Does this seem a fair consequence to the five murders? I wonder if her "supportive", remarried husband, Rusty, that I wrote about before regrets getting remarried, since his beautiful bride is now "free"--in a mental asylum and not jail.
I'm not sure an insanity defense is ever right. How is it just that five people are dead, yet Ms. Yates gets to live out her life, such as it is? But then, I have been happy when an abuse victim, whose plight is ignored, seeks and finds retribution. (Janie's Got A Gun, style.) That's just my dark heart speaking. Of course it is wrong to murder a psychopathic molestor. Still....
Anyway, Ms. Yates herself seems quite stunned. Andrew Cohen at the Washington Post calls it "justice." There is still a chance that the prosecutors could try Yates for the two children's murders who weren't included in this case. Cohen hopes that doesn't happen:
I hope, however, that the State just simply gives up on this case and recognizes that it is legally possible for an otherwise good person to do a horrible thing in a moment of madness. Otherwise, there is simply no point in having an insanity defense anywhere, at any time, in any case.
What's the point, indeed. I object to the "damsel in distress" thing. Women need to be held to account for their crimes just as a man would or else equality means nothing. The flip side of the weak-woman perspective is that a woman is weak and can't make good decisions--because she is hysterical. Being a woman, is by definition, crazy. Why don't feminists see this?
Dr. Helen has more.