![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 58. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on February 6, 2006, at 8:19:45
In reply to Re: Some more » AuntieMel, posted by James K on February 4, 2006, at 13:15:34
One one hand you say that the insanity defense works better for women than men.
But on the other - the three cases you cited were all men.
My diagnosis is Major Depressive Disorder, recurring. At my darkest point - which was pretty dark - I would never have considered hurting someone else.
But - and both sides of the case agreed - Andrea Yates wasn't "merely" depressed. She had crossed over into psychosis. She was delusional.
The only question at the trial was whether she knew "right" from "wrong." She thought that drowning her kids was "right."
My twisted logic says she was either insane (and what she thought was "right" was really wrong) - or she was not insane (and what she thought was "right" really was right.)
I can't believe the second one.
Posted by James K on February 6, 2006, at 9:07:19
In reply to Re: Interesting.... » James K, posted by AuntieMel on February 6, 2006, at 8:19:45
I've been running off at the mouth some lately. Sometimes on things I have only partial knowledge or understanding of.
I think I meant that females get outpourings of international sympathy. I used those male examples to point out that noteriety doesn't guarantee you will remain behind locked doors.
I don't think any defense is very effective in our state when it comes to a capitol crime. We do more executions than anyone else.
When a man points a gun at someone and pulls the trigger, I think he is insane. Whatever is happening in his head fits somewhere into the dsmv.
I didn't realize the prosecution conceded she was psychotic or delusional. I didn't follow it as day by day as I do some trials. Do you remember when Karla Faye Tucker was executed? I think her gender was the only reason she was singled out for all the attention.
Now with all of the after the fact DNA testing and releases, and the intense scrutiny of cases involving males and females of all races, I think my point (such as it was) makes much less sense than it might have 10 years ago.
I am actually very conflicted about crime and punishment these days because I believe in long terms and even execution for some crimes, but have lost faith in the process. Yates deserves her second trial, because the People's side broke the rules. The conviction was rightly set aside, and since she is not convicted she deserves bail.
If all of this contradicts what I've posted before, and it probably does, it's because I'm using my brain and not my feelings right now.
James K
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 7, 2006, at 9:53:49
In reply to Re: Interesting.... » James K, posted by AuntieMel on February 6, 2006, at 8:19:45
> The only question at the trial was whether she knew "right" from "wrong." She thought that drowning her kids was "right."
I wish that was the only question at trial. It wasn't though. The jury did not understand Texas law, and it was illegal for anyone in that courtroom to tell them what Texas law really was.
> My twisted logic says she was either insane (and what she thought was "right" was really wrong) - or she was not insane (and what she thought was "right" really was right.)
>
> I can't believe the second one.Sorry, Mel, but in the interest of keeping similar thoughtlines together, I've also pasted in something Gabbi said:
"I'm just glad I'm not in the position to have to make a decision on it for others."
And how would you feel, as a juror, if you made such a significant decision under false pretenses?
Under Texas law, the jury had two "she did it" options. If they found Andrea Yates guilty under the criminal law, she would be sent to a state prison for life without parole. It's the other option that they didn't properly understand. The jury believed that if they found her not guilty by reason of insanity that she would go free. That's not the case. And it was illegal for anyone, even the defense, to raise the actual law in that courtroom. The jury convicted because they thought their choice was life in prison or freedom (according to interviews held after the trial). Instead, Andrea could have been sentenced to a secure psychiatric facility for a term equivalent to that for which whe would be held if she was found to be sane. At least it would have been a place where she could receive proper treatment.
I did look up Texas penal law at the time, but I no longer have the reference on my computer, so it must be in my old hard drive somewhere.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on February 7, 2006, at 13:26:49
In reply to Re: Interesting.... » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on February 7, 2006, at 9:53:49
Begging to differ, Lar. (I do live in the same town as the trial, 'ya know)
At the time there was no such thing as life withoug parole in our fair state. If convicted under criminal law they would have had choice of execution or a "life" sentence - which means parole - and the jury would not have been privy to how many years would have to be served before parole came up.
Though you are also right in that the jury - if they didn't already know that not guilty by reason of insanity meant commitment - were not told that she wouldn't go free.
