Will homeschooling drive you to murder?
Posted on July 27th, 2006 by catalyst into the Uncategorized categoryAndrea Yates who methodically drowned her five children was found not guilty yesterday by reason of insanity. A blogger at Oh How I Love Jesus defends the verdict and places blame on the husband:
Her husband is just as much to blame. She was expected to have all these children with no planning for them, was not well from so many births, was forced to homeschool them and basically never had any “Andrea” time while her husband went about life as normal. He had to know something was wrong and he still didn’t get her the help she so desperately needed.
I guess it all comes down to whether you really think Andrea Yates was insane. I don't. According to the facts of the case, Yates killed her children from the youngest to the oldest. And by the time she got to the oldest children, the kids were in on the plan, and were running around the house like crazy trying to escape their mom. She waited till her husband left for work, and she did it before her mother-in-law showed up. To be fair, she also suffered from Post-partem depression, but Post-partem depression isn't insanity. And this seems to be the only evidence offered. Just because you do something unbelievably despicable that doesn't make you insane.
This is all to say that, No, the husband is not equally to blame. There are a lot of mothers who manage to have several children, homeschool them without any "me" time, and yet still avoid going insane and killing their kids. Namely, my mother, who homeschooled seven kids and the worse she ever did was occasionally scream and curse at us. (which was oddly a badge of honor in our house. If we could get our mom to curse, we knew we had done well.)
I'm not a mother. I will never experience Post-partem depression. And I am sympathetic to how difficult motherhood can be. That said, no matter how difficult, I'm not willing to give a woman a pass for killing her children.
RSS feed for posts
July 27th, 2006 at 8:59 am
Insane or not insane is hard to judge unless you’re a shrink, and even then a lot of it is just looking for symptoms that can be faked by a good enough actor.
I think another commenter on that blog has the right solution: change the trial outcome for insanity cases. If someone is found to be insane while committing a crime, find them guilty AND insane. That way, they can still go to a mental facility instead of jail to get the care they need. At the same time, you won’t have people trying to say 10 years down the road that they’re “cured” or someone saying they were only temporarily insane and shouldn’t be punished at all.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:17 am
It’s a tough call, man. Having stared into the black abyss of depression and suicide a time or two myself, I can tell you first hand if your head isn’t wired correctly, you start to do some crazy things. One part of you knows its wrong, but it’s not the part in charge. And suddenly there you are standing on the railing of a bridge or drowning your kids. Fortunately for me I’ve been able to overcome it. Yates wasn’t.
She’s stone cold nuts. Her husband knew it but was powerless. Is he at fault? Absolutely not. He did what he could to keep appearances. As did she. Until she snapped.
I think the psych ward is what’s best for everyone. The prison system has its hands full with psych patients already. They don’t need another.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Chris, maybe you’re right. I guess I just think that even depressed people know the difference between right and wrong.
Perhaps we mitigate the charge to something less, but I agree with Fezzik, we don’t say “not guilty”.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:36 am
I guess I just think that even depressed people know the difference between right and wrong.
I think we/they do. But having watched depression kill a parent, I can tell you that sometimes the train is just too far down the track to turn back. It’s a slow process to get from point a to point b. It took her years, just as it took my mom years. You have to nip it in the bud, you know?
In Yates’ case, I believe she was on some psych meds for a time, but she’d been off of them for a while prior to her killing her kids. Drugs are a wonderous thing. It will be interesting to see whether she goes back on them on the inside and what kind of a difference they make for her.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:52 am
What if she goes back on the drugs, and becomes sane and functional?
Would you support releasing her?
July 27th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Would you support releasing her?
An excellent question. I think the Hinkley case would be a good guide here.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Call them normal, call them insane, call them whatever you want. If you are killing your children you are just plain nuts.
