In Response to Anonymous
My reply to an anonymous commenter in my last entry is much too long and much too awesome to hide in comments, so here we go...At 3:38 AM, Anonymous said...
No, not "free." More like "out on bond awaiting retrial."
Also, there's no doubt in my mind that she's completely fucking batshit looney.
There's ALSO no doubt in my mind that, after retrial, she'll be locked away for life, whether in prison or in the looney bin-- which, might I remind those of you who will holler "SOME COUNTRY CLUB LOONEY BIN," is not actually a nice place at all.
Dear Anonymous, Yates is indeed “free,” released on bond, as I stated in my post. Those who are released on bond are technically free:
bail (bal) n.
1) Security, usually a sum of money, exchanged for the release of an arrested person as a guarantee of that person's appearance for trial.
2) Release from imprisonment provided by the payment of such money.
3) A person who provides this security.
tr.v., bailed, bail·ing, bails.
1) To secure the release of by providing security.
2) To release (a person) for whom security has been paid.
3) Informal. To extricate from a difficult situation: always bailing you out of trouble.
4) To transfer (property) to another for a special purpose but without permanent transference of ownership.
She voluntarily committed herself to the psychiatric facility, by the way. And do you know why? Purely selfish reasons, Mr. Hasselhoff, as evidenced here:
“U.S. District Judge Belinda Hill granted the bond Wednesday on condition that Yates would voluntarily enter the Rusk hospital and stay there until her trial.”
Also, there may be a few hundred baseball bats with her name written all over them, if you get my drift. She’s now safe as a cockroach in a couch.
Which leads me to your other statement regarding correctional facilities and how awful they are… Susan Smith seems to be having a fine old time, my friend. (Click on both links to appreciate just how fine a time is being had.) And Smith is just as looney as Yates, in my opinion. Anyone who murders their own children can’t possibly be right in head, wouldn’t you say?
The U.S. interpretation of the M'Naghten Rules, which determine whether someone is not guilty by reason of insanity:
1) Persons acting under the influence of an insane delusion are punishable if they knew at the time of committing the crime that they were acting contrary to law.
Every man is presumed sane and to have sufficient reason to be held responsible for his crimes.
2) A person under a partial delusion is to be considered as if the facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real.
3) To establish a defence on the ground of insanity each element of it must be clearly proved that:
(a) at the time of committing the act,
(b) the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, AND (c) as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing
OR
(d) if he did know it, AND (e) that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
UNLESS:
IF (1) the accused was conscious that the act was one that he ought not to do AND (2) if the act was at the same time contrary to the law of the land,
THEN the accused is punishable.
Yates, like Smith, is surely a loon, and, like Smith, she knew that murdering her children was wrong, as testimony proves.
Every minute that Yates exists, whether she’s locked in a cell or a padded room, is more than she deserves. This “woman” breathes, eats, watches television, plays cards, reads, and will eventually succumb to basic human sexual needs by either engaging in nookie wookie with her cellmate, Bertha Bustyerass, or Peter the Perverted Prison Guard. Bet your ass that’ll happen.
As her children's remains rot in their tiny coffins, Yates will be moaning in ecstacy, eating cheeseburgers, zoning out to Desperate Housewives, cooresponding with "fans," and generally just having a life.
Yates will eventually settle into prison life, if she even does get life in prison, which, unfortunately, I highly doubt, and it will suit the likes of her. And that, Mr. Dingleheimer, is a crying shame.
posted by Ms. Lori @ 9:45 AM
7 Comments:
Thanks, Lori. You said it far better than I ever could.
The news of her release left me angry, and completely overreacting though I may have been, that comment left me SEETHING.
You're very welcom, Alice, and thank *you*. I don't think you were "overreacting" -- being that you live in England, you were probably not as aware of the facts of the Yates case as those of us here in the U.S.
Oh, and I know from personal experience that "Mr. Hasselhoff," is a pretty good guy, btw. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I don't think he intended to leave anyone seething (unlike my Monster post, which WAS intended to induce seething).
***love for the Hasselhoff***
See, the fact that she got "whisked immediately to a psychiatric hospital" instead of being, you know, OUT, just underscores my point that she is not "free." Three hours in a van and a drive-thru burger does not a free woman make.
In addition, asking for pen pals and fucking a prison guard does not equal a fine old time. If prison and the looney bin are such awesome places, why do people try so hard to stay out of them? The only "moaning in ecstasy" in prison comes from either a) your prison rapist or b) your sadistic cruel taskmasters. All this conservativist hand-wringing about "country club jails" seems so ridiculous.
My end thrust seems to be this: your argument is apparently that Mrs. Yates should not go to prison, should not go to the psych ward, should not pass go and collect $200, but should go straight to the electric chair where she should fry, fry, fry.
I think she's a horrible person. I think she's loathesome and scummy and utterly without merit. That said, it's not the place of any person or institution to kill another human being. That sort of arrogant presumption reeks of holier-than-thou elitism and unearned assumed power.