But - the Texas law needs a little updating in the mental illness defense. "Right from wrong" is the *only* thing the jury is allowed to consider and any other mental problems are moot.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm
"§ 8.01. INSANITY. (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his
conduct was wrong."--------------------
If I had been on the jury and I had made a decision under false pretenses - I'd be one ticked off mama, that's for sure. And you'd probably be able to hear me screaming all the way up there.
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 7, 2006, at 17:20:24
In reply to Re: Interesting.... » Larry Hoover, posted by AuntieMel on February 7, 2006, at 13:26:49
> Begging to differ, Lar. (I do live in the same town as the trial, 'ya know)
>
> At the time there was no such thing as life withoug parole in our fair state. If convicted under criminal law they would have had choice of execution or a "life" sentence - which means parole - and the jury would not have been privy to how many years would have to be served before parole came up.Oh, sorry. I was just speaking in context of the decision made....it wasn't the "without parole" part I was thinking about. It was the "life" part of the sentence that mattered.
> If I had been on the jury and I had made a decision under false pretenses - I'd be one ticked off mama, that's for sure. And you'd probably be able to hear me screaming all the way up there.
As I understand it, that's what happened. The jury was very resistant to holding her criminally responsible. They believed her to be insane at the time of her acts, but they thought that would amount to an acquittal. And nobody could correct their collective misunderstanding, because:
Code of Criminal Procedure
Art. 46.03.Sec. 1.(e)'The court, the attorney for the state, or the attorney for the defendant may not inform a juror or a prospective juror of the consequences to the defendant if a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity[0] is returned.'
For the life of me, I cannot fathom what justification this clause has. I would think it would be unconstitutional to prevent a jury from fully understanding the decision they've been called on to make.
Lar
Posted by AuntieMel on February 8, 2006, at 8:00:49
In reply to Re: Interesting.... » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on February 7, 2006, at 17:20:24
Well, it's true that they can't tell the jury what it means.
They also can't tell the jury how many years a person with a "life" sentance has to serve before parole.
How else do you think we get so many sent to the gallows? <sardonic grin>
One reason educated people shouldn't dodge jury duty, I guess.
Posted by Racer on February 19, 2006, at 15:03:45
In reply to Re: Some more » James K, posted by AuntieMel on February 4, 2006, at 13:00:05
> > The other reason she was convited was the prosecution "said" they were trying her for the death penalty. What that gave them was an unfair advantage in that the jurors were first vetted to be sure that there weren't any anti death penalty people in the jury pool. What that also gave them was people that were also more likely to not believe in an insanity defense at all and more likely to vote for conviction.
>
> "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is not the same as "not guilty." The person doesn't go free - they are involuntarily committed to a mental hospital until the doctors - and the law - agree that she is well.
>
> With her notoriety she would never be released.Very good points. I've got more to say, but this stands alone, so I won't try to say any of it here.
Posted by Racer on February 19, 2006, at 15:15:25
In reply to Re: Interesting.... » AuntieMel, posted by Larry Hoover on February 7, 2006, at 17:20:24
> > > Code of Criminal Procedure
> Art. 46.03.Sec. 1.(e)
>
> 'The court, the attorney for the state, or the attorney for the defendant may not inform a juror or a prospective juror of the consequences to the defendant if a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity[0] is returned.'
>
> For the life of me, I cannot fathom what justification this clause has. I would think it would be unconstitutional to prevent a jury from fully understanding the decision they've been called on to make.
>
> LarAin't that quaint? You know why? It's because there's this fiction that the jury should consider the evidence, not the consequences. You know, they should look at the evidence and say, "She was froot loops" or "she knew what she was doing." They shouldn't consider what the consequences would be.
I remember seeing an attorney, in closing statements, say something like, "If you're thinking about the consequences, then you've already made up your mind." I wish I could remember what he really said, because it was a brilliant thing. Anyway, our system does create problems through these fictions. They're very nice stories, that all juries are "our peers" and that the jury considers the evidence without bias, and many times that is the case. Unfortunately, as Auntie Mel pointed out, that's not the case for death penalty cases. They start out with jurors being "qualified" for a death penalty case -- and those that believe in the death penalty strongly enough to vote for it tend to be more likely to vote with the prosecution regardless of the evidence.
