|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 15, 2005 9:19:31 GMT -6
But whilst I repeated what I recall spearmintgirl saying, I did not present what I wrote as proved fact, and stated my source. No, you used it to take another cheapshot at the US. Aw for Gawssake! Are you so flaming sensitive that you took that as a cheapshot at the states? Listen, I see the whole time on this board the apparent attitudes towards people with mental health problems in your country, I see people like the clown Joe who are oblivious to any solution other than kill, kill, kill, and that to solve the problem of killing, and you have an issue with cheap shots being taken at the states? Get Real!
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 15, 2005 9:23:03 GMT -6
Thank you Jamie for welcoming me, I appreciate it! Joseph, back on page one when I was discussing whether or not you had compassion for people with mental illness or cancer, it was discussing the illness only, nothing to do with killing someone. What I am picking up is that you have zero compassion for people with mental illness at all and just wish that they would take their meds and shut the *deleted* up right? Well, life is not black and white. You cannot FORCE someone to take medication. You just can't. When someone with schizophrenia gets put on medication and the voices go away, they think "hey, this is great. I am all better now. There are no more voices, so I can stop my medication". Now, this person had a good psychiatrist, they would tell them that this is not true, and to remain healthy you need to stay on your medication for life. But, obviously, Andrea Yates did NOT have a good physician as he was discontinuing her Haldol which in my opinion was an idiotic thing to do given her history. But, this doctor did what he did, and if anything he deserves to shoulder an awful lot of the blame here. If he had been a caring and intelligent physician, he would have paid more attention to her symptoms and prevented this tragedy. My compassion for anyone with or without mental problems is demonstrable, but stops when s/he commits murder. There is no societal purpose helping those with mental problems if they can't eventually be held responsible for their behavior. What is the point of medicating them if they're just going to go off their meds and kill people? You, and others whose hearts bleed for psychopaths, want it both ways. You want to help dangerous people become less dangerous with professional help and drugs, and not hold them responsble for their voluntary decisions to go off their meds. When people are murdered because of these voluntary decisions, your response is "Well, #hit happens. You can't blame the mentally ill." Sorry, I can, and I do.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 9:24:36 GMT -6
No, you used it to take another cheapshot at the US. Aw for Gawssake! Are you so flaming sensitive that you took that as a cheapshot at the states? Listen, I see the whole time on this board the apparent attitudes towards people with mental health problems in your country, I see people like the clown Joe who are oblivious to any solution other than kill, kill, kill, and that to solve the problem of killing, and you have an issue with cheap shots being taken at the states? Get Real! Sensitive? No. Just bored with your b.s., knee jerk, anti-American crapola. So you "Get Real!"
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 15, 2005 9:25:50 GMT -6
You cannot FORCE someone to take medication. True. In a free society, you can't force the individual to do anything. All society can do is hold the individual personally responsible for criminal behavior. That includes holding a mental patient responsible for what happens after electing to go off anti-psychotic medication explicitly intended to control violent impulses.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 9:27:45 GMT -6
Yates did not go off her meds. She was tapered off Haldol under her doctor's orders and was left on anti-depressants. No matter how many times you tell that lie isn't going to make it true. Thank you Jamie for welcoming me, I appreciate it! Joseph, back on page one when I was discussing whether or not you had compassion for people with mental illness or cancer, it was discussing the illness only, nothing to do with killing someone. What I am picking up is that you have zero compassion for people with mental illness at all and just wish that they would take their meds and shut the *deleted* up right? Well, life is not black and white. You cannot FORCE someone to take medication. You just can't. When someone with schizophrenia gets put on medication and the voices go away, they think "hey, this is great. I am all better now. There are no more voices, so I can stop my medication". Now, this person had a good psychiatrist, they would tell them that this is not true, and to remain healthy you need to stay on your medication for life. But, obviously, Andrea Yates did NOT have a good physician as he was discontinuing her Haldol which in my opinion was an idiotic thing to do given her history. But, this doctor did what he did, and if anything he deserves to shoulder an awful lot of the blame here. If he had been a caring and intelligent physician, he would have paid more attention to her symptoms and prevented this tragedy. My compassion for anyone with or without mental problems is demonstrable, but stops when s/he commits murder. There is no societal purpose helping those with mental problems if they can't eventually be held responsible for their behavior. What is the point of medicating them if they're just going to go off their meds and kill people? You, and others whose hearts bleed for psychopaths, want it both ways. You want to help dangerous people become less dangerous with professional help and drugs, and not hold them responsble for their voluntary decisions to go off their meds. When people are murdered because of these voluntary decisions, your response is "Well, #hit happens. You can't blame the mentally ill." Sorry, I can, and I do.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 9:30:21 GMT -6
