Get out of here! What the heck is this crap?!?

[SirPeale]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6794098/

[GGKoul]

Regardless... this doesn't change the face she drowned her 3 kids.

[Santoro]

Welcome to America, where the suspect's rights consistiently are given more emphasis that those of the victims and their families.

That, and frivolous lawsuits will be the downfall of this great country.
 

I am amazed that they managed to get the death penalty for Scott Peterson.  Now he gets to be fed and sheltered for twenty years until his appeals are dealt with.

I want the Wild West back.  Hang these people in the town square!

[DYNAGOD]

OMG
 

[Thenasty]

I want the Wild West back.

[Shape D.]

I just don't see how you could kill yout kids in the first place. thats f'd up. I hope she <left blank intentionally to avoid being banned from this forum> That would learn her.

[missioncontrol]

I heard this on the news this morning and couldn't believe it....

It's a sad sick world we live in...

I hope when this is re-tried she is given the death penalty

[Buddabing]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6794098/

I was glad to hear that. Now she can go to the insane asylum where she belongs and get the help she needs.

The real criminal here IMO was Rusty Yates, not Andrea.

[Jabba]

She is a very SICK woman. I can't believe what must have been going through her demented mind! Three children drowned, the HORROR!

[Ken Layton]

She was just trying to relieve overcrowding in the world. 

[dirt]

She is a very SICK woman. I can't believe what must have been going through her demented mind! Three children drowned, the HORROR!

it was five kids. they only tried her for three. so hopefully they will start on the other two counts now.



dirt

[Scott84]

Once shes convicted this time. maybe she will get a worse sentence!

[GGKoul]

Once shes convicted this time. maybe she will get a worse sentence!

Once your given a sentence in one case.  In the 2nd case they can't then bundle the 2 sentences to give you one huge sentence.  What will probably happen is she'll get sentences to X amount of years for trial #1 and X years for the #2.

[shmokes]

Welcome to America, where the suspect's rights consistiently are given more emphasis that those of the victims and their families.

That, and frivolous lawsuits will be the downfall of this great country.
 

Victims are not parties to criminal suits.  It is the government v. the suspect.  And if you mean to suggest that suspects rights outstrip the rights of the state in a criminal investigation/prosecution I suggest that you should stop projecting what you learn from     insert lawyer TV show here    onto reality.

Penalties of criminal convictions include fines and jail time, neither of which compensate the victim of a crime.  If a victim wants compensation a separate civil suit must be filed and, once again, suspects rights lag behind.  Here, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is replaced with "a preponderance of evidence."  In other words, you are a juror who thinks there's a 51% chance the suspect is guilty and a 49% chance he is innocent you should vote to aquit in a criminal proceeding and guilty in a civil suit.

In reality, the only thing that gives you any real rights as a suspect is money.  Without (a lot of) money the police and prosecutors can do just about whatever they want.

[shmokes]

What will probably happen is she'll get sentences to X amount of years for trial #1 and X years for the #2.

I might be misunderstanding you GGKoul, but I get the impression that you think that she will retain her sentence from the first trial.  I'm pretty sure that would constitute double jeopardy.  I don't think they can sentence her to prison when the trial finding her guilty has been thrown out as tainted.   I think she will get a brand new trial, and a brand new sentence which might be the death penalty or it might be a lighter prison sentence than she got originally.  But I don't think her original sentence will apply to her at all.

[iwillfearnoevil]

i was wondering why some feminazis were dancing in the streets this morning.

[Santoro]

Victims are not parties to criminal suits.

OK, if you want to get technical that is correct.

[Jabba]

You know, in Saudi Arabia, you steal, they cut your hand off. You kill and you are killed, smuggle drugs, and you are killed.

I mean, it is swift justice, but you would really hate to live there (I was there on business for three weeks (Jeddah) and hated every minute. My sponsor took my passport while I was working. Definately a very creepy place.

[Thenasty]

You know, in Saudi Arabia, you steal, they cut your hand off. You kill and you are killed, smuggle drugs, and you are killed.

If this happens here (or anywhere else ) the crooks/murderer/thief/robber/etc... will think twice before commiting the crime.

[lucindrea]

Jurors in 2002 sentenced Yates to life in prison in the 2001 deaths of three of her children. She was not tried in the deaths of the other two.