By the way, although it wasn't a death penalty case, I did sit on a jury that convicted a man of first degree murder with special circumstances. That experience convinced me that our system, for all its flaws, is fundamentally sound. I have a lot more faith in the system since that experience.
Posted by Racer on February 19, 2006, at 15:27:59
In reply to Re: Interesting.... » AuntieMel, posted by James K on February 6, 2006, at 9:07:19
This has been a very interesting thread to me, although very disturbing. Think about this:
The topic under discussion is the legal fate of a woman who, during post partum PSYCHOSIS, drowned her children, believing that by doing so, she would be saving them from an eternity in Hell. The people discussing this topic are all part of an online community who share in common -- MENTAL ILLNESS.
If those of us who have first (or sometimes second) hand knowledge of mental illness can't look at her with empathy and compassion, doesn't that make a pretty profound statement about our views -- individual and societal -- about mental illness? How would you like to be judged by the sorts of standards that are apparently being applied here?
Also, please don't lose sight of the fact that this woman was not suffering from post partum depression. She was suffering from post partum psychosis. Also, her doctor had recently abruptly discontinued ALL of her medication, which means she was probably experiencing withdrawal as well as the psychosis itself. Also, there was more than adequate evidence that something was very wrong, and that she needed additional help. There is no excuse for the fact that she hadn't received more extensive treatment, there was no doubt that she was sick, and that she needed it. From the information I read at the time, she probably should have been in patient until her drugs could be worked out, at the very least, before she was left alone to cope with five children at home, alone, without a break.
As for everyone here, can we at least put ourselves back into our darkest days, and remember what they were like? How agonizing it was? I once planned suicide, and had everything arranged for it -- but knowing that no one else would take my big cat, I finally couldn't do it, not because I couldn't end my own life, but because I couldn't end his. That's probably the difference between depression and psychotic depression, and I certainly could feel compassion for Mrs Yates.
And I was also of the opinion that her husband should have had some consequences, and her doctor as well.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 20, 2006, at 14:01:03
In reply to I'm quite disturbed by this thread because..., posted by Racer on February 19, 2006, at 15:27:59
I don't actually remember much from the darkest days. Or the first 6 months or so *after* I was deemed well enough to go back to work.
I do remember checking out all the overpasses and bridges, wondering if they were high enough to drive off of. I was determined to make it an "accident" so the insurance would pay.
Good thing I live in the flatlands, I guess.
This poor woman, besides being very, very ill wasn't only left alone with 5 kids, she not long before, had to take care of her dying father. I would have broken long before she did.
Posted by James K on February 21, 2006, at 16:00:56
In reply to Re: Very well put » Racer, posted by AuntieMel on February 20, 2006, at 14:01:03
Racer, and AuntieMel, in particular,
I may written some of the most hateful things above in this thread, I'm not going back to read every word. I was in one of those kind of places at that moment. How can I understand or have mercy on someone else, when I have none for myself. Now it is all back in the paper, and I see the lawyering and the debates and I can't seperate the strategies from the realities.
I have been forced to rethink what I believe inside though by the other case happening right now about the arms cutting off of, because everything said about Yates,(in terms of sympathy and mitigating factors, law etc) I believe to be true about this woman. So, am I the one with a double standard or prejudice?
working on it,
James K
Posted by Racer on February 21, 2006, at 17:43:37
In reply to Re: Very well put » AuntieMel, posted by James K on February 21, 2006, at 16:00:56
Just want to make that clear. Not only that, but I was thinking about a number of posts about the Yates case on the Social board a while back as well.
It's a hard question, any way you look at it. I can't tell you what I think, in terms that the justice system could use. I only know that this case breaks my heart, not only for what happened, but also for how little compassion for her there seems to be in the world. And it still bothers me that there's not more compassion for her here.
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 22, 2006, at 12:57:15
In reply to I'm quite disturbed by this thread because..., posted by Racer on February 19, 2006, at 15:27:59
The people discussing this topic are all part of an online community who share in common -- MENTAL ILLNESS.
>It's disturbing to me too, but not at all surprising.
I've frequently seen lack of compassion, and empathy here toward other *posters* who are exhibiting the shall we say, less charming facets of mental illness.
>
Posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2006, at 16:28:55
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because..., posted by Gabbix2 on February 22, 2006, at 12:57:15
Sometimes the "less charming" aspects of another's illness conflict with the "less charming" aspects of our own.
