ON THE CUTTING EDGE: Yates Murder Trial: How Guilty Was The Sane Parent?

 

Last Wednesday, a jury found that Andrea Yates, the Texas mother accused of drowning her five children in a bathtub in 2001, was not guilty by reason of insanity because at the time she committed the murders, she was unaware her actions were wrong. Yates's lawyers said she was suffering from postpartum depression and psychosis at the time of the killings, and thought she was saving the children from eternal damnation. The children's father, Rusty Yates, told reporters: “The jury looked past what happened and looked at why it happened. Prosecutors had the truth of the first day and stopped there. Yes, she was psychotic. That's the whole truth.” Though he divorced her after she killed their children, Rusty Yates said he and Andrea Yates are “friends” and reminisce about the children, according to the Houston Chronicle. “This is about Andrea's quality of life for the balance of her life.”

 

This is not what it’s about at all, according to columnist Mona Charen, who said she was so overcome by horror when she heard the news on the radio as she was driving, she had to pull over:

Normal until the birth of her first child, Yates began to have psychotic “visions” after Noah was born that worsened with every subsequent birth. …

 

Two juries have had to decide to what degree Andrea Yates was responsible for her behavior. But no juries have ever been asked to consider Rusty's guilt.

 

The word negligent doesn't even begin to describe his malfeasance. How is it possible that a man who knows his wife's sanity has been compromised by childbirth can nonetheless impregnate her five more times (she miscarried once)?

 

How could he leave her alone when he knew she was, at the very least, suicidal - and when her failure to care for the children … revealed a clear case of endangering the welfare of a child? What was he thinking when he urged Andrea to home school all four of their children (the fifth came later) in the converted school bus they were living in?

 

Who is more guilty here: the sane one or the insane one?

 

Charen is asking a question that ought to be investigated: Just what is Rusty Yates’ culpability? He may not be clinically insane, but he must have been nuts to leave his children alone with a woman who had a history of hallucinations, self-mutilation and at least one suicide attempt.

 

Someone has to be held accountable for the deaths of these children. Since Andrea Yates was judged not guilty because she was insane – “for moral clarity” Charen says juries should be able to judge someone “guilty but insane” – Rusty Yates is the logical choice to answer for actions that may well have been criminally negligent. He must surely have known that his children were in mortal danger every time he left the house.   

Posted by The Stiletto at July 31, 2006
Categories: On The Cutting Edge
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this post
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
  • No comments exist for this post.
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.