DA's arnt dumb , they left a window open for 2 more trials if needed

You know, in Saudi Arabia, you steal, they cut your hand off. You kill and you are killed, smuggle drugs, and you are killed.

If this happens here (or anywhere else ) the crooks/murderer/thief/robber/etc... will think twice before committing the crime.

one of the cornerstones of the us justice system ( ya sometimes it really does need a new name ) is that it's better to let 10 guilty go free if it prevents 1 innocent from false prosecution  ... the point is , if a thief was killed for steeling , then it turned out he was not the one who did it , you cannot bring him back.
unfortunately , to prevent this , we have to deal with some getting away with unthinkable crimes ... oh an on average , 2 lifer's are let free per year because of DNA evidence or something that undeniably proves them not-guilty

[Thenasty]

here is a good example of a thief.

In the middle of the night on your sleep, a thief climbs on to your roof, then you heard a big "BLOP" the thief had fallen of your roof, then you called the police. A couple of days later, the thief is suing you and WON the case. WTH is that ? Hmmm Justice that what they called it.

This is a true story BTW.
How did the thief won you ask ?
The owner should have never left the garage unlock for the thief to take and use the ladder.

[RacerX]

She will just get a new trial and be convicted again.  She's as guilty as she can be.  This was all over the headlines here back when it happened. 

I tend to agree that Rusty, the father, although not the one who killed the kids, is hardly blameless in this.  But he has to live with the knowledge that had he gotten his wife the help she needed, his kids might still be alive.

[jarrett]

here is a good example of a thief.

In the middle of the night on your sleep, a thief climbs on to your roof, then you heard a big "BLOP" the thief had fallen of your roof, then you called the police. A couple of days later, the thief is suing you and WON the case. WTH is that ? Hmmm Justice that what they called it.

This is a true story BTW.
How did the thief won you ask ?
The owner should have never left the garage unlock for the thief to take and use the ladder.

I'd like to see a cite for that case.  I don't believe that could happen in the US.

There have been some emails forwarded around detailing some outrageous civil judgements, but most of them are completely made up.

[shmokes]

Victims are not parties to criminal suits.

Five dead kids, mother walks.

She didn't walk.  She just gets a new trial because the jury in the first trial was blatently lied to by a major witness.  It's a big deal.  If she is clearly guilty, without the false testimony, then she'll be found guilty again.

And OJ is probably innocent.  But he got off cos he had the money to hire competent lawyers.  Think of all the planted evidence and that "N-word hating" (damn auto-censor) Mark Furman and then consider all the innocent black people he has put away who didn't have the luxury of being filthy rich.

And that's an urban legend, Thenasty.  The robber who fell through the skylight and sued is just a bedtime story.

What y'all don't realize is that when you are accused of a crime you did not commit YOU ARE A VICTIM.  Can you imagine what it would do to your life if the police were to show up at your door and arrest you for murder or rape?  You would lose your job.  You would likely lose your house.  You would likely lose your wife.  You would lose your integrity and the respect of your friends, family and neighbors.  If it's high profile you would become a celebrity.  If you got off, a la OJ Simpson, people would continue to think of you as a (at least most likely) murderer or rapist who "got off".  You would lose all the money it costs to defend yourself in a murder case -- OJ's cost millions, but even your local lawyer will charge tens of thousands of dollars to defend you in a murder or rape case.  You don't get that money back after you are acquited.  Over 20 people have been released from death row -- found totally innocent --  after being convicted, supposedly beyond a reasonable doubt.  And the state isn't required to revisit old evidence to do DNA testing. 

In fact in 1999 a man in Virginia was put to death after begging for years to have DNA testing done, saying, "I would have to be crazy to ask for DNA testing that would only prove my guilt."  They declined his request and put him to death.  After his death his wife and his church petitioned the state to release the evidence so they could test it and clear his name.  The DA argued that if the DNA testing was done and proved his innocence that the people would, "shout from the rooftops that the state of Virginia put an innocent man to death."  The DA requested permission to burn the evidence.  The judge ruled in favor of the DA and the evidence was incinerated.

Maybe this lady is guilty and maybe she's discusting, but it's not like upholding some semblence of a standard for fair trials is unimportant.

edit:  Heh....I forgot to mention, when talking about the horrors of being accused of a crime you didn't commit...you may also be put in a cage for 5 or 20 years or the rest of your life, or maybe you'll be put to death.  Those, perhaps, bare mentioning.

