What do you think of the whole Mary Winkler incident?

Question

Something some of you have said has brought up a point I haven't even thought about. If Mary Winkler really isn't guilty because she had mental problems, she isn't a fit mother. If she doesn't have mental problems, then she is guilty of murdering her husband and her kids shouldn't be placed with a murderer.

I wasn't aware that because men could get away with abuse in the old days (by the way, while that was true, there were men who WERE punished for it as well-it was far from 100% universal), this means that all men should be forced to put up with injustice nowadays. You know, considering that we weren't responsible for what happened back then.

Answer 1

I think that you don't know, and I don't know... and its a job for the mental health professionals, not lawyers or judges.  Its not the lawyers field of expertise, they are out of their element.  We can't profess to know more than the subject experts do.

Andrea Yates had been documented suffering from psychosis on a number of occasions.  She wasn't criminally responsible, end of story.  There is too little known for certain about Winkler's mental state to say for sure.  I think its far more complex than the general public assume.  So there's no point in assuming, now is there?

Answer 2

You haven't heard of many men getting away with this because emotional, physical, and sexual abuse doesn't usually happen to men. Ninety percent of it happens to women. That doesn't mean that it never happens to men but usually men just leave. Women, in our society, have been conditioned to take it and keep their mouths shut, even by their own families, especially in religious families for some reason. Some people take the Bible literally when they believe that the man is the head of the house under any circumstances and that a woman should be subservient to the man. Hogwash!

Maybe if you read the transcripts of Mary Winkler's case you would understand why she got off as easy as she did. If what he did to her was not abuse, I don't know what is.While your at it, read the Andrea Yates story and tell me why her husband is not serving prison time.

Answer 3

Why is she free and not Betty Broderick? Broderick spent her whole life supporting her husband through law school, raised his kids, and then he starting fooling around with his little **** of an assistant and married her. They both taunted her and made fun of her. He was extremely well-off and her living standards were really lowered by the divorce. She blew a gasket too, shot both her ex and his new young wife in their bed. Winkler should have left or filed for divorce. I am guessing one of the reasons she did neither is because her husband was a minister and in her twisted mind murder was less shameful.

Answer 4

The historical problem of especially men getting off easy for murdering their wives for "spousal infidelities" and such is NOT a gender issue.  It is an issue related to marital "moralities" rooted in religion that have traditionally allowed, typically husbands, to literally get away with beating, murdering and raping their wives as though the covenant of marriage is unto itself a nation with a separate justice system from society's, at least for what men have been allowed to get away with.  Wives have always been more severely punished by society's justice system for harming their husbands than the other way around.  That began to shift in the U.S. in the 1950's with judicial "rebound", so to say, of letting some but not really that many women off a little lighter than the more severe mandatory-for-women-only sentencing system for spousal abuse / murder. There should not be petty bitterness about that but a sense of decency for ending a great injustice.

It's important to remember that history of so little mercy being shown traditionally to wives and a favoring / protecting and greater leniency shown toward husbands by society's justice systems.  It is undeniable, except by the dishonorable, that women have have had it pretty rough in this department.  The "rule of thumb" for example, referred to the size of the rod that a husband was "allowed" to beat his wife with without fear of interference from social justice systems.  Not until the 1990's did police begin aggressive training to end the practice of "noninterference" in domestic violence calls.  There remained even then in nursing in ER's where I really learned of all this, an attitude that what a man did in his own home and marriage related to "keeping his wife and kids in line" was his own business.  

It was not until the 1990's did women win against those religious marriage "customs" to finally get federal protection for domestic violence and marital rape.  Until then, in some states still, a man could even legally rape his EX wife, so strong was that whole "marriage is a nation unto itself with it's own justice system" paradigm.  The Mary Winkler case in my opinion as a psych nurse is an example of "special" tolerance /consideration being made by society's justice system for the justice sytem within a marriage.  It lingers, that weird notion that people can get away with stuff within their marriages that they couldn't get away with anywhere else. She's not that crazy. Certainly more to blame than whatever abuse she might have suffered, which it doesn't sound significant enough WHATSOEVER to "justify" murder or even temporary insanity was her AND his religiosity and notions of marriage as being a nation unto itself.  That couple was getting off in some tribal level of social consciousness based in kinky-stinky religious notions of what is acceptable behavior in a marriage behind closed doors, that's for sure.  

Men's Rights Activists groups, as usual, take the low road in this case by "chivalrously" using it is as some new addition to their "injustice collection", yet further "proof" that women have too many rights or whatever or that women get treated more leniently within society's justice system rather than addressing more honorably and sensibily the problem of why we tolerate that kinky-stinky notion that people should be allowed to get away with "murder", so to say, or rape or abuse of any kind within marriage, as though marriage is so "sacred" that it is a God-protected license to behave below or outside society's rule of conduct. Whatever.

As for the children being placed in this woman's custody . . . good grief.  That's awfully wrong, not based on further kinky-stinky religious craven notions of wanting to "punish" this women by denying her children, that she doesn't deserve them or something, but because the woman MURDERED someone, and it was these poor kids' father to boot.  Doesn't anyone else see anything wrong with this related to the children's SAFETY?