While my testament against the death penalty (like my testimony against veal) is partly religious in nature, it's also based in a sort of deep-seated humanism: there, but for the grace of whatever, go I. My brain chemistry isn't fucked up. I wasn't beaten and destroyed as a child. Nothing went horribly wrong between my conception and my, well, execution. But it could have. I could have, with very little effort on anyone's part, turned out to be a horrible son-of-a-bitch, capable of all sorts of crimes against humanity. As could you, as could Bill Clinton, as could Patti LaBelle (that one's arguable).
I know that one of the greatest actions that any human being can take is mercy. The problem comes when conservatives and reactionaries out for blood confuse "mercy" with "coddling."
yours truly,
Hasselhoff
ps i love you too ms. lori
My dear Hasselhoff,
Points taken, and we'll agree to disagree.
I must say, however, that I believe only child-killers and serial killers should sit in that chair. As I've said before, I see no difference between them and mad dogs -- as with a rabid animal, there is no chance of rehabilitation, and any possibility of release or escape (which happens all too often) is guaranteeing the brutal murders of more innocents. The only solution, for the sake of society's safety, is to put them down.
And with all due respect, Hasselhoff, the "abused child" excuse is just as tiresome to me as the "devil did it" one. Speaking as someone who *was* mentally and physically brutalized as a child/young adult, by a variety of individuals, I can say with the utmost confidence that I'm certainly one effed up mothereffer -- but I made the CHOICE not to inflict my inner rage and pain on innocent human beings. To do otherwise is taking the easy road, imo. The selfish road. It is basic human nature to want to lash out at the world when the world has been cruel; harming others, in some eyes, may avenge wrongs done, release years of pent-up hurt and agony. And resentment. Like the schoolyard bully whose dad belts him every night, and so beats up on a defenseless nerd for his milk money. Or the murderous mother who was abused as a child or controlled by an insensitive, religious freak husband.
When someone knows right from wrong, knows that murder, rape, abuse is WRONG, illegal, morally reprehensible, and they STILL do it, they have made a choice. The wrong choice. And they should pay the ultimate price for that choice.
Amen.
Love to you, too, Mr. Hasselhoff. Seriously. You're a good man, and I feel badly about our disagreements here.
I have absolutely no problem agreeing to disagree. I'm definitely aware that this is a hot-button issue, and not everyone will see eye to eye. I'm definitely not claiming that there's an objective truth, or even that I'm definitely right. This is just what I believe given the facts and constructed belief system that I've got. I definitely try to be open-minded, but I can't see an instance where state-sanctioned execution is preferable to life imprisonment. I'm sure you're familiar with all of the anti-death penalty arguments-- accidentally killing innocents, racial bias, vengeance- rather than justice-motivation-- so I won't belabor the point.
Also, when it comes to child molesters, child-killers, and serial-killers, I feel the same bilious swelling of rage and indignance that you do. Those loathesome motherfuckers are the very scrapings of the bottom of the barrel. I just think that killing them, or even justifying their state-sanctioned execution, is a slippery slope that leads to the rest of the badness.
My "by the grace of whatever" reference, which included being fucked-up as a kid-- and I've been there, too-- was more of a reference to the ineffability or ephemerality of humanity. Call it "a twist of fate," call it "faulty brain chemistry," but I think it's important to acknowledge that there are factors in certain cases where people are not fully in control of their own faculties. There are hundreds of cases of completely normal people getting brain tumors and turning into horrible assholes. When you try to make the judgment call that in this case or that case, there is no ineffable cause, I think that's overstepping one's bounds of knowledge. When you (and me, and millions of other people) rise above what can be considered difficult circumstances, I think that's wonderful and to be commended. There are just always other sets of circumstances, other people, other situations that are significantly different and I think that we (or others, if you prefer) lack the perspective to make the judgment call.
There's no reason to feel badly that we're having a debate. I'm actually having a pretty good time. There's definitely no personal attacks or imbuing of negative personailty traits going on here-- we both know, respect, and really like each other. We're just discussing a current issue that we happen to disagree on. I value the ability to discuss my beliefs and feelings, and I value the chance to understand and listen to where you're coming from. This isn't an impasse, even if we're maintaining our current beliefs. It's an ongoing cultural discussion, and a very important one.
Thank you for that.
ou're the greatest, Mr. Hasselhoff.
One last thing...I used to be against the death penalty -- and I mean TOTALLY against it -- until I had kids.
Weird...I used to like Patti LaBelle until I had kids...;-)
And you know, Gary, though the details may differ slightly, this horrible reality occurs again and again and again. And it shouldn't. Ever.
Serial killers and child murderers are addicted to their sadistic "practices," and nothing short of putting them down will end that addiction. Yet many are set free or escape prison. Remember Ted Bundy?
And here's a little something to ruin your day... die, sick bastard, die!!!!!!!
These are only two cases out of many, many, many, and many more to come. It's a mad world.
Post a Comment
<< Home