And sometimes it shows in a not-nice way.
We're all a work in progress.
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 22, 2006, at 19:03:55
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because... » Gabbix2, posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2006, at 16:28:55
That was my point.
It's circle. People who are struggling post, and people who are struggling respond.
If someone lashes out in anger the backlash may stem from a similar issue.
Posted by Racer on February 22, 2006, at 21:43:18
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because... » Gabbix2, posted by AuntieMel on February 22, 2006, at 16:28:55
> Sometimes the "less charming" aspects of another's illness conflict with the "less charming" aspects of our own.
>
> And sometimes it shows in a not-nice way.
>
> We're all a work in progress.
I, it should be noted, am already perfect!{ducking for cover}
(Couldn't resist.)
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 23, 2006, at 6:56:27
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because..., posted by Gabbix2 on February 22, 2006, at 12:57:15
>I've frequently seen lack of compassion, and empathy here toward other *posters* who are exhibiting the shall we say, less charming facets of mental illness.
How do you differentiate between whether its the less charming facets of mental illness, or of the person.
Mental illness doesn't define the person, nor is the person defined by their mental illness...
~
Posted by AuntieMel on February 23, 2006, at 18:05:11
In reply to Hey! Speak for yourself! » AuntieMel, posted by Racer on February 22, 2006, at 21:43:18
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 2:48:54
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because..., posted by Sobriquet Style on February 23, 2006, at 6:56:27
> >I've frequently seen lack of compassion, and empathy here toward other *posters* who are exhibiting the shall we say, less charming facets of mental illness.
>
>
>
> Mental illness doesn't define the person, nor is the person defined by their mental illness...
>
> How do you differentiate between whether its the less charming facets of mental illness, or of the person. ~Because the person has said so in their post : )
Of course it may not be *true* but as mental illness is loosely defined, and I have know way of knowing otherwise, I take it at face value.
As for it not defining the person, that's both obvious and irrelevent.
Nothing I said has alluded to that
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 2:56:21
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because... » Sobriquet Style, posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 2:48:54
> Because the person has said so in their post : )
Or previously, or in a subsequent post.In my referring to the responders, which was supposition, I said the anger*may* be from the same struggle.
> Of course it may not be *true* but as mental illness is loosely defined, and I have know way of knowing otherwise, I take it at face value.
> As for it not defining the person, that's both obvious and irrelevent.
> Nothing I said has alluded to that
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 24, 2006, at 5:50:06
In reply to Re: I'm quite disturbed by this thread because... » Sobriquet Style, posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 2:48:54
Thank you for stating the obvious and irrelevent.
:-)
~
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 24, 2006, at 7:20:00
In reply to I should have added., posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 2:56:21
>Or previously, or in a subsequent post.
>In my referring to the responders, which was supposition, I said the anger*may* be from the same struggle.
Thank you once again. :-) I also should have added.
-
> As for it not defining the person, that's both obvious and irrelevent.
> Nothing I said has alluded to thatJust to clarify, my statement about mental illness not defining the person that was irrelevant and obvious in your opinion, was not a suggestion that you was alluding to something that said otherwise. You was describing how some facets of mental illness affects the person, I was describing how mental illness as a whole affects a person.
I was also, originally responding to the way you defined some people that you've seen here showing a "frequent lack of compassion, and empathy etc" However, my statement was more of a general one, which because this is a mental health site I personally thought it was worth saying as someone might benefit from reading it.
Ps I would appreciate if you didn't describe what I say as "obvious and irrelevant" as I feel it shows a lack of compassion and empathy of what I have to say.
Joke ;-)
~
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 11:37:13
In reply to Re: I should have added., posted by Sobriquet Style on February 24, 2006, at 7:20:00
I was P.W.B Posting while B*tchy
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 14:35:06
In reply to I should have added., posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 2:56:21
you're quite disarming Mr. Bond
Making me laugh at myself when I'm in self-righteous snit is *real* a talent.
Posted by Sobriquet Style on February 24, 2006, at 15:35:29
In reply to : ) Sorry » Sobriquet Style, posted by Gabbix2 on February 24, 2006, at 11:37:13
Its okay
You was Posting With Beauty ;-)
~
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.