You cannot FORCE someone to take medication. True. In a free society, you can't force the individual to do anything. All society can do is hold the individual personally responsible for criminal behavior. That includes holding a mental patient responsible for what happens after electing to go off anti-psychotic medication explicitly intended to control violent impulses. Yates did not elect to go off her anti-psychotic medication. It was her doctor's decision to take her off the Haldol. hth
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 15, 2005 9:36:32 GMT -6
Previously you have argued that morality has nothing to do with any issue, are your sand shifting Joe? As for society providing a reason? Society is perfectly happy to acknowledge that some folk who kill secondary to serious delusional disorders cannot be held to account to the same level as the rest of us. Their actions are tragic, but if you really do care, I suggest you lobby for extra funding for community support and monitoring schemes and not the knee jerk ill informed ramblings you have come up with so far. Your perspective on this issue is extremely limited, you dont appear to recognise that some have dimished capacity. If your precious DP is ever to succedd, it has to be seen to be fair and applied only to those who exercised a degree of choice and not those who could not. Felix, the b!tch planned the murderers and calculated the optimum time and circumstance in order to kill her children. Even if she thought what she was doing was right, she knew full well that it was still morally wrong in the eyes of others. She made sure no one would stop her, and killed her children without interference. She then called the police and confessed to the crimes. Excuse-making by psychiatrists doesn't change these facts. Nor does the alleged perjury of one of the "expert" witnesses.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 15, 2005 9:36:47 GMT -6
True. In a free society, you can't force the individual to do anything. All society can do is hold the individual personally responsible for criminal behavior. That includes holding a mental patient responsible for what happens after electing to go off anti-psychotic medication explicitly intended to control violent impulses. Yates did not elect to go off her anti-psychotic medication. It was her doctor's decision to take her off the Haldol. hth are you sure this is not just heresay?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 15, 2005 9:44:40 GMT -6
I never have the need to make up stuff in order to be right. Too bad you can't say the same. In fact, you have created an entire fantasy world where you make up all the rules and laws. Thank God no one lives in it but you. I don't make up anything, Blakely. I defend or attack the theory, application and moral basis of law, as is my right and duty as a conscientious citizen. You simply feel sorry for a convicted murderer and look to exonerate her from responsibility for her actions, a desire you've never felt for a male murderer, even one with mental problems.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Nov 15, 2005 9:45:55 GMT -6
I wouldn't have a problem with a plea bargain as long as it did not result in a not guilty verdict like some of these other murdering mommies have recently gotten. Texas should have guilty but insane as an option. Well, since I am not Yates and I am not psychotic I, like you, can only guess. I believe she talked about the need to be punished and that she could only protect her kids from Satan by killing them. She called the police because she felt she needed to be punished because she was a terrible mother. She believed she did the right thing in killing them because Satan was going to harm them. The prosecution may have a problem in that they put all their eggs in the Dietz basket. Without him, they have no expert that examined her on or near the time of the drownings. Frankly, I think a plea bargain is likely. I'm not sure why they can't sentence her to consecutive life terms and allow her to serve it in any lockdown mental health facility. Okay, and I told you the reasons I believe that she knew that what she did was wrong. Why do you think she called the police if she thought everything was fine and she had done nothing wrong? I think the next jury will decide the same thing, without Park Dietz's testimony.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 9:49:33 GMT -6
Yates did not elect to go off her anti-psychotic medication. It was her doctor's decision to take her off the Haldol. hth are you sure this is not just heresay? Yes, I am sure that it is not just hearsay. It was introduced under oath and tested by cross examination and is now part of the official court record. Sorry, you lose again.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 9:54:14 GMT -6
I never have the need to make up stuff in order to be right. Too bad you can't say the same. In fact, you have created an entire fantasy world where you make up all the rules and laws. Thank God no one lives in it but you. I don't make up anything, Blakely. I defend or attack the theory, application and moral basis of law, as is my right and duty as a conscientious citizen. You simply feel sorry for a convicted murderer and look to exonerate her from responsibility for her actions, a desire you've never felt for a male murderer, even one with mental problems. You have made many statements of fact that were not true pertaining to this case. You also mangled the definition of reasonable doubt on more than one occasion. You want to get personal again, then let's get personal. You simply feel the need to punish your mother and are willing to twist both the facts and the law as pertaining to Yates. Once again, Joe, two can play your game.
