Talk:Andrea Yates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Crime This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Crime To-do:
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrea Yates article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Ruling overturned

This article says the ruling was overturned? Was she released?--Anon.

No - she will get a new trial before a different jury. She can re-assert the insanity defense. Since the jury at the first trial voted against the death penalty the prosecution cannot go for it at the new trial. Ellsworth 01:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Pedantic--The original diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder in the DSM IV psychology manual is simply the name of the disorder (ex., major depression). The second and following diagnoses add the term "recurring" (ex. major depression, recurring). I think perhaps my clumsy use of punctuation created some confusion to the intention, as I agree with you that the sentence seems confusing. Do you think a comma after "recurring" might make the sentence more clear? 23 Oct 2004

"She was suffering from a severe case of psychotic depression, recurring after having had her last baby." This is unclear. Is a case the same as an incident/episode? If so, perhaps the sentence should read, "She had suffered from psychotic depression, and was experiencing a recurrence after having had her last baby" ThePedanticPrick 22:55, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who said the Father created an environment which contributed to these events?

The article suggests two sources: Andrea's psychiatrist, Dr. Eileen Starbranch, testified that she urged the couple not to get pregnant again to avert certain future psychotic depression, but the procreative plan taught by the Yates' preacher, Michael Peter Woroniecki, a doctrine to which Rusty Yates subscribed, insisted she should continue to have "as many children as nature allows". I'm guessing it's in the trial docs. Source? Jake b 07:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postpartum Psychosis

I came to find out while researching Yates as a case study for the disorder that the psychiatric witnesses (both for the defense and prosecution) asserted diagnoses of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, not a postpartum disorder, this was a diagnosis made during one of her prior hospitalizations. I don't have my source handy, but the main page should reflect that this wasn't the basis of her insanity plea. Certainly the case is important to the discussion of postpartum psychosis, but it isn't considered to be anything close to definitive. Jgrant 22:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you research a little further, you will find in her medical history that postpartum illness helped precipitated her schizophrenia/schizo-affective disorder, as well as some of the other stress factors in her life, such as her father dying at the onset of another postpartum set in. These episodes were triggered by her pregnancies with greater intensity after each birth. It wasn't a severe problem in the begining, and faded away with a little will power on her behalf (She "blew them off.") But during the latter births the swings were much more severe, until finally Andrea is having to compensate for her mental imbalances on a persistent basis--5 years after having her last child. This is why the doctors say her postpartum illness "precipitated" her schizophrenia. So to say Andrea didn't have postpartum illness because she has schizophrenia is misleading. (Vandalism removed from my entry) Thomas Anderson 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well, I am sure you will be all in favour of executing mentally handicapped children as well, right? Brilliant. If you have a heart attack while driving and crash into another vehicle, killing the occupants, but you survive, you should then be charged with driving while impaired? I mean, you killed them and were driving when you should not have been, correct? Illness is illness, mental or physical. She was NOT in control of her actions. If you think that she won't suffer for the rest of her life because of what she did, well, straight up, you're a complete moron. But there is a reason why it is called "Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity" - she's not guilty, and the only reason she was convicted in the first place was because an "expert" lied. --CokeBear 18:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who added the unkind remark after my comment, it certainly wasn't me. You were reacting to vandalism. I'm happy with the insanity verdict and the fact Andrea is now getting better treatment than she was in jail. Thomas Anderson 19:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Innocent

Jury just found her innocent. Saw it on a live feed from ABC News.Casual Karma 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also on the ABC News Site, if you want proof or something. Casual Karma 17:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not innocent - they found her not guilty by reason of insanity, meaning she was not in control of her actions and could not tell right from wrong at the time. She still did it, but the circumstances meant that doing it was not something that she was criminally responsible for.--CokeBear 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the judge worded it: "Not guilty, by reason of mental insanity" Casual Karma 02:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

but that doesn't mean she's innocent. she did the crime, but she's not found guilty by way of insanity. 71.235.167.82 05:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interlanguage links

I could not locate where the interwikis on the page are, but they are not related to the Andrea Yates case at all. They should be removed. GilliamJF 22:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long view?

