Psychiatrist Testifies in Slaying Case (Texas Mom)

[booksenkatz]

A psychiatrist for the prosecution testified that a mother did not know right from wrong when she crushed her sons' skulls with rocks.

In a setback for the state's murder case against the East Texas woman, Park Dietz told the jury Tuesday that Deanna Laney had delusions she and Andrea Yates, who drowned her children in 2001, were chosen by God to be witnesses after the world ends.

"She thought she would be one of the two witnesses described in the book of Revelations,"' Dietz said.
--SNIP--

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3923583,00.html

Have to add my commentary, dontcha know...!

I am having alot of problems with this one. I have a 4-year-old boy, and I'm having a great deal of difficulty trying to be objective about it. The part that's bothering me most is thinking of that 14-month-old that survived the rock bashing: his current condition is horrifying! He is mostly blind, still has a feeding tube, learning to walk with leg braces, and if he's lucky, his goal in life is to be able to feed himself. This absolutely sickens me to my marrow. The little detail about him being in Thomas the Tank Engine jammies just ripped my heart out. I saw the footage of his crib with the huge pool of blood and can't stop thinking about it.

I've only just recently come around to being anti-death penalty in the last few years, so this case is severely testing my newfound beliefs. I'm not even sure I want this woman dead, because that would be too good for her, too easy. Hell, I don't know what I want for her, because I admit that I'm just way too upset about what she did.

What bothered me most about yesterday's testimony was when everyone was reminiscing about the boys' likes and dislikes: Dee was just smiling warmly, everyone was chuckling, just as if they were reminiscing about 2 boys who died of natural causes. It was truly Kafka-esque.

I'm also having trouble with the idea that she didn't know right from wrong at the time of the murders. If she were truly out of her mind and didn't know that bashing her sons' heads with rocks was a bad thing to do, then why did she call 911? A person who is totally out of her mind would not have the presence of mind to call 911. A person who is totally out of her mind would not even know what "911" means.

Another thing that concerns me is the following attitude. She says that God told her to commit this act. But darn it, it turns out that it wasn't God after all. "Shoot, I'll have to just be more careful next time!" She and her supporters want her to be allowed to go on her merry way after "innocently" mistaking Satan's voice for God's. They say, "Dee didn't do this, Satan did it through her." Where is the accountability? Yes, let her receive treatment; but then PLEASE send her away for a very long time. If she is allowed to continue with her life, and return home as if nothing too terribly bad happened, then a) she might give birth to more children that would somehow need killing for God, and b) she will be a nightmare in little Aaron's life for the rest of his days as she attempts to resume "mothering" him. That poor little boy!

What the hell do we do with cases like this? If the family didn't see it coming, how the hell can we as outsiders prevent this from happening again in other families, with other mothers? If people can just hide behind their religion to commit horrifying acts, what are we as a society to do to protect the children of such people? If this family's definition of "normal" includes hearing God talk to you frequently, then at what point does the "normal" hearing of voices become psychosis?
:shrug:??????

Thanks for letting me vent, I'm sorry if I've offended anyone with my emotional rant. As you can see, this one is really under my skin!

[enki23]

1. what kind of psychologist?

this is, in all liklihood, psychoanalytic crap from the mouth of a court-whore pseudopsychologist.

anyone who bashes their kid's head in with a rock without an overwhelmingly compelling reason is by definition not quite right with the world. we, for good reason, don't allow that to become the deciding factor, or all violent crimes would tautologically make the defendant "mentally unfit." whether she knew right from wrong or not... there are few cases, except maybe for the profoundly mentally retarded, where people don't have a pretty good idea that smashing people's skulls with rocks is "wrong." it doesn't really matter whether jesus or aliens told you otherwise.

anyway, it doesn't really matter. if she's found too nuts to go to jail, she'll still be locked up. when she gets better, she'll get to go back to jail. she'd be better off just getting her jailtime over.

my opinion: you're right. this is bullshit. they're hoping to get a fundie freak or two in the jury. in texas, the chances aren't so bad. kinda like the "statanists did it" defense.

[booksenkatz]

2. Another detail of interest

It was suggested in court yesterday that Dee had had an affair, but the judge said he doesn't want to go there. I think we should hear about it; after all, this is a woman who claims to follow her God, no matter what God asks her to do. If she did have an affair, I'd have to ask her why she wasn't listening to her God THEN? Or does she pick and choose when she follows her God?

I'm heartsick over this case (I'm listening to it now on CourtTV).
:(

[keithyboy]

41. Was this woman a "home schooler mom?"

How many of these women reported over the last 5 years to have killed their children were home schooling their children?