|
|
|
Post by blakely on Nov 15, 2005 10:00:21 GMT -6
I don't know if I would call a not guilty a plea bargain. More like a defense atty's wet dream. lol! Anyway, Texas does not have guilty but insane as an option, so what do you do? I'm not even sure my suggestion is viable. As far as I know while in some crimes the sentence must be concurrent, any time there are separate victim's the court can sentence consecutive. I assume it is the same in Texas, yet the court did not do this as far as I know. I wouldn't have a problem with a plea bargain as long as it did not result in a not guilty verdict like some of these other murdering mommies have recently gotten. Texas should have guilty but insane as an option. Well, since I am not Yates and I am not psychotic I, like you, can only guess. I believe she talked about the need to be punished and that she could only protect her kids from Satan by killing them. She called the police because she felt she needed to be punished because she was a terrible mother. She believed she did the right thing in killing them because Satan was going to harm them. The prosecution may have a problem in that they put all their eggs in the Dietz basket. Without him, they have no expert that examined her on or near the time of the drownings. Frankly, I think a plea bargain is likely. I'm not sure why they can't sentence her to consecutive life terms and allow her to serve it in any lockdown mental health facility.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 15, 2005 10:05:30 GMT -6
True. In a free society, you can't force the individual to do anything. All society can do is hold the individual personally responsible for criminal behavior. That includes holding a mental patient responsible for what happens after electing to go off anti-psychotic medication explicitly intended to control violent impulses. Yates did not elect to go off her anti-psychotic medication. It was her doctor's decision to take her off the Haldol. hth If that is truly the case, the doctor ought to share criminal responsibility for the murders. These are so-called professionals who know what they're doing, correct? If you don't want Andrea Yates convicted of mass murder, then who? Someone killed these children. Someone is to blame. The deaths of five children in this case don't comprise a "tragedy." Their deaths are the results of willful, deliberate, criminal acts.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Nov 15, 2005 10:41:13 GMT -6
Yes, it does happen that someone will get a consecutive sentence for multiple crimes, but it is rare, rare, rare. I don't care if she spends the rest of her life in prison or in a mental hospital, as long as she does not leave whichever it is and has no further opportunity to have children she does not deserve. The image of her little boy running from her and apologizing for what he didn't do will never leave me. She knew it was wrong and she did it anyway. In my opinion, and it is of course only an opinion, she decided she was gonna show Rusty and she showed him good. I don't know if I would call a not guilty a plea bargain. More like a defense atty's wet dream. lol! Anyway, Texas does not have guilty but insane as an option, so what do you do? I'm not even sure my suggestion is viable. As far as I know while in some crimes the sentence must be concurrent, any time there are separate victim's the court can sentence consecutive. I assume it is the same in Texas, yet the court did not do this as far as I know. I wouldn't have a problem with a plea bargain as long as it did not result in a not guilty verdict like some of these other murdering mommies have recently gotten. Texas should have guilty but insane as an option.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 15, 2005 11:02:22 GMT -6
