正文
是法律和執法有問題.肯定有男人也如此逃脫的,所以我們不能總結說因為她是女人就被社會縱容了.
隻不過真想不通她如何還就這麽活下去了: 自己的孩子呀,一個一個地...你們知道孩子看媽媽的眼神充滿怎樣的信任嗎!!!
有一個我非常了解的中國女人,也得了產後抑鬱症,丈夫事業正不順利的時候,實在無心理她...一次心神恍惚中,她抱著兒子哭一場,說:媽媽好可憐,死活都不會有人在意的,死了也就影響了你,活著苦著也沒實在啥意義,要不咱兩一起死了罷. 她抱著孩子走到陽台上,從十樓往下看, 再看看孩子,孩子正幸福地摟著她的脖子,充滿信任地看她... 她嚇壞了,跑回臥室把孩子放在床上,不敢再讓自己的'魔爪'碰孩子一下!
不為救自己也得救孩子,她請丈夫家人幫助,她從此有意識地不單獨與孩子在一起.
因為即使理智失去了,人性也未失去,她活了下來,活得越來越好,孩子也長大了,跟著父親,卻與她也非常親密, 是母子,又更象朋友.每當想到當年十樓陽台上的一幕,她還會放聲大哭一場.不知是後怕,還是至今自責.
區別好壞女人的標準,與區別好人壞人的標準不應該有太多不同吧? 都是人, 都不容易. 你的故事中的壞女人和我的故事中被你稱作好女人的, 不同在哪裏? 隻是人性是否泯滅而已: 正是好人與壞人的區別. 若是一定強調女人的特質, 我講的她則是個失敗的,也沒什麽特別好的女人. 好在她已經能夠麵對和承認失敗. 有時她自嘲說僥幸結了一次婚因之得以生養一個孩子,生命得以完整. 接下來,懷著對生命的珍惜與感恩之心, 好好作人.
回答: 我們不能鼓勵至少不應該縱容此種事情. 由 都是國人 於 2006-07-26 11:06:33
Jury finds Yates not guilty in drownings
By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer
Andrea Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity Wednesday in her second murder trial for the bathtub drownings of her young children.
Yates, 42, will now be committed to a state mental hospital, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released. An earlier jury had found her guilty of murder, but the verdict was overturned on appeal.
The defense never disputed that Yates drowned her five children one by one in the bathtub of their Houston-area home. But they said she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and, in a delusional state, believed Satan was inside her and was trying to save them from hell.
Yates stared wide-eyed in court Wednesday as the verdict was read. She then bowed her head and wept quietly.
The children's father said the jury had reached the right conclusion.
"The jury looked past what happened and looked at why it happened," Rusty Yates told reporters outside the courthouse. "Prosecutors had the truth of the first day and stopped there. Yes, she was psychotic. That's the whole truth."
Rusty Yates divorced Andrea Yates after the children's June 2001 deaths and recently remarried. He said they are still "friends" and reminisce about the children.
The jury, split evenly men to women, deliberated for about 12 hours over three days before reaching its verdict. On Wednesday, the jurors listened again to the state definition of insanity and asked to see pictures of the five young children: baby Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah.
Prosecutors had maintained that Yates failed to meet the state's definition of insanity: that a severe mental illness prevents someone who is committing a crime from knowing that it is wrong.
The jury had not been told that if they found her insane that Yates would be committed to a mental institution for treatment. If found guilty of murder she would have faced life in prison.
"I'm very disappointed," prosecutor Kaylynn Williford said. "For five years, we've tried to seek justice for these children."
In her first trial, Yates was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life in prison. An appeals court overturned the conviction last year because erroneous testimony about a "Law & Order" television episode that didn't exist could have influenced the jury.
Defense attorneys presented much of the same evidence as in the first trial, including half a dozen psychiatrists who testified that Yates was so psychotic that she didn't know her actions were wrong. They said that in her delusional mind, she thought killing the youngsters was right.
Some testified about her two hospitalizations after suicide attempts in 1999, not long after her fourth child was born. At the time, the family lived in a converted bus. Dr. Eileen Starbranch, a psychiatrist, again testified about how she warned Yates and her husband not to have more children because her postpartum psychosis would probably return.
Yates' stayed in a mental hospital for about two weeks in April and 10 days in May 2001. Psychiatrists testified that she was catatonic and wouldn't eat and that her postpartum condition from Mary's birth in November worsened after her father died in March.
Yates did not testify. But a few state and defense psychiatrists who evaluated Yates played some videotaped segments for jurors.
During a July 2001 jail interview, Yates told psychiatrist Lucy Puryear that her children had not been progressing normally because she was a bad mother, and that she killed them because "in their innocence, they would go to heaven."
The state's key witness was Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist who interviewed Yates for two days in May. He testified that Yates killed the youngsters because she felt overwhelmed and inadequate as a mother, not for altruistic reasons.
Welner said that although Yates may have been psychotic on the day of the murders, it wasn't until the next day in jail that she talked about Satan, wanting to be executed and saving her kids from hell. He said the hallucination may have been triggered by the stresses of being naked in a cell on suicide watch and realizing what she had done.
Welner said Yates knew her actions were wrong and showed it in multiple ways: waiting until her husband left for work to kill them, covering the bodies with a sheet and calling 911 soon after the crime.
Prosecutors also brought back a key witness from the first trial, Dr. Park Dietz, the forensic psychiatrist whose testimony led to her conviction being overturned. The judge barred attorneys in this trial from mentioning the earlier testimony problem.
Dietz again testified that Yates knew killing her children was wrong because she knew it was a sin.
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