The punishment should be the same regardless of your mental state…
and I say kill the bitch.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:34 am
Here’s another tidbit to ponder…
After seeing a church prayer group trying to cast demons out of an autistic girl, I think any husband, religious leader, or religious organization that ignores mental illnesses or equates them with sin, demons, or aliens needs to spend some quality time in a mental hospital…visiting or as a guest.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:58 am
I don’t argue that Yates was in a mentally abusive relationship. In the sense that she was being pressured to live a life she obviously didn’t choose.
And I recognize the corrosive nature of depression. Depression is a serious illness. And people who are depressed should seek help and take whatever drugs make them happy. And they should take a lot of those drugs.
But we have five dead children here. Children who were killed by their mother. My sympathies are with the children, not with the mother. I think she knew what she was doing was wrong, and no matter how troubled her life, it doesn’t excuse her behavior.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Here’s another interesting tidbit
(From Wikipedia)
“An audio tape from Woroniecki that Andrea possessed suggested that children were not accountable until the age of twelve, and that babies were better off aborted than growing up in the households of “witches and wimps,” under which circumstances they would be certain to face judgment in hellfire.
Feeling the weight of hopelessness infused by Woroniecki’s condemnation and her inability to get saved so she could in turn save her children, Andrea psychotically reasoned that it would be better for them to drown in their innocent years, be trained instead by God and go to heaven rather than grow up damaged and be sent to hell because of her “bad mothering” according to her prison psychiatric interviews.”
I don’t think any of that gives her a total pass on the killings, but I’d say their “pastor” definitely helped plant the thought that murdering her children was a good option.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Fezzik and Chris,
Thank you for your comments. Andrea Yates suffered from more than postpartum depression. She had postpartum psychosis or postpartum depression with psychotic features. Andrea Yates is a very ill woman.
Some psychotic people experience delusional thinking where the person absolutely believes something that is not true, logical, nor based in any type of reality. (Beyond knowing what’s right and wrong). Some people have visual or more commonly auditory hallucinations (voices) that are totally and completely real to them. These symptoms are the result of an imbalance in their biochemistry. Andrea Yates had responded positively to antipsychotic medication in the past.
This is an incredibly tragic story. And I certainly don’t think Andrea Yates should walk. She needs treatment.
It is interesting that many of the patients I see have major religious preoccupations. I do think that Andrea’s husband and that Woroneicki preacher should shoulder some of the responsibility. A person that sick does not have the insight or judgement to help themselves.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
Not guilty by reason of insanity doesn’t mean she walks free. She’ll be commited to a state facility. In some instances this can be a harsher sentence because commitment on a not guilty by insanity verdict is indefinite. In other words, she doesn’t get out for good behavior.
Now whether that outcome addresses our human impulses for punitive or retributive action is another story.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Lydia,
You said:
Of those who hear voices or have halucinations, are they more inclined to personify them as being from God or the devil?
Also, which is more inclined to hurt others, those who believe they are directed by God, or the devil?
Thx! Jack
PS - I spent a few weeks in a Minirth-Meier clinic after my 1st marriage of 16 years ended without warning. Lost everything I’d devoted myself to in an instant. Good counseling there, helped me start picking up the pieces - gave me a plan to live. Met lots of hurting people there; sure changes a persons view of suffering and illness. A person can be plunged into a dangerous depression in an instant …
July 28th, 2006 at 9:17 am
You know, Jack, it really runs the gamut. I’ve had a patient who thought he was Jesus. He was “with it” enough to realize that other people might think this was strangle or that he was “crazy” so at times he would try to downplay it. But the guy thought he was the Son of God.
I had another woman who at her sickest could not be redirected from repeatedly trying to flush the devil down the toilet. She also believed she was married to Michael Jackson. Months later after her symptoms were mostly stabilized, this sweet, gentle soul told me she was frightened because the voices were back and they were telling her that she was evil, the devil and that she should die and go to hell. Her meds were increased and she is now living on her own doing quite well.
There was another young man who was well dressed, attractive, educated and articulate. If you only had a superficial conversation with him you would never know he was mentally ill. Problem was he thought many people were either possessed by demons or at least struggling spiritually. He had to be redirectd from praying over people. This young man was shot and killed at the bus mall downtown after he had violated someone’s personal space. Whether he attacked that person or was tring to cast demons out I don’t know. Who knows what he was thinking or was possible command hallucinations were telling him to do.