I never have the need to make up stuff in order to be right. Too bad you can't say the same. In fact, you have created an entire fantasy world where you make up all the rules and laws. Thank God no one lives in it but you. I don't make up anything, Blakely. I defend or attack the theory, application and moral basis of law, as is my right and duty as a conscientious citizen. You simply feel sorry for a convicted murderer and look to exonerate her from responsibility for her actions, a desire you've never felt for a male murderer, even one with mental problems. Yes you do Joe, in fact you do it regularly. Many nights I have taken the time to corner you on specific issues for you to just sign off or whine that you are being analysed. To be honest I dont waste the time or effort anymore. Your utterances about your mental illness are mere rants that fly in the face of what all professionals in that field know. You quite simply are uneducated. It was Bavarian who noted that you suffer from education envy, and rahter than get off your fat ass and get informed and educated, you prefer to take the lazy path and criticise and try to destroy that which you do not understand. The fact that you need to attack and call for the killin g of societys most vulnerable people shows to me that you have some way to go in therapy yet. It was an old mentor of mine in Ohio who once said that when you write or speak, if you cannot express yourself yourself in a language and style that a six year old can understand, chances are you dont understand it yourself. Your use of language does not disguise for some of us, the lack of any substance in what you do say.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 15, 2005 11:14:07 GMT -6
Yes you do Joe, in fact you do it regularly. Many nights I have taken the time to corner you on specific issues for you to just sign off or whine that you are being analysed. To be honest I dont waste the time or effort anymore. Your utterances about your mental illness are mere rants that fly in the face of what all professionals in that field know. You quite simply are uneducated. It was Bavarian who noted that you suffer from education envy, and rahter than get off your fat ass and get informed and educated, you prefer to take the lazy path and criticise and try to destroy that which you do not understand. The fact that you need to attack and call for the killin g of societys most vulnerable people shows to me that you have some way to go in therapy yet. It was an old mentor of mine in Ohio who once said that when you write or speak, if you cannot express yourself yourself in a language and style that a six year old can understand, chances are you dont understand it yourself. Your use of language does not disguise for some of us, the lack of any substance in what you do say. When psychiatrists make claims about human nature they can't substantiate, and never will, I call them on it. Psychiatry doesn't belong in a courtroom, where culpability for crimes is adjudicated. That you believe otherwise doesn't impart to mental health professionals expertise that isn't theirs to claim. The many failures of psychiatry don't bode well for blind faith in their wisdom. I trust the psychiatrist who admits to what s/he doesn't know. The one I don't trust is the one claiming to see into someone else's soul. That never was, is not, and never will be, any of his/her business. Let shrinks do what they do best, which is to study the human mind as it relates to human behavior, and make their best guesses as to why things happen. Let them treat those they claim are mentally ill as best they can, while leaving the disposition of criminals to the ones best equipped to judge their culpability. Until there is physical, tangible, irrefutable evidence that moral restraint is temporarily vitiated by psychopathy, in all circumstances, I'll remain skeptical.
|
|
|
Post by DeadElvis on Nov 15, 2005 13:18:43 GMT -6
The fact that you need to attack and call for the killing of societys most vulnerable i'm not so sure that Yates and crazies like her are our society's "most vulnerable." I think it is the unlucky normal people and children that happen to cross paths with these folks and get on their "voice's" $hitlist. Mental health professionals seem to be very successfull at diagnosing one as dangerously mentally ill AFTER they have murdered. How many docs saw that evil witch BEFORE she murdered her kids? I'm sure there were some that said she was capable of something like this but were they actually able to protect the victims or prevent her from doing exactly what her crazy voices told her. Assuming she actually has a mental illness, why cure her now? Itsn't it kinda too little too late? I would be all for treatment and life in prison if I thought she actually had a conscious that would bother her but let's face it, she will just pray and get it all "squared up" with god and go on with her pointless life. Why coundn't her stupid "voices" have told her to kill herself instead?
