July 26, 2006 3:05 PM
Andrea Yates found not guilty
In the retrial of Andrea Yates, a Texas jury has found her not guilty. I feel the same way today I felt five years ago when I published No Mercy for Murdering Moms at WorldNetDaily.
It's not just the Yates children who are victims in this case, but children throughout our nation, who can be killed with impunity by their mothers - not fathers, just mothers - as though they were nothing more than personal property.
I realize it's unpopular to champion justice in a case like this. I'm supposed to feel sorry for her.
I don't. A verdict like this leaves me feeling sorry only for the children - hers and ours as well. And ashamed of a culture which can't exact justice - rendered by the state - when it's called for.
Note: please read my original column - plus my follow up Andrea Yates - Take 2 before commenting.
Posted in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
I'm all for justice, and I am not prepared to make a judgement in this case as I am not informed of all the details, but I do know that God is a God of mercy as well as justice and I have a hard time believing that Jesus would have let Mrs. Yates be stoned any more that the woman caught in adultery. I have been forgiven much (no, I have not murdered my children or anything like that) and find that while I am willing to call her a murderer, I also have room in my heart to forgive her. No mercy? Really? Diane
Posted by: Diane | July 26, 2006 5:13 PM
You're not looking for justice rendered by the state. That's what was rendered, finally, here.
You're asking for vengeance rendered by state. And you might be served to take Romans 12:19-21 to heart.
Posted by: M. Read | July 26, 2006 5:25 PM
Just another thought that came later: "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does that Lord require of you? To act justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8 NIV Diane
Posted by: Diane | July 26, 2006 6:54 PM
This is a more complex issue than either of you are acknowledging. And it would certainly have helped if you had read my original column.
While I understand my Christian duty to forgive and have mercy, that is a mandate for followers of Christ.
The state has a responsibility to protect its citizens and its mandate is different. Jesus acknowledged that when he said "Render unto Caesar what is Caeser's" etc.
I believe in the value of capitol punishment as a deterrent, and I believe a mother who murders five children in cold blood should be executed by the state.
And by the way, there is the obvious fact that a man who had murdered his five children would certainly be executed. Why do we make excuses for women? I believe part of it is a continuum of thinking based on the pro-abortion position.
Posted by: barbara | July 26, 2006 7:58 PM
I don't believe in capital punishment; it is better justice to let a person live with the knowledge of what he or she has done, in my opinion. But I do not believe that justice has been served here at all. Five kids were murdered and their murderer is free. Postpartum depression can only cover so much, and this is way beyond the limits. Children aren't valued in our society, which is a short-sighted viewpoint. A culture/church/nation without children is dying. Crimes against children, helpless and defenseless, are worse than any other crimes. If we don't stand up and protect the children, who will? The mercy required of us, as Christians, isn't a blanket pardon. If that was the case, anarchy would reign and it would be every man for himself.
Posted by: Jennie C. | July 26, 2006 8:34 PM
"I have a hard time believing that Jesus would have let Mrs. Yates be stoned any more that the woman caught in adultery." posted by Diane.
Jesus gave mercy to whom he would. If he would have stoned the woman caught in adultery it would have been unjust. Remember the term "caught in" adultery. This implies that she and he were caught in the act! Why wasn't the man brought before Jesus? Jesus chose mercy for the woman -- if the man and woman were brought to him would they have been punished? I don't know. But in the case of Andrea Yates...she committed this horrible crime on her own. She is guilty of murder --! Read some of the Old Testament to get an idea of God's justice. God is love and justice and mercy. God will set it all right in the end.
Posted by: wifetolarry | July 27, 2006 4:12 AM
"Children aren't valued in our society, which is a short-sighted viewpoint. A culture/church/nation without children is dying. Crimes against children, helpless and defenseless, are worse than any other crimes. If we don't stand up and protect the children, who will?"
YES, that is what I was going to say.
Posted by: Amie | July 27, 2006 7:53 AM
Lest we forget, in the Law of God, the penalty for adulterers and murderers was death and that penalty was to be carried out by the "state". Jesus chose "mercy" to teach the people in the situation a lesson- that even they were not free of sin. In God's economy, all sin is equal- I am no better or no worse then Andrea Yates. And yet, God gave the right to the STATE to exact justice. You just can't argue that. Its all over the Bible, both Old and New Testaments.
Barbara, I agree with you completely. And if Mrs. Yates had been a man in the exact same circumstance, I doubt you'd be getting the same "mercy" comments here.
Posted by: Jennifer | July 27, 2006 11:10 AM
Mercy and justice are not exclusive. Mrs. Yates can be forgiven and executed, both.
I can't believe she was so crazy that she was unaware she was holding her children under water. The older ones fought her.
God have mercy on us all.
Posted by: Marie | July 27, 2006 12:47 PM
I wonder if the more profitable discussion here would be whether or not there should be a legal position of "not guilty by reason of insanity". If the state has decided that that is an acceptable means of defense and created a legal definition of insane then the states justice has been met if someone meets that definition and is found not guilty.
