"Andrea Yates asking to attend church weekly" http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/justice/texas-andrea-yates/index.html
Because what psychotics need is religion... Her attorney, without trace of insight, described it as "baby steps" to rehabilitationn!
I don't think that's going to be smart. She heard voices from Satan. Is it the smartest thing to do to send her to Church? But in anycase, it's the judge's choice and I will stand by what the Judge says.
During her first trial in 2002, jurors heard taped interviews in which Yates said that she thought Satan was sending her messages and that she was sending her children -- Noah, 7; John, 5; Paul, 3; Luke, 2; and Mary, 6 months -- to heaven and sparing them from hell when she killed them on June 20, 2001. Several medical experts testified that she suffered from schizophrenia, depression and other medical conditions. Parnham argued Yates was suffering from a "full-blown psychosis." "If this woman doesn't meet the test of insanity in this state, then nobody does," Parnham told the jury. "We might as well wipe it from the books." But jurors rejected her insanity defense and sentenced her to life in prison for the deaths of three of the children. A state appeals court overturned the conviction because an expert witness for the state, a psychiatrist, testified erroneously that the television series "Law and Order" had aired an episode about a woman suffering from post-partum depression who drowned her children. In 2006, a second jury found Yates not guilty by reason of insanity, meaning she was committed to a state mental facility. Her former husband, Russell Yates, said at the time he was pleased with that verdict. "Yes, Andrea took the lives of our children," he said. "That's the truth. But also, yes, she was insane. Yes, she was psychotic on that day. That's the whole truth." Yates had been on anti-psychotic medication and attempted suicide before the killings. "We took her to a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist failed us," Russell Yates has said. He has since remarried. "Mental illness is the culprit" in the deaths, Parnham told CNN affiliate KPRC this week. "There were six victims that day, and Andrea is one of them." (( Don't they have some sort of services at the hospital))
as do we her... but she wants to be released to go to a outside church now, do we let enemy combatants do that?
I think anyone that releases her is crazy... and do not think we should be letting killers of five children back into society, once you cross that line, there is no going back if she kills again... the jury would not get to hear of the old killings, crazy huh
She can attend church in her hospital. If she is allowed out to attend church, I expect her hands and legs to be shackled.
I would set her immediatelly 'free' in a state mental facility without any fear that this woman would murder someone. I don't see any criminal energy. The woman is schizophrenic - her psychotic structure is a kind of biological problem of the brain metabolism. "Satan" was perhaps a kind of warn signal - "that's wrong now!" but she was without medicaments not able to react in a realistic way in an extreme psychotic situation. For sure she's not like a dog who learned to kill chickens just for fun or like a man who learned to be a professional killer. We are also not able to arrest a soldier because he had killed some enemies. Such a soldier is perhaps more dangerous than this woman - because he is normal and not schizophrenic. http://youtu.be/hz_hfEOywr4
It should depend on her mental stability. After all, John Hinkley Jr. is allowed periodic unsupervised visits to his family.
I agree and disagree. The Kerrville State Hospital does have a Chapel listed on their website, and assuming they operate like most state run hospitals and correctional facilities, they should have at least a few chaplains on staff. Here is the link to the facilities website: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/mhhospitals/KerrvilleSH/KSH_SvcOffered.shtm I don't think she will be granted permission to leave the hospital based on that fact alone. Having said that, should they actually grant the request, I doubt she will be shackled, as there are inmates that go out on work release all the time from state facilities who do not require shackles. It's just not something that is very common anymore, as they would have guards with her at all times in case there was an incident. In fact, back when I used to work very closely with state hospitals and correctional facilities at a previous job I never once saw a single inmate (in segregation or otherwise) with shackles.
Because she's a murderer? And stop spamming that video, please. It has nothing to do with anything. First and final warning.
I would not call it catering. Allowing them freedom to practice their religion keeps to the founding principals of American society. If we denied them that freedom, it would make us no better than a Muslim Extremists who kills people simply because of their religion.
Well, its nice to know that atheists do not believe in rehabilitation. Forgiveness. The ability to treat mental health issues. I hope no atheist ever does anything wrong, for if you do ... by your own admission you deserve to be locked away with no chance of redemption. Now, why is it atheists have a problem with Hell when it is applied to THEIR sins?? Good enough for others though ... Do you have any idea the horror sanity would visit if you came back too and realized you have had murdered your own children in a bout of insanity? I personally cannot imagine anything more horrific.
This is my first post on this site, and I am new to forums in general, so please let me know if I break any rules of etiquette or anything of the sort. That said, I must respond to a stereotypical and egregious generalization I just read in this thread. I am an agnostic atheist, and I believe wholeheartedly in the ability to treat people with mental illnesses and in rehabilitation. Many people are institutionalized and return to public life with much more clarity and the ability to deal with their problems. As an atheist, I do not believe there is a god to forgive us, but I do believe that one can obtain forgiveness from family, friends, and survivors of our crimes. Also, I have few issues with religion in general, and I think people should have the right to worship. Okay, so here is the BUT. If a person is a diagnosed schizophrenic, whose voice(s) advise them to cause pain and commit murder, then allowing this person to mingle with the public is not a good idea, at least not right away. If there is a chapel in the institution, then begin there, and if she shows improvement, in and out of worship, then possibly allow a visit to church to determine if it is something she can handle at this time. With a case like this, there are more aspects than one woman's desire to go to church. Her history, her mental illness, and her current progress (which no one truly knows except maybe her doctors and herself), to name a few. Maybe she is at a point where going to an outside church is not feasible right now because she is still dangerous. In that instance, the matter to be addressed is the danger to the other people at the church, not her desire to go. Maybe it is not, and her doctors feel that she is safe to be around. If that is the case, then why should she not be allowed to worship according to her beliefs?
Well, there is the rub, you cannot say, "Well, I am all for redemption and believe that someone can be treated successfully for mental illness," and then turn around and say, "but ... as a non-mental health professional, in this case ABSOLUTELY not!" As I stated, to have a bout of insanity and then return to lucidity and realize you have murdered your own children would be ... there are simply not enough words to describe the sheer horror of something like that. What is key, and it is indeed both moral and judicial, is to recognize that she was not in her right mind when she did those. Under the supervision of a mental health professional, in a church whose clergy and elders are aware of her history and take appropriate precautions, allowing her to attend church is an act of compassion and understanding that this woman most definitely needs. I for one would sit right next to her.
You've missed my point. I actually agreed with you that if she is ready she should be able to go. I never said "in this case, absolutely not." I never even implied it. I specifically said that if her doctors agree that she is ready, then she should be able to worship according to her beliefs. From what I've been reading, she may be able to go into outpatient therapy. If that is the case, then I applaud her for her progress. I also agree with you that a return to lucidity after what happened would be unimaginable, and I can only speculate that the horror would be unbearable. My issue is this: the entire country and possibly much of the world know who she is and what she did. Religious teachings are good things, but people are fallible, even in a church. Some of the things she will have to deal with will range from simply mean-spirited to downright dangerous. Not all people are forgiving. You may believe that her internal torment is enough, and maybe I agree with you on that as well, but many will not. They will only see the deaths of five innocent children, and as far as they are concerned the reason why does not matter. There are people who could think she should pay a hell of a lot more than she has. Her safety in the outside world should also be a concern when deciding something as monumental as whether or not a court should let a woman who drowned her children out of a protected and secure place.