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 15, 2005 14:19:16 GMT -6
Yes you do Joe, in fact you do it regularly. Many nights I have taken the time to corner you on specific issues for you to just sign off or whine that you are being analysed. To be honest I dont waste the time or effort anymore. Your utterances about your mental illness are mere rants that fly in the face of what all professionals in that field know. You quite simply are uneducated. It was Bavarian who noted that you suffer from education envy, and rahter than get off your fat ass and get informed and educated, you prefer to take the lazy path and criticise and try to destroy that which you do not understand. The fact that you need to attack and call for the killin g of societys most vulnerable people shows to me that you have some way to go in therapy yet. It was an old mentor of mine in Ohio who once said that when you write or speak, if you cannot express yourself yourself in a language and style that a six year old can understand, chances are you dont understand it yourself. Your use of language does not disguise for some of us, the lack of any substance in what you do say. When psychiatrists make claims about human nature they can't substantiate, and never will, I call them on it. Psychiatry doesn't belong in a courtroom, where culpability for crimes is adjudicated. That you believe otherwise doesn't impart to mental health professionals expertise that isn't theirs to claim. The many failures of psychiatry don't bode well for blind faith in their wisdom. I trust the psychiatrist who admits to what s/he doesn't know. The one I don't trust is the one claiming to see into someone else's soul. That never was, is not, and never will be, any of his/her business. Let shrinks do what they do best, which is to study the human mind as it relates to human behavior, and make their best guesses as to why things happen. Let them treat those they claim are mentally ill as best they can, while leaving the disposition of criminals to the ones best equipped to judge their culpability. Until there is physical, tangible, irrefutable evidence that moral restraint is temporarily vitiated by psychopathy, in all circumstances, I'll remain skeptical. Most psychiatrists will readily admit to what they dont know, three current patients come to my mind alone on our patch, all three have done over 28 days in hospital and we as yet dont have a clue for sure. Some take up to a year for the real picture to emerge, |particularly when there is a psychotic episode but the rest of the presentation emerges as a personality disorder. I freely admit the waters are frequently muddy, so I dont know why the arrogant psychiatrists you may have met, represent all mental health professionals to you. Judges cannot fairly judge and appropriately punish those who might be mentally ill. Thanks God they have the grace, wisdom and humility to consult those better placed to help them arrive at just outcomes when that arises. I dont see your difficulty with that. I suggest it is better to hold your fire on killing folk who professionals say are mentally ill, until you have objectively and exhaustively done all to become familiar with the complications first. That would show respect for life. I know you are desperate to equate the work of mental health professionals to guessing games etc, and you seem to ahve a personal axe to grind in this respect. Precisely because you have this personal axe as evidenced over a long time on this board, I think that ought to exclude you from any position of power on this arguement because I dont find you objective or intimate enought with psychiatric processes to make that shout.
|
|
|
Post by MrCoffee on Nov 15, 2005 15:24:25 GMT -6
The fact that you need to attack and call for the killing of societys most vulnerable i'm not so sure that Yates and crazies like her are our society's "most vulnerable." I think it is the unlucky normal people and children that happen to cross paths with these folks and get on their "voice's" $hitlist. Mental health professionals seem to be very successfull at diagnosing one as dangerously mentally ill AFTER they have murdered. How many docs saw that evil witch BEFORE she murdered her kids? I'm sure there were some that said she was capable of something like this but were they actually able to protect the victims or prevent her from doing exactly what her crazy voices told her. Assuming she actually has a mental illness, why cure her now? Itsn't it kinda too little too late? I would be all for treatment and life in prison if I thought she actually had a conscious that would bother her but let's face it, she will just pray and get it all "squared up" with god and go on with her pointless life. Why coundn't her stupid "voices" have told her to kill herself instead? In order to understand why psychiatrists diagnose patients as "dangerously mentally ill" after they've murdered, you have to probe into their minds. First, a psychiatrist is not a prosecuting attorney. A psychiatrist is not a cop, nor is a psychiatrist a sentencing judge. The psychiatrist did not learn his/her trade so that they could subdue violent criminals, and detainment was not a part of their curriculum. Their study focuses on the human mind, the neurological system, and health. A psychiatrist's learn their trade to heal, not harm. Any doctor worth his or her salt will get their license to practice medicine so they can save lives and relieve pain. If it means giving a certain diagnosis so that someone with a disability can live more comfortably on