[danny_galaga]

i don't believe in the death-penalty. the only reason to have it is vengeance, and that's not how western law should be. then there's the problem of mistakes and also the fact that you are punishing a murderer by murdering them seems kinda silly!

i think there SHOULD be a special 'butt-kicking' court for people like that psychiatrist. how could a professional make such a faux-pas? each of the jurors in this court would get a pair of steel-cap boots to pass sentence 

[Apollo]

The reason these "technicalities" exist is to try to prevent innocent people going to jail. It is much more important to protect the rights of the innocent accused person than it is to throw a guilty person in jail, believe me I know. Sometimes despite this innocent people do go to jail and it's a tragedy. It's also a tragedy when a guilty person is let go, but not even close to the trauma of having an innocent friend or family member locked up. Your "technicalities" are there for very good reasons, thought out by some very intelligent people. To the lay person and even sometimes to those in the legal profession these rules seem arbitrary and ridiculous but believe me without them we would be much worse off.

[lucindrea]

technicalities work both ways .. let me give you an example

20yr old goes to a friends party on a Friday night , gets rip roaring drunk , gets a ride home and sleeps it off , on Saturday night he goes out with his girlfriend , on the way home , on a 80' bend in the road , during an "wintery mix" of ice and snow , his car skids off the road and hits a tree , girlfriend dies.  At the hospital they take his blood and he comes up at 0.003% .. the leagal limit for a 21yr old is 0.01 , for UNDER 21 it's 0.002 ( yes , the # of 0's are correct ) , IF he was over 21 he would get sympathy for a horrible accident , but because he's under 21 , he gets charged and convicted for drunk driving and vehicular manslaughter. Oh ya , a young asst. DA gets promoted to DA. His parrents push back their retirement another 10 years due to Court and lawyer costs , ( and he can forget about ever going to collage now ) not to mention the parrents of the girlfriend SUE for wrongfull death.

and before you ask , i can show you piles and piles of paper work , this happened to a family member , so not some "urban legend"

does the US justice system need an overhaul? .. i think so , is it still one of the best systems in the world , again i think so.

[Santoro]

Why does everyone think that a murderer going free is somehow less horrendous than an innocent person going to jail?

[patrickl]

does the US justice system need an overhaul? .. i think so , is it still one of the best systems in the world , again i think so.

Personally I don't think using juries works. To me it makes more sense to leave justice in the hands of professionals.

I read a comparison between dutch justice system and the US system and the US system had way more false positive and false negative outcomes. Especially the false positive (convicted but not guilty) outcomes where a bother to legal people over here since some of these end up on death row. The investigators blamed the problems mainly on the randomness of the juries.

 

[DrewKaree]

i don't believe in the death-penalty. the only reason to have it is vengeance, and that's not how western law should be. then there's the problem of mistakes and also the fact that you are punishing a murderer by murdering them seems kinda silly!

If our nation purports to be founded and based on Godly principles, there shouldn't be a death penalty at all.  It wouldn't be our place to mete out the ultimate punishment, as that isn't something given to us by our Creator.  Jail, yes.  Death, no. 

The problem is with the "where do we house all the criminals" question.  For whatever reason, (and it seems VERY short sighted to me) we seem to need ACRES AND ACRES of land to build a prison consisting of two or three stories (I even lived a mile from the most useless wasted of land - 250 acres  on a single level prison) and can't seem to understand why we continue to need more prison space.  Build 'em higher.  My grandmother lives in a state-owned retirement housing facility that is 14 stories tall built on a single city block that houses MORE people than that useless single-level prison I lived near.

i think there SHOULD be a special 'butt-kicking' court for people like that psychiatrist. how could a professional make such a faux-pas? each of the jurors in this court would get a pair of steel-cap boots to pass sentence 

On an eye-for-an-eye note, perhaps a light prison sentence for instances such as this might make folks' memory a bit more accurate, especially for a "professional" like that guy.

Being a "professional", though, danny, doesn't make a person error-proof.  Look to your local university scientist who gets grants to perform research.  They make errors (granted it's part of the job, but still) and are considered  "professionals". 

The "minor error" made in this case was anything BUT minor.  As the lone dissenting psychiatric witness, his testimony can be considered CRUCIAL to the outcome.  It's funny, he's on TV right now, and his words are "I was mistaken about that show".  When asked to testify due to his KNOWLEDGE on issues, isn't it reasonable to think that he's not giving as FACT something that he's uncertain about? 