Can we get a slightly longer view on this person? Obviously, their life is ruined, but I think that a little more factual background would help. Then a strict chronology of the crime. The all the legal proceedings. Also: I think we can keep the "why?" to just a few sentences — nobody is making any credible arguments against the main impression as to "why" this happened so let us keep that brief: primariliy insanity, just like the jury said, and the Woroniecki can be mentioned as contributing (but note hat Woroniecki is not charged with anything, so keep it very brief). And the long, speculative psychological analysis is not helpful. Just the facts, please. -- 75.26.6.152 01:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up

There: the article is now kinda boring and depressing, but at least it sticks to the facts. -- 75.26.6.170 00:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories, American Murderers

Please keep in mind that not only is Andrea not a "serial killer," but she is also not a "murderer." She was not convicted of murder. She was ruled insane by a Texas Court, and the killings were psychiatrically described as "altruistic filicides."

A person who is found to have accidentally killed someone in an auto accident is guilty of manslaughter, not murder. A doctor who accidentally kills a patient due to his negligence is not guilty of murder, but malpractice and perhaps criminal negligence. A woman who kills her children while in the throes of a psychotic episode and is found insane is not guilty of ANYTHING--that includes murder.

So please do not categorize Andrea Yates as a murderer when she has not been convicted of the crime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.84.69.183 (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, technically she has been convicted of murder (a judgment that stood for nearly three years). Regardless, I have to say that the vast majority of human beings would disagree with your assertion that A woman who kills her children while in the throes of a psychotic episode and is found insane is not guilty of ANYTHING. I think most reasonable people would agree that there is quite a difference between 'legally responsible' and 'guilty'. Certainly she is guilty of killing her children, which makes her a 'killer' at the very least. I'd certainly imagine that there are very few people out there who don't consider her a murderer, regardless of what twelve Texans (ok, make that twelve more Texans) decided she should be held 'legally responsible' for. What makes 'murder' different from 'manslaughter' or 'criminally negligent homicide' is intent. Whether she was in "the throes of a psychotic episode" or not, Andrea Yates' actions were the sole and direct cause of her children's deaths, and those actions were inarguably intentional. -Grammaticus Repairo 07:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That is your point of view. If she was found to be legally not guilty, then she was found not guilty. (The prior guilty verdict is a nullity, having been reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which hardly reverses on "technicalities" and in this case, it's not a technicality; it's fairly severe prosecutorial misconduct.) --Nlu (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my post does represent my point of view. However, I was responding to another user's 'point of view' assertion that "A woman who kills her children while in the throes of a psychotic episode and is found insane is not guilty of ANYTHING".
That's not a point of view. It's a legal, documented fact. Wake up, guy.72.84.76.249 09:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This statement comes across something like "the woman might as well be a saint since she was found not to be responsible for her actions."
No one in the post said she became a saint as a result of her verdict, but you wanting her in a list of murderers when she is not guilty of such is demonizing the unfortunate, sick woman.72.84.76.249 09:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Also please note that although I did not use the term "technicality" in reference to the overturning of her conviction as you implied, I hardly think that "severe prosecutorial misconduct" is a fair assessment of the situation, but that is also my opinion and is really neither here nor there.
My point was that keeping her out of the wikipedia "Murderers" category (particularly the "Murderers of Children" category) just because it was decided that she was not legally culpable for the killings (in a second trial after having already been convicted once) does not seem reasonable to me. She was hardly 'cleared' of wrongdoing, regardless of the end result of her legal battles. I feel that keeping her off such lists is not in the best interests of the wiki community in general. In fact, I would expect that most users would be surprised not to find her on a list of child murderers. If someone wants the specifics about a person appearing on the list, including details surrounding their legal situations, they will click on the link to read more. According to the title paragraph of "Category: American murderers", the list already includes people "generally believed by...law enforcement authorities to have been guilty of murder" AS WELL AS some "convicted, but generally believed not guilty, or improperly convicted". With this in mind, it hardly seems unreasonable to me that Yates be included on the list. Unless, of course, wiki has a "Category: Legally insane American killers". But again, that's just my opinion.
Incidentally, thanks for restoring my original post, even if you disagree. Cheers! -Grammaticus Repairo 07:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/d/Talk%7EAndrea_Yates_92cc.html"