Some of the saddest cases are young people from very religious families who have their first psychotic break and the family shows up with the pastor and other church members to pray for the kid insisting that it is a spiritual problem and not a medical illness. These people are usually resistant to medication and believe if only they were living their life the right way, praying enough, going to church enough etc, everything would be ok. Sad.
I think most people are more of a danger to themselves than to others.
But obviously as in the Andrea Yates case, horrible tragedies do occur. Just to address Locutus’ reference about our “human impulses for punitive or retributive action”. I understand that. Five beautiful, innocent children are dead. But as Andrea Yates has received treatment and becomes well, I don’t believe there is any punishment or sentence that we could dole out that would be worse for her than having to live with the knowledge of what she has done. Though that fact probably does not satisfy the majority of people and their desire to make her pay.
July 28th, 2006 at 9:56 am
All things considered, when I look at the facts of her case rationally I don’t feel that justice was completely abandoned in her case. I really don’t have a problem with someone like her being criminally commited as opposed to going to prison. On the other hand, the passionate, emotional, parent side of me says execute her.
July 29th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
I would never hurt my children but I don’t want to see them go to hell. I’d almost rather they go to heaven before the age of accountability then see them go to hell. I can understand her feelings on that.
However, you can’t just go around making their choices for them. It is about free will and letting go. God did it for me, I must do that for my children and pray His will be done.
July 29th, 2006 at 7:36 pm
What is the “age of accountability”? Any NT Biblical basis for that?
I suspect it is an import from Jewish custom of bar/batmitzvah, where boys at 13 and girls at 12 (or thereabouts) pledge obedience to the Torah and where their parents are no longer responsible for the sins of their children. At least, that’s my loose understanding of the doctrine.
It’s just that I’ve never seen the basis for it in Jesus or the apostles teachings. So, where’s that doctrine / belief come from?
July 29th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
From www.gotquestions.org:
Thirteen is the most common number given for the age of accountability based on the Jewish custom that a child becomes an adult at the age of 13. However, the Bible gives no direct support to the age of 13 always being the age of accountability. It likely varies from child to child. A child has passed the age of accountability once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ.
The one problem with saying that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to those who can’t believe is that the Bible does not specifically say that He does this. Therefore, this is a subject for which we should not be adamant or dogmatic. We can, however, be dogmatic about the fact that God ALWAYS does what is right.
Knowing the love and grace of God, God applying Christ’s death to those who cannot believe would seem consistent with His character. It is our position that God applies Christ’s payment for sin to young children and those who are mentally handicapped, since they were not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior. Of this I am certain, that God is loving, holy, merciful, just and gracious. Whatever He does, it is ALWAYS Right.
July 29th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Some believe the age of accountability could have been around 20 years old because this was the age when young men in Israel became accountable to serve in the army of Israel.
I think, from what I can gather (and I am certainly no expert on this), the reasoning behind believing in an age of accountability boils down to a couple of issues: First, people are accountable for their response to the witness of God in creation (Rom. 1:18f) and to the witness of God in the Bible and in the person of Christ (Acts 17:31). But second, since that response is based on one’s ability to comprehend and respond to the message, a person becomes personally accountable when he or she reaches a point where they have the spiritual and mental facility to grasp the issues. This does not mean they are not sinful, but only that they have not reached a place where they can understand.
July 29th, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Here’s a article what says the “age of accountability” is a bunch of crapola.
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/articles/account.html
Don’t know nuffin’ about the author. But made some good points.
July 30th, 2006 at 3:40 am
The “indefinite” part of the sentence is what I disagree with. All she has to do is convince a doctor’s panel she’s sane and she’s off to motherhood again. Not saying that’s easy, and not like she’ll have another Rusty to shag, but it’s possible.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:30 pm
I say they let her go but sterilize her first. That way she can’t do it again.