But, I'm sure Mary clutched her poor tattered holy book MOST dearly to her heart and prayed MOST passionately, yes PRAYED for that judge to see her true Christian spirit as a good mother, yes a MOTHER  . . .Jesus had a MOTHER, too. . .and she fell to her knees sobbing ,yes SOBBING and begged for God and the judge and all those good Christians in that Tennessee good Christian courtroom, yes BEGGED them with tears streaming down her face (no, wait, that was Tammy Faye, wasn't it?) to FORGIVE her, yes FORGIVE her and let her have her BABIES back . . yes!, yes! SPANK ME, DADDY!!  SPANK ME!!.  

Piece of cake.  She's a Christian.  She's gotta be a "good" person, right?  Give that dear good woman her BABIES. Case close.  Donations for sending the BABIES to Jesus Camp can be sent in honorarium of poor dear deceased Rev. Winkler.  Checks greater than $100 please make out to the "Help Pay For Poor Mrs. Rev. Winkler's Defense Fund".  (I had too much fun with that, didn't I? Oh, Spank me! Spank me! : ) Thank you for kinda sorta backing me up elsewhere  today, sir.)

Answer 5

The Mary Winkler case clearly show the anti-male bias within our (in)justice system, it show that women can use "fear" and/or "emotional problem" as an excuse to kill their husband; it also show how oftentimes women aren't being held accountable for their actions.

Answer 6

People who have been convicted of killing someone should not have custody of children, unless there are extreme circumstances. For example, if someone was about to kill my children, I would be justified in protecting them by any means necessary.

The other part of your question is a little more complicated. In short, I think she should still be in jail. Being berated by your spouse can be grounds for divorce, but not murder. Asking your wife to wear S****y clothes for sexual activity...well, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. If he was physically abusing her then murder might be justified, if she thought he was going to kill her. Did she have cigarette burns? A documented history of broken bones? Was she always telling people about how she walked into a door or fell down the stairs? Based on the wiki article, it doesn't sound like that's the case here.

You wrote: "I have yet to hear of a man pull off this defense, but Mary Winkler is far from the first woman who's done it." Women can pull off this defense because, in general, men are bigger and stronger than women. Note I am NOT accusing all men of being potential abusers, but in general, in your average fight, it would be a lot easier for a man to hurt a woman than the other way around.

Answer 7

I can't answer your question because I don't know the case but I was thinking along similar lines today when I read on CNN that a distressed teenager secretly gave birth to a baby and flushed it down the toilet, killing it.

Will she be charged with murder and prosecuted to the full extent of the law or should society be lenient because she was lost, alone, possible suffering from post partum psychosis? or just plain fear?

I think we should be understanding and lenient.

What about if he terrified young teen bf was there when she secretly gave birth and they both experienced the terror of discovery and he threw the baby down the toilet?

How would her boyfriend be treated by the law?

Answer 8

Another example of the "equality" between women and men.

A woman ran over her husband with their daughter in the car.  The woman never went to jail because she claimed the husband "abused" her.  Heck my ex-wife abused me

emotionally & mentally but I never ran her over.  In fact she ran me over legally, etc.  

Answer 9

OK, as far as the Andrea Yates thing goes, a man would have gotten off, too, if the circumstances were the same. Why? Because she was truly was insane. Psychotic. And it's not as if she suddenly and conveniently became insane AFTER she drowned her children, she was hospitalized NUMEROUS times for psychotic episodes (for those that don't know that's hearing voices, having hallucinations...classic insanity) BEFORE she finally murdered her children. Unless you're going to tell me that no man has ever got off on the insanity plea, then you can't say that Andrea Yates got "special" treatment. She WAS insane. you don't GET any more insane than she was. All documented BEFORE she ever killed anyone. Sorry, I just get tired of hearing that case used as an example of how women get "special treatment." Men get off on the insanity plea all the time, too.

As for the Winkler case, I don't know enough about it. I DO think think that in America, today, women have enough options to get out of the situation...and not the way that Winkler chose.

Answer 10

It is my opinion that secular law should take precedence in such cases.

Answer 11

Her "punishment", if you can even call it that, is tantamount to a slap on the wrist. If this were a man, I can assure you that he would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

If she was abused, she had every right to seek justice but she instead chose revenge. Abuse is not an excuse to murder.

After all, what is murder if not the ultimate form of abuse?

Answer 12

Ok, I realize that abuse is very serious, but there ARE better things to do than murder the abuser, and the kids should NOT be kept in that kind of influence when murder is involved.  

Answer 13

Andrea Yates and Mary Winkler should be found guilty of Capitol Murder and handed down the appropriate sentence. The Judge that tried the case should be hung by his/her neck until dead. The Judge that gave custody of these poor children to this monster should be given Life in prison. The social workers that were/are involved in the case that recommended that this murderess receive custody of the children should also be given Life in prison.

God Bless

Frank Pytel

Answer 14

Sick, twisted, b*tch - she could have left or seeked help - scr*w her!!!

Answer 15

I think she should have used the law to help her instead of taking it into her own hands. A man would be locked up for life for doing this, so no - in this case I don't think she got what she deserved.