The Scoop: When murder is treated lightly
Andrea Yates has admitted killing her five children. She drowned them in a bathtub in her Houston home.
By now, most all of us have likely heard the details. Yates calmly murdered them all, one by one, then called 911 to report the crimes minutes later. When police arrived, the lifeless bodies were neatly resting side by side and five children, age 7 or under, were dead.
The reason those children were drowned – in Yates’ own words – is because killing them with a knife would have been too bloody. It seems she had given ample consideration to stabbing all five children to death.
So how did this former mother of five plea during her murder trial currently taking place? Andrea Yates has pleaded not guilty, by reason of insanity.
To make my feelings clear right from the start, Andrea Yates should be put to death. By her own admission, she killed five children – her own five children – and for that she deserves to die.
It appears to be a clear-cut case, yet our legal system sometimes struggles with the obvious. A person must be deemed mentally competent and fully aware of their actions before they can be found guilty of murder.
I disagree. People should be held accountable for their actions – period. I don’t see how mental frame of mind has any bearing.
Murder is murder. Five children are dead and that’s the bottom line in my book. I don’t particularly care if Andrea Yates was suffering from a bout of depression or had forgotten to take her medication. Yates killed five kids and no psychologist on this earth could convince me she deserves anything less than death.
What has peaked my concern is the thought Yates might be found not guilty. She would then have been found not guilty for murdering five children she admitted killing.
It also brings to light another case making news in Tennessee this week. A woman accused of killing her two children in Sumner County was allowed to plead no contest to charges of reckless homicide in the 1991 and ’94 deaths of her daughter and son.
In exchange for her plea, the woman doesn’t have to spend one day in jail for murdering two kids. Yet prosecutors are happy with the verdict because it would have been a difficult case to prosecute, seeing as this woman has been diagnosed with Munchausen’s syndrome.
If you’ve never heard of Munchausen’s syndrome, neither have I. From what I understand, it’s a rare disorder which makes a parent want to harm his or her children to attract attention to themselves. And apparently, it’s also an excuse for murder.
What do you say to a judge in a case like that? “I didn’t mean to kill my children, your honor. My Munchausen’s syndrome made me do it.”
Whatever. Where did this half-crazed diagnosis come from, and where will it stop? I don’t particularly enjoy making my house payment each month. What are my chances of getting a syndrome to suit my needs? Just think what I could tell the good folks at First National Bank. “I didn’t mean to miss my last six mortgage payments. My Poindexter syndrome made me do it.”
The difference is we’re not talking about monthly payments, but human life. And parents are suddenly trying to blame their actions on mental conditions which may or may not exist.
For me this is not a deep, philosophical question. I can’t find it in my heart to rationalize murder. If it was my decision, Andrea Yates could count her remaining days on one hand. Those are five more days than her children have had the luxury of counting.
(James Clark is editor of the Southern Standard. He can be reached at 473-2191 or by e-mail at [email protected].)