The Death Penalty Exists For People Like This

Actually, she's in the middle of a re-trial. And if post-partem depression is "certifiably insane" well then time to clamp down on the maternity wards, huh?

Judge Delays Yates' Murder Trial

Monday , March 20, 2006

HOUSTON — A judge on Monday delayed Andrea Yates' capital murder retrial until June because of witness problems cited by her defense attorney.

Jury selection in her retrial for the 2001 bathtub drowning deaths of her children had been scheduled to begin Monday.

But late last week, Yates' attorneys asked State District Judge Belinda Hill to reschedule the trial because two of their defense experts wouldn't be able to testify if the trial began as scheduled. Hill on Monday set jury selection for June 22, with testimony scheduled to begin June 26.

Attorneys George Parnham and Wendell Odom asked Hill to consider the importance the testimony offered by psychiatrists Dr. George Ringholz and Dr. Lucy Puryear in Yates' original 2002 trial.

Parnham and Odom said the two experts are extremely important to their defense and to try Yates without the two experts would "deny her a fair trial."

Hill had earlier denied a request by Parnham to delay the trial. In that initial request, Parnham cited an intense focus on plea negotiations, which broke down earlier this year, and a double jeopardy appeal.

An appeals court last week cleared the way for Yates' retrial, which Parnham argued should be halted because he said prosecutorial misconduct in her 2002 trial would result in double jeopardy if she were tried again. He also requested that the appeals court delay the trial.

The appeals court upheld Hill's ruling that there was no prosecutorial misconduct and denied Parnham's emergency request for a delay.

Hill ruled this month there couldn't be double jeopardy without prosecutorial misconduct and deemed the claim frivolous.

Last year, the First Court of Appeals overturned Yates' two capital murder convictions based on testimony from forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz about an episode of the television drama "Law & Order."

Dietz said his testimony about a nonexistent episode of "Law & Order," which he said aired in the weeks before Yates' arrest, was a mistake. Dietz described an episode in which a woman was acquitted by reason of insanity of killing her child. Jurors learned of the incorrect testimony after they convicted Yates, but before they sentenced her to life in prison.

Earlier this month, Hill ruled prosecutors were unaware Dietz's testimony was false. The judge noted the incorrect testimony came in response to a question by Parnham and that when he asked for a mistrial, Parnham made no claim of prosecutorial misconduct.

Parnham said he didn't claim prosecutorial misconduct at the time because at the time, he hadn't realized it had occurred.

Yates, 41, has again pleaded innocent by reason of insanity.

To prove insanity, Yates must show she suffered from a severe mental disease or defect and didn't know her actions were wrong.

Yates called police to her Houston home in June 2001, where an officer found the bodies of her four youngest children — John, 5; Paul, 3; Luke, 2 and Mary, 6-months — laid out on a bed. The oldest, 7-year-old Noah, was discovered floating face down in the tub's murky brown water. Hours later Yates confessed to the drownings.

Psychiatrists in Yates' original trial testified she suffered from schizophrenia and postpartum depression, but expert witnesses disagreed over the severity of her illness and whether it prevented her from knowing that drowning her children was wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,188470,00.html

-Kiamat Dusk

Good point, Toni.

So, Kiamat, if your lawyer sleeps through your whole trial, is it ok for you to appeal your death sentence? Because, in some states, it's not ok....it's just tough toenails to the convicted condemned. I know I've read more than one account of death row inmates who received incompetent representation.

Why don't you just make a more ridiculous statement, Sally?

Again, you can't tackle the discussion head on so you're veering off. I'm not talking about whether or not Andrea Yates should get the death penalty-I'm talking about the invalidity of the pro-choice vs pro-abortion argument, and I'm pointing out that the "pro-choice" arguments could be just as easily be applied to the death penalty argument.

I'm also pointing out how the people who demand "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or who believe that people convicted of heinous crimes should be kept alive on our dime "just in case" see no issue with taking the life of an unborn child without a trial and aren't concerned about "just in case" the child is self aware and can feel pain-something which has not been conclusively proven either way.

With convicts you want to err on the side of caution. With completely innocent unborn children, you're like "we'll take that chance".

Personally, I feel that the unborn child should get the benefit of the doubt long before the person who has already had the benefit of a jury trial does.

-Kiamat Dusk

You do know that women still die from childbirth right?

In which case I support the accused's right to a retrial with a competent lawyer. I am not in favor of using the death penalty capriciously. But I'm not going to call for it to be discontinued because the system is broken in some places. I'm going to push for the system to be fixed.

That's like saying that we should halt all abortion until we can gaurantee that no woman will ever regret the choice later or until we can make absolutely certain that it will never result in any permanent damage or death.

-Kiamat Dusk

What? Huh? What does that have to do with the death penalty for child molestors?

-Kiamat Dusk

Post partum psychosis is a very different illness than post partum depression. I had post partum depression, which I recognized and sought help for. Never at any time while I was suffering from post partum depression, did I think about killing my newborn.

I also believe I pointed out that she was no longer on death row, that she'd been granted a new trial.

A mentally healthy woman would never have done what she did.

Then we should halt childbirth because it can result in permanent damage and death.

