the last few days had a new trial and found guilty but by reasons of insanity.

After her 4th child she had PPD but the severe type with psychotic tendencies. She was on medication and seemingly ok. She AND her husband were advised that she should NOT have another child as she would have to come off the medications AND that if she were to have a relapse that it could be worse than the previous time.

She and her husband made the decision to ignore this (seemingly at this time she was of sound mind, through the use of medication) and decided to stop the medication and have another child.


My question is this...

Can neither she OR her husband be charged with at the very least neglect of a child causing serious harm?

 

[weenor]

I would expect- and others would know- that "neglect" would be a lesser included charge in the murder. In other words, I doubt she could be charged for a separate "neglect" charge since such neglect would be part in parcel to the events leading up to the murder. As far as the husband, I feel that he should be held accountable for something...but I doubt a prosecutor could get anything to stick. In seeing his comments after the trial you can't help but get angry at the loss of five innocent lives.

 

[tigger22472]

I would expect- and others would know- that "neglect" would be a lesser included charge in the murder. In other words, I doubt she could be charged for a separate "neglect" charge since such neglect would be part in parcel to the events leading up to the murder. As far as the husband, I feel that he should be held accountable for something...but I doubt a prosecutor could get anything to stick. In seeing his comments after the trial you can't help but get angry at the loss of five innocent lives.

I saw another show last night on this where he was interviewed and he was going on and on about how he's gotten heat about stuff and was saying how he just doesn't understand why he should take ANY responsibility and why no one is blaming the doctors for not doing more. His attitude just made me madder about the whole situation and I think that it's wrong that no one is technically paying for the taking of the lives of those poor children.

 

[CdwJava]

The scarier prospect? ... The very real possiblity that within a year she could be out on the streets, could hook up with another man, and breed more victims.

A condition of her release from any facility SHOULD be enforced sterilization ... but you know that will never be allowed to happen.

I predict her release from her mental health facility very quietly (with little or no media fanfare) prior to Christmas 2007.

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

Can neither she OR her husband be charged with at the very least neglect of a child causing serious harm?

I suspect that had the prosecutors known it was going to go this way, they would have charged him for his complicity in the affair (as many were clamoring for when his part in this came to life). Now, it would seem like sour grapes to prosecute him.

Sadly, there is no advocate for the innocent dead victims - only advocates for the psychotic murderer. The whole affair sickens me.

- Carl

 

[tigger22472]

The scarier prospect? ... The very real possiblity that within a year she could be out on the streets, could hook up with another man, and breed more victims.

A condition of her release from any facility SHOULD be enforced sterilization ... but you know that will never be allowed to happen.

I predict her release from her mental health facility very quietly (with little or no media fanfare) prior to Christmas 2007.

- Carl

You are right, it will never happen.

I understand the issue that at the time of her 1st trial she was not in the same state of mind she was at the time of the murders because she was on medication and that the jury needed to understand that. However, I am just so stuck on the point that presumably she WAS of right mind when she and her husband decided to stop the medication in order to have another child after doctors told them this was not something that should ever be done.

On top of this, if I remember correctly he's recently remarried and so he just gets to move on and start a new family and do whatever he pleases when although he didn't drown those children he helped make the decision that contributed to her downfall.

 

[tigger22472]

Sadly, there is no advocate for the innocent dead victims - only advocates for the psychotic murderer. The whole affair sickens me.
- Carl

I agree. I have a MIL who is on these sorts of meds and knows what happens when she stops taking them yet, every few years that's what she decides to do. It used to be done so she could get the attention of her youngest son, who always ran when it happened because he couldn't deal so she never go what she wanted anyway but she never understood that because by the time she should have gotten that part it was too late. My husband and I were always he one that would pick up on the signs, call the doctors... etc.. and pick the pieces up. However, I told him the other day speaking of this Yates thing that if his mom were to do something like this (or any sort of crime) that even though it's his mother I think she should be convicted. It's one thing to be mentally ill but it's another to ignore the signs, ignore the doctors and do as you please and then blame others for things you CHOSE to do.