I don't see this idea in the civil code set up by the Bible, but our state does not follow all Biblical civil codes so I don't see why this case would be any different.
Since there is a legal position of insanity it seems to me that the states justice was correctly innacted
Posted by: tiffany | July 27, 2006 3:08 PM
Biblically the only thing that could get you out of a murder charge was self defense. I strongly disagree with the insanity defense. She murdered five innocent children!!! I just read your original World Net Daily article, Barbara, and I thought it was exactly right on. Some of the points you made I hadn't even considered before! We really don't watch the news, I don't think my children have any idea about this story, but for the millions of children who did!!! The pictures in their minds of those little children fighting for their lives... I know Andrea needs prayer and that she can be redeemed by the bloodof Christ but I also believe that she is literally getting away with murder.
Posted by: Shelby | July 28, 2006 11:58 AM
I wonder how much sympathy I would get if my clinical depression and grief over widespread abortion and my own infertility caused me to go kill some abortionists?
Posted by: Young Christian Woman | July 28, 2006 12:16 PM
"I wonder if the more profitable discussion here would be whether or not there should be a legal position of 'not guilty by reason of insanity.'"
Personally I find that particular point of law to be illogical. If a woman is so mentally ill that she is incapable of controlling herself and preventing herself from murdering her own children, then she is MORE dangerous to society and should be dealt with MORE strictly. The verdict ought to be "guilty by reason of insanity," and the mandatory sentence should be life in a mental insitution with no possibility of parole. Deal with her sickness, but remove the threat from society permanently.
Posted by: Michelle | July 28, 2006 6:09 PM
Hi Barbara,
I think, perhaps, the very first time I read your article "No Mercy..." I had an immediate emotional reaction because there is more than one definition of "mercy," (per internet dictionaries, anyway). My inclination is to think of one (probably based on me being an "F") and yours may be to think of another. I have actually been wanting to ask for some time, which definition are you using in the article, "No Mercy For Murdering Moms?"
I do disagree with this statement: "And by the way, there is the obvious fact that a man who had murdered his five children would certainly be executed." This is a very black and white statement in a very gray world. It is neither obvious nor certain. Whether I agree with either side or not, not all states approach the death penalty in the same way. Domestic violence is handled very differently from "random" acts of violence, too, my experience base being the ten years my husband worked for the Department of Corrections and Department of Juvenile Justice. Again, I am not saying I agree with it - only that no one can say what "certainly" would happen in any such given hypothetical scenario. The reality of this was, quite frankly, a shock to me personally when I first learned it.
I agree wholeheartedly with Michelle's comment above: "Deal with her sickness, but remove the threat from society permanently." To some, permanently necessitates the death penalty. I have been searching the scripture for nearly a year now on this matter (since I first read your article) and I have yet to come to the conclusion that "permanently" *necessitates* execution from a Christian worldview. I am still seeking the answers, though - from Him and His word.
I haven't any definitive answer about the death penalty at this point in time. But I have come to a conclusion about *my* personal response in such matters. There is a difference between mercy and allowing someone to walk the streets after committing a crime. To function as a society, punishments must be meted out. But, as a Christ-follower, my response to the person who committed the crime and the crime itself, is to be different. The difference begins in the heart. My heart.
As for me, I pray if I err, I might always err on the side of mercy and compassion rather than justice, knowing that the Lord in His infinite wisdom will take care of the judgment as only He can determine.
Perhaps my heart, on its own, has not the capacity to go out to BOTH the victim AND the criminal. But if Jesus could die for both, then the Holy Spirit in me most certainly has the capacity. I need only be a willing vessel.
A heinous crime against children? Indeed.
Black and white? For God alone ~ because it's just too complicated for us.
Perhaps the fact that we each have different responses is not so much a matter of us being in disagreement, but that we each have a different purpose in God's Kingdom. Part of being the Body of Christ is that we each have a different persepctive and a different function. The Lord uses each bent to His own purposes. According to His design.
Sorry so long-winded.
In Christian love, Kari
Posted by: ADDMama | July 29, 2006 10:24 AM
Where are the voices that speak for the innocent children that were murdered. All I hear about in the media is story after sorry authored by bleeding hearts who would excuse this outrageous behavior of Ms Yates. What about the children's lives and their value and worth as human beings....
Andrea Yates forfeited her life when she made the decision to take the lives of her children. If a man had committed these crimes, a date with the executioner would be a certainty......
Yes, the Bible speaks of mercy but it also speaks of "an eye for an eye" just as well. To offer up anything less that the death sentence for Andrea Yates cheapens the value of those innocent children who were murdered as they fought for their lives. Did Andrea Yates show her own children any mercy???
Ultimately, the State Of Texas needs to try Andrea Yates for the Murder of the other two children she killed (and has not yet been tried for). The State needs to prosecute Yates and seek the Death Penalty. A jury needs to have the courage and conviction to follow the established guidlines for accepting the insanity plea and Yates needs to get the needle stuck in her arm.
Posted by: Johnny | July 31, 2006 3:48 AM