OMG you truly do not see the connection? YOU brought up abortion. I'm just telling you, that for some women, carrying a baby to term and delivering it, could kill them, basically a death sentence. Before you tell me that the women who a pregancy would kill them could get an abortion, let me tell you, that you can't always tell who might die due to childbirth.

If you don't wanna talk about abortion, in a thread about capital punishment, don't use it for comparison.

Now it all becomes clear. Now we're talking statistics again. In developed countries like our own death in childbirth, while it does happen, is very, very rare. Kinda like the odds of putting an innocent person to death. And, in both cases, the occurences are low enough so as not to discourage the continued practice of either.

But, using your own argument, since childbirth is known to kill women, we should prevent women from getting pregnant. Ever. Yeah, it sounds just as ridiculous when you use that argument against the death penalty for people like those described in the articles I've posted in this thread.

-Kiamat Dusk

It actually makes a lot more sense than your inane "unborn children" phrase. When, exactly, does that "unborn" phase begin and end, pray tell? So it includes the fetus, but not the sperm? Care to elaborate on an exact definition for that propaganda term?

Personally, I feel every time you use the phrase "unborn child" your entire point is invalidated. Let's stick to terms accepted and defined by the scientific community and not the U.S. Senate, shall we?

From Dictionary.com

fe·tus
n. pl. fe·tus·es

1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

sperm1 (spûrm)
n. pl. sperm or sperms

1. A male gamete or reproductive cell; a spermatozoon.
2. Semen.


-Kiamat Dusk

Yes, the word unborn is in the definition, congratulations. You win a prize! Now define 'unborn children' without referring to legislation, please.

You're right. The woman could be pregnant with an unborn horse or something. Silly me to automatically assume that a human woman's fetus was itself an unborn human when it could just as easily be an unborn....something else.

I know, thinking about the murder of [edit] unborn children is unsettling, even for ultra-Lefties. It's easier to dehumanize them. Hey, whatever gets you to sleep at night, Toni.

-Kiamat Dusk

You know Kiamat, nobody is arguing against child molesters getting long sentences with no parole, we are arguing the death penalty. You and a few others think it should apply to child molesters, the rest of us don't. You can bring up all the cases you want, it won't change anybody's opinion.

Exactly

Again, nice magical way of ignoring the question. How you can quote the definition in one post, then in the next post make up a new one wherein a fetus is a baby, is beyond me.

Hey, I'm not the one dehumanizing actual people so it's OK to murder them, am I? You decide what your cut-off number is yet, Kiamat? How many innocents would have to die before you decide capital punishment might not be OK after all? What's your number? Or do you not care at all?

I will never be in favor of getting rid of the death penalty. If, however, suddenly dozens and dozens of offenders were found to be innocent after being executed I would wholeheartedly support improving the system.

And I've gone back and editted "babies" to "unborn children". And you still haven't reconciled how you can be so capricious about killing unborn children and so staunchly in favor of allowing those convicted of heinous acts to live, especially to live on the public dime.

Not that I expect an answer mind you. Just saying...

-Kiamat Dusk

Exactly. Nor will your arguments change mine. As I've said before, these threads are not for the participants-they are for the spectators. And the more they see of your dodging, your failure to come out strongly in defense of the victims rather than the predators, the more they see the hypocrisy of your position, the more likely they are to agree with mine and help keep the death penalty safe, legal, and rare. (although, I'd argue that it is far too rare atm.)

And coming out strong doesn't mean coming out in favor of the death penalty, either. Some shock and disgust at the light sentences demonstrated here would have been nice. Maybe some calls for the judges' resignation or immediate changes to the laws that allowed them to get off so easily? How many of you are pushing for Jessica's Law or Megan's Law in your states if they don't already have them? How about using some stronger language to describe the people who've committed these disgusting acts? Something a bit stronger than "they're sick". Like they've got a cold or something.

None of that. The only thing you've come out strongly against is the death penalty. The only thing you've come out strongly for is lenience.

-Kiamat Dusk

Wanna bet?

I think I stated that a 999 year, 99 month, 99 day sentence was ok with me. I don't see that as lenient. Also, I am an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse, and I don't think it's necessary to give child molesters the death penalty. Life in prison without possibility of parole is good enough for me, an actual victim.

Throw in chemical castration while you're at it.

You're being a victim gives you no extra credibility. While I am very sorry you had to endure those horrors, there are plenty of victims who believe that molestors should be executed.

Does your state have mandatory minimums for sexual predators? If not, have you written your representatives to get that changed?

And no possibility of parole does not equate to no possibility of escape.

-Kiamat Dusk

Done

And while you think about that...here's another one...

The Trial of Joseph Edward Duncan
From Charles Montaldo,
Your Guide to Crime / Punishment.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Background and Latest Developments
Joseph Edward Duncan III was out on a $15,000 bond in Minnesota for molesting a 7-year-old boy, when three people were killed in an Idaho home and their two children kidnapped. Six weeks later, Duncan was arrested after he was spotted in a restaurant with eight-year-old Shasta Groene.

Duncan has been charged in Idaho state court with three counts of first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping in the deaths of Brenda Groene, Slade Groene, and Mark Mckenzie. He will also face federal charges for the kidnappings of Dylan and Shasta Groene and for Dylan's murder.

http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/duncan.htm

-Kiamat Dusk