<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Buttle&#039;s World]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://buttle.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[clgood]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://buttle.wordpress.com/author/buttle/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Insane]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Not guilty by reason of insanity&#8221; has always bothered me. &#8220;Guilty, with mitigated punishment by reason of insanity&#8221; would make more sense. Mona Charen agrees, and points out who else was <a href="http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen072806.asp" TARGET="_blank">guilty</a> in the gut-wrenching case of Andrea Yates.</p>
<blockquote><p>Two juries have had to decide to what degree Andrea Yates was responsible for her behavior. But no juries have ever been asked to consider Rusty&#8217;s guilt. The word negligent doesn&#8217;t even begin to describe his malfeasance. How is it possible that a man who knows his wife&#8217;s sanity has been compromised by childbirth can nonetheless impregnate her five more times (she miscarried once)?</p>
<p>How could he leave her alone when he knew she was, at the very least, suicidal — and when her failure to care for the children (and feeding is pretty elemental) revealed a clear case of endangering the welfare of a child? What was he thinking when he urged Andrea to home school all four of their children (the fifth came later) in the converted school bus they were living in?
</p></blockquote>
]]></html></oembed>