Lastly, the defense asked for a mistrial before the case was even over due to the fact that this information was found out before sentencing for this trial.  The judge thought this to be a minor issue irrelevant to the case.  We now have the opportunity to find out if it truly was or not.  If she is guilty, she will be convicted.  As someone stated, there were two other children she could have been tried for - if the original judge had declared a mistrial, this could have been taken care of then. 

I don't condone this woman's actions, I believe she will be judged for them at her death, but this is a case of "the guilty are gonna go free AGAIN?!?!?" instead of "we'll give it another go - we'll get it right". 

Those of us who are outraged:
Would you feel the same feelings you are feeling now if this had been declared a mistrial in the first place and she was convicted based on one of the other two remaining deaths they could try her on?

[DrewKaree]

To me it makes more sense to leave justice in the hands of professionals.

Professionals like the original judge who refused to declare a mistrial?

"Professionals" are still people.  Mistakes will still be made, just as they are now. 

In case you missed it, the people making their case, for or against, are "professionals".  They're called lawyers.  In case you missed it, the person with the faulty testimony WAS a "professional".

Do you need more examples of "professionals" who are used to decide cases?

You're ignoring the fact that there isn't a "professional" alive who isn't...well....human.

To compare one system against another is simply nuts.  The laws are different, the judgement on penalties are different, the populace is different. 

Given all those "variables", judgements, penalties, and outcomes will be....different.  Your system isn't better.  Our system isn't better.  The systems are different.

Many here like the Mid-East's "chop off a finger" legal system.  Seems to work pretty well for them.  Is their system better, worse, or different?  Think before you answer.  I'll be asking for your "professional" credentials after you pass judgement based on the answer you give.

[RacerX]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6794098/

I was glad to hear that. Now she can go to the insane asylum where she belongs and get the help she needs.

The real criminal here IMO was Rusty Yates, not Andrea.

For the record, she has been in a mental institution since the sentencing, and she is going to remain there even though her sentence has been overturned.  So she is getting help.  Although I don't see how one could ever recover from killing one's own children.

[shmokes]

You're ignoring the fact that there isn't a "professional" alive who isn't...well....human.

I beg to differ, Drew.


(Seriously, though, there's a difference between making a "mistake" and perjuring yourself)

[shmokes]

I don't condone this woman's actions, I believe she will be judged for them at her death, but this is a case of "the guilty are gonna go free AGAIN?!?!?" instead of "we'll give it another go - we'll get it right". 

Um....I'm under the distinct impression that we, in fact, ARE going to "give it another go...."  What exactly makes you believe that she is going to go free?

[DrewKaree]

Um....I'm under the distinct impression that we, in fact, ARE going to "give it another go...."  What exactly makes you believe that she is going to go free?

I'm under that impression as well.  It just seems to me that the reason folks seem to be getting so upset is that they DON'T think that we are, and that they see it as one of those "she's gonna go free" cases.

I do realize the difference between perjury and "a mistake", I'm just using the guy's words I heard come from his very own cake cruncher this morning.  I believe the guy committed perjury, which he should be tried for.  He fabricated a story, plain and simple.  He did so to embellish his testimony.  Punish him, since he was called for his "expert testimony" - which he fabricated.

[fredster]

This is Texas we are talking about boys.

they didn't get to hang her the first time, so they had to scrap that.

It's clear she admitted to killing the children.  She won't go free.

It's just a waste of time and money.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Texas..."I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure."

[danny_galaga]

To me it makes more sense to leave justice in the hands of professionals.

Professionals like the original judge who refused to declare a mistrial?

some countries, like holland and germany don't use juries. they use a panel of magistrates- something like how you guys elect presidents 

[patrickl]

To me it makes more sense to leave justice in the hands of professionals.

"Professionals" are still people.

[thrash242]

She was nuts to begin with.  I remember a fair amount about this case, as I live quite close to where it happened and even saw the husband at a restaurant with his lawyers.

She drowned them one by one in a bathtub because she thoguht they were possessed by the devil or something along those lines.  That sounds insane to me.

Now I don't know whether or not she should get off for being insane, but in either case, she should be locked up for the rest of her life.  I'm sure she thought she was doing the right thing in her own mind, but so did Hitler.  It is a pretty horrible crime and is obviously very much premeditated, since she drowned them one by one.