Social Security, they will do it. If a diagnosis is going to keep their patient out of a hostile prison environment, they will give it. If it keeps someone from getting strapped to the gurney, again, they will make the diagnosis. If they can't get their patient out of prison, then they'll do what they can to prescribe meds to help reduce the stress that the prisoner faces day to day. Since it's the nature of doctors to preserve life and limb, and to reduce pain and suffering, much of that information can serve to explain why so many doctors recommended treatment rather than prison for Andrea Yates. I doubt they would wish for her to go free, but again I honestly don't see the DP as being palatable to those in the field. Believe it or not, there is a human side to every professional, even if they are called in as a third party witness. I am not saying this to side with Andrea Yate's supporters. What I give here, however, relates to my own experience with doctors in the past. MrCoffee
|
|
|
Post by MrCoffee on Nov 15, 2005 15:27:02 GMT -6
does anyone know what happened to the other thread on andrea yates? Redundancy, for one. It was also reaching a point to where it was no longer a debate, which is unfortunate. MrCoffee
|
|
|
Post by happygrandmab on Nov 15, 2005 15:27:03 GMT -6
The fact that you need to attack and call for the killing of societys most vulnerable i'm not so sure that Yates and crazies like her are our society's "most vulnerable." I think it is the unlucky normal people and children that happen to cross paths with these folks and get on their "voice's" $hitlist. Mental health professionals seem to be very successfull at diagnosing one as dangerously mentally ill AFTER they have murdered. How many docs saw that evil witch BEFORE she murdered her kids? I'm sure there were some that said she was capable of something like this but were they actually able to protect the victims or prevent her from doing exactly what her crazy voices told her. Assuming she actually has a mental illness, why cure her now? Itsn't it kinda too little too late? I would be all for treatment and life in prison if I thought she actually had a conscious that would bother her but let's face it, she will just pray and get it all "squared up" with god and go on with her pointless life. Why coundn't her stupid "voices" have told her to kill herself instead? very well said, deadelvis.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Nov 15, 2005 16:57:49 GMT -6
i'm not so sure that Yates and crazies like her are our society's "most vulnerable." I think it is the unlucky normal people and children that happen to cross paths with these folks and get on their "voice's" $hitlist. Mental health professionals seem to be very successfull at diagnosing one as dangerously mentally ill AFTER they have murdered. How many docs saw that evil witch BEFORE she murdered her kids? I'm sure there were some that said she was capable of something like this but were they actually able to protect the victims or prevent her from doing exactly what her crazy voices told her. Assuming she actually has a mental illness, why cure her now? Itsn't it kinda too little too late? I would be all for treatment and life in prison if I thought she actually had a conscious that would bother her but let's face it, she will just pray and get it all "squared up" with god and go on with her pointless life. Why coundn't her stupid "voices" have told her to kill herself instead? In order to understand why psychiatrists diagnose patients as "dangerously mentally ill" after they've murdered, you have to probe into their minds. First, a psychiatrist is not a prosecuting attorney. A psychiatrist is not a cop, nor is a psychiatrist a sentencing judge. The psychiatrist did not learn his/her trade so that they could subdue violent criminals, and detainment was not a part of their curriculum. Their study focuses on the human mind, the neurological system, and health. A psychiatrist's learn their trade to heal, not harm. Any doctor worth his or her salt will get their license to practice medicine so they can save lives and relieve pain. If it means giving a certain diagnosis so that someone with a disability can live more comfortably on Social Security, they will do it. If a diagnosis is going to keep their patient out of a hostile prison environment, they will give it. If it keeps someone from getting strapped to the gurney, again, they will make the diagnosis. If they can't get their patient out of prison, then they'll do what they can to prescribe meds to help reduce the stress that the prisoner faces day to day. Since it's the nature of doctors to preserve life and limb, and to reduce pain and suffering, much of that information can serve to explain why so many doctors recommended treatment rather than prison for Andrea Yates. I doubt they would wish for her to go free, but again I honestly don't see the DP as being palatable to those in the field. Believe it or not, there is a human side to every professional, even if they are called in as a third party witness. I am not saying this to side with Andrea Yate's supporters. What I give here, however, relates to my own experience with doctors in the past. MrCoffee Whilst I agree that many doctors are Paternal/Maternal in their attitudes to patients, court ordered psychiatric reports in the UK in forensic settings often help the individual into jail. I worry about colleagues who medicalize patients which in turn encourages them to avoid taking responsibility and see themselves as "ill" when they really need a good wake up call.
