I can't help but think that if Andrea Yates was an atheist she'd be on (or on her way to) death row.
Her attorneys said she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and, in a delusional state, believed that Satan was inside her and that killing the youngsters would save them from hell.What would they say if she was an atheist that might carry a similar weight? She was saving them from alien invaders from Sporlok-9? I don't think there's anything and without it, I think she's found guilty.
But back to that statement: if it's false then Yates got away with murder. On the other hand, if it's true, does that make her religion (apparently some form of Christianity) culpable? Take away Satan and heaven and hell and what's left? Would she still kill her kids? Would she still get away with it?
5 comments:
I don't think that we can ever understand the mind of an insane person. If she was insane and not religious, then there would have been something else. I think that an insane person grasps what ever they can that makes them feel ok. If there was no religion, then she would have grasped something else. We may never know what she may have figured she was saving her kids from.
mess
I heartily agree that you cannot understand the mind of an insane person.
The question is not whether she was insane or not. The question is whether a jury finds her insane or not. My point is that without the religious nature of her insanity defense, I think she loses.
I'm not sure how that would cut. The defense was that aliens told her to kill the kids might be viewed as more insane since a lot of people don't beleive in aliens. Most people beleive in Satan. I guess I am rambling because I'm not sure how the jury would react.
I thik that
"Alians told me to kill my kids"
sounds just as crazy as
"Satan told me to kill my kids"
In making my determination, I would have to asess the dergee to which she beleived the claim, not the claim itself since I view both as unstable.
mess
If I was a lawyer I would never allow you on a jury. You think too much.
Which is my universal defense against being on a jury. I can imagin the pre-trial questioning now
Lawyer "If we are able to prove beyond a reasonale doubt that the accused killed his neighbors, will you be able to convict?"
me "Can you please define 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Is is one sigma out or two, because I ususaly think that beyond a reasonable doubt is two sigma out. The thing is that I would have to go back and check my stats text to remember how to calculate standard deviation for binary questions. Don't worry, I'll have compleated the reading of that chapter before the trial begins"
Laywer "Dismissed"
mess
Post a Comment