|
|
|
Post by MrCoffee on Nov 15, 2005 17:05:10 GMT -6
In order to understand why psychiatrists diagnose patients as "dangerously mentally ill" after they've murdered, you have to probe into their minds. First, a psychiatrist is not a prosecuting attorney. A psychiatrist is not a cop, nor is a psychiatrist a sentencing judge. The psychiatrist did not learn his/her trade so that they could subdue violent criminals, and detainment was not a part of their curriculum. Their study focuses on the human mind, the neurological system, and health. A psychiatrist's learn their trade to heal, not harm. Any doctor worth his or her salt will get their license to practice medicine so they can save lives and relieve pain. If it means giving a certain diagnosis so that someone with a disability can live more comfortably on Social Security, they will do it. If a diagnosis is going to keep their patient out of a hostile prison environment, they will give it. If it keeps someone from getting strapped to the gurney, again, they will make the diagnosis. If they can't get their patient out of prison, then they'll do what they can to prescribe meds to help reduce the stress that the prisoner faces day to day. Since it's the nature of doctors to preserve life and limb, and to reduce pain and suffering, much of that information can serve to explain why so many doctors recommended treatment rather than prison for Andrea Yates. I doubt they would wish for her to go free, but again I honestly don't see the DP as being palatable to those in the field. Believe it or not, there is a human side to every professional, even if they are called in as a third party witness. I am not saying this to side with Andrea Yate's supporters. What I give here, however, relates to my own experience with doctors in the past. MrCoffee Whilst I agree that many doctors are Paternal/Maternal in their attitudes to patients, court ordered psychiatric reports in the UK in forensic settings often help the individual into jail. I worry about colleagues who medicalize patients which in turn encourages them to avoid taking responsibility and see themselves as "ill" when they really need a good wake up call. In some cases, that can be very well the truth. That particular doctor who testifys would most likely have set aside his support for the patient, especially when the doctor feels that safety would be compromised in any other place than jail/prison. There are some cases that the psychiatric profession would rather have nothing to do with. MrCoffee
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 15, 2005 17:07:54 GMT -6
In order to understand why psychiatrists diagnose patients as "dangerously mentally ill" after they've murdered, you have to probe into their minds. First, a psychiatrist is not a prosecuting attorney. A psychiatrist is not a cop, nor is a psychiatrist a sentencing judge. The psychiatrist did not learn his/her trade so that they could subdue violent criminals, and detainment was not a part of their curriculum. Their study focuses on the human mind, the neurological system, and health. A psychiatrist's learn their trade to heal, not harm. Any doctor worth his or her salt will get their license to practice medicine so they can save lives and relieve pain. If it means giving a certain diagnosis so that someone with a disability can live more comfortably on Social Security, they will do it. If a diagnosis is going to keep their patient out of a hostile prison environment, they will give it. If it keeps someone from getting strapped to the gurney, again, they will make the diagnosis. If they can't get their patient out of prison, then they'll do what they can to prescribe meds to help reduce the stress that the prisoner faces day to day. Since it's the nature of doctors to preserve life and limb, and to reduce pain and suffering, much of that information can serve to explain why so many doctors recommended treatment rather than prison for Andrea Yates. I doubt they would wish for her to go free, but again I honestly don't see the DP as being palatable to those in the field. Believe it or not, there is a human side to every professional, even if they are called in as a third party witness. I am not saying this to side with Andrea Yate's supporters. What I give here, however, relates to my own experience with doctors in the past. MrCoffee Very good points, MrCoffee. All the more reason to take their trial testimonials with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by cynthiak on Nov 15, 2005 17:08:38 GMT -6
That is not true. I lack compassion for those that need them and refuse to take them. You and others keep stating/implying that Yates refused to take her medications. That is a lie. And no, you do not have compassion for those with serious mental illness. How the hell do you know what I do and dont have?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 15, 2005 17:27:45 GMT -6
Judges cannot fairly judge and appropriately punish those who might be mentally ill. Sure they can. If a culture determines that mental illness is irrelevant to punishment, the judge merely slams his gavel and pronounces the sentence predetermined by the electorate for that crime. No problem. In California, malice is so broadly defined that it is generally inferred from the crime itself. In other words, you can't really premeditate murder without also knowing that it's wrong. Any step one takes to conceal evidence of the crime, or choose the optimum time or circumstance for its commission, serves to meet the requirement for malice. Why is that these murdering moms are the only ones allowing their shrinks to claim they didn't know killing their own children was wrong? Did Marcus Wesson use this "diminished capacity" legerdemain at trial? Or David Westerfield? Are they not just as nuts as any murdering mom? That Andrea Yates was so out of her mind she couldn't restrain herself from murder is only based on personal opinion, speculation and conjecture, particularly since she did have violent impulses for a long time and never acted on them. There is no scientific evidence, no hard physical proof, nothing at all tangible, repeatable, predictable and testable, conclusively explaining why Andrea Yates, or anyone else claiming "diminished capacity", can't appreciate the consequence and wrongfulness of brutally murdering someone. Doubt about whether she knew right from wrong at the time of the murders isn't enough. Moral restraint has to be assumed, or we might as well discount it as a philosophical basis for prosecuting and punishing criminals. If you are unable to prove you didn't know right from wrong, I don't believe you. It's too easy a claim to make, by too many murderers, for me to entertain this diminished capacity nonsense in weighing someone's moral culpability for a crime such as murder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2005 17:53:42 GMT -6
Damn, Joe! You DA MAN! Excellent post!
|
|
|
Post by MrCoffee on Nov 15, 2005 18:27:00 GMT -6
I will agree that there is no physical evidence that I've read about in this case. No brain tumor, and no alzeimer's-like dementia either. Did she have a driver's license? If that were the case, then apparently she had some decision making capacity. If a person can make decisions, they can plan in advance as well. I'll give an example: I have a truck that needs some repairs, and I'm autistic (Asperger's Syndrome). I still make plans and schedule down times so as to keep the vehicle currently operable, yet still make the repairs as easy on my budget as possible. I'll order parts as I can afford them, then schedule time with the mechanic to install the new parts. That's all premeditated planning, and it proves culpability on my part, with the result being a reliable source of transportation. If I were to harm or attack someone, I would face prosecution and rightfully so.
As for Andrea Yates: It is common knowledge that the offense was in her mind for a couple years. Evidently, she took good care of her kids. She was able to plan meals, clean the house, and apparently provide transportation. She was fully capable of functioning from what I have seen on the news. It looks to me like she was successful at hiding her plans from others, or at least not making them obvious. It is a bit difficult for me to see how she could have done the act involuntarily, as if by reflex. This had to take some sort of planning to me, and it looks like the next jury will draw the same conclusion. If they count her illness as a mitigating factor, she'll probably get get the same sentence she is currently serving. I can't see a "not guilty by reason of mental illness" transpiring here.
MrCoffee
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 15, 2005 18:30:18 GMT -6
I will agree that there is no physical evidence that I've read about in this case. No brain tumor, and no alzeimer's-like dementia either. Did she have a driver's license? If that were the case, then apparently she had some decision making capacity. If a person can make decisions, they can plan in advance as well. I'll give an example: I have a truck that needs some repairs, and I'm autistic (Asperger's Syndrome). I still make plans and schedule down times so as to keep the vehicle currently operable, yet still make the repairs as easy on my budget as possible. I'll order parts as I can afford them, then schedule time with the mechanic to install the new parts. That's all premeditated planning, and it proves culpability on my part, with the result being a reliable source of transportation. If I were to harm or attack someone, I would face prosecution and rightfully so. As for Andrea Yates: It is common knowledge that the offense was in her mind for a couple years. Evidently, she took good care of her kids. She was able to plan meals, clean the house, and apparently provide transportation. She was fully capable of functioning from what I have seen on the news. It looks to me like she was successful at hiding her plans from others, or at least not making them obvious. It is a bit difficult for me to see how she could have done the act involuntarily, as if by reflex. This had to take some sort of planning to me, and it looks like the next jury will draw the same conclusion. If they count her illness as a mitigating factor, she'll probably get get the same sentence she is currently serving. I can't see a "not guilty by reason of mental illness" transpiring here. MrCoffee OK, so morally culpable for the murders but someone to be pitied during a punishment phase. Isn't that what "mitigating" circumstances are all about? Pity? None from me, though.
|
|