[booksenkatz]

42. Yes

Some of the testimony today, in fact, was about her being under tremendous stress due to home schooling her sons on top of everything else she was doing at home and church. Take it for whatever it's worth.

Should parents who wish to homeschool be given psychiatric evaluations before being allowed to do it? I dunno. All I have are questions, keithyboy.

[tigereye]

3. most psychologists are not analysts -

and they typically have PhD's; a psychiatrist is an MD. It is often very difficult to distinguish what a patient was thinking and where psychosis leaves off and an unusual belief system takes over. Most people are probably not so "psychotic" that they cannot distinguish "right from wrong," although there certainly are some who cannot. It is horrible to think however, that any parent is so delusional
(clinically or otherwise) that they would do this to their child.

JMO

[enki23]

22. i'm not sure on the stats

but according to my soon-to-be-PhD psychologist significant other, most psychlogists out in the world are still psychoanalytical. she's strictly behaviorist. data-based diagnoses, that sort of thing. but most psychology in the world isn't there yet, from what i've been told.

[tigereye]

35. I did have some colleagues in the past who were

psychoanalytical, but it is less common than it once was. I used to tell them that they needed to move to Buenos Aries or New York!

Most insurance companies are not supportive of paying for that type of approach exlusively since there is little reseach support for it compared to bx-cog and other models. Some of that type of thinking can be beneficial, though, as a supportive framework and can be blended with behavioral cognitive models. Actually it is ironic that the term "medical model" tended to refer to psychoanalytic models!

[cleofus1]

4. OK I buy that she's nuts...

Just lock her up and throw away the key...

[slackmaster]

11. Good pragmatic approach

I agree. Accept that she is psychotic and get her off the streets and especially away from kids.

[booksenkatz]

5. Two other things re: knowing right from wrong

1. She had hidden a rock under Aaron's crib; she didn't want her husband to know what she had planned.
2. Right before the bashing started, she locked her husband in their bedroom. I'm pretty sure that I read that the lock did not catch entirely, but SHE thought he was locked in. Why go to the trouble of locking your husband behind a door if you are out of your mind? Sounds like she's pretty much on top of things to me.
3. During the bashing of Aaron, as he cried and screamed, the husband asked what was going on. She cheerily called out, "Just changing the baby's diaper, dear, nothing to worry about" or something like that. Quick thinking for someone who is out of her mind, no?

I mean, all of this covering up suggests, to me, that she KNEW that bashing her children's heads was wrong, regardless of what "God" wanted her to do. I'm having a very hard time with the concept that she did not know that what she was doing was wrong.

[pansypoo53219]

6. Park Dietz

is a flaming idiot. he was a witness at the Dahmer trial and i listened to that trial and he is SOOOO ful of himself.
and don't forget HE told Janet Reno that it wouldn't be a bad thing if the ATF and FBI went in the branch Div. compound.
a millinial cult not a tad touchy?
he is a IDIOT.

[Frances]

7. I think that what makes this case different from others

where people do terrible things because they have schizophrenia or are suffering from clinical depression is that the woman's friends are not admitting that something is wrong with the woman.

The fundies are saying that Satan is at fault and so the woman has no guilt.

It sounds as though the whole group believes that it's OK to do anything they want because they can always blame Satan.

[SemperEadem]

21. that's how fundamentals operate..

they can inflict whatever damage in the name of God their pride chooses, but if they get caught, then Satan made them do it. They take absolutely no responsibility for what they've done because 'the world should be seeing things their way, anyway', is their rationale.

They worship the presence of Satan as much as they do God.

[PassingFair]

50. They gave up responsibility when

they decided that it's in God's hands. When you abdicate responsibility to a supernatural being, I guess you, personally are off the hook.
If the church and the people who abetted this woman backed her up in this psychosis, then they should be liable for damages.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. I'll share a story with you...

Around a year ago, I was in the grips of a hormone-related depression that was just about killing me. My thoughts were black, suicidal -- thoughts that are NOT like me at ALL. As these thoughts were running through my head I knew these thoughts were wrong and reminded constantly myself that they were not like me at all, but I could NOT stop them -- they were a compulsive, 24 hour message in my head. Luckily I was not so far gone that I acted on them or couldn't get help, and found an amazing GYN who knew exactly what was going on and got me the right treatment.

I have never been in that place before in my life and I hope to God I never go back.

Having had that brush with insanity, I can now understand what mental illness can push a person to do. If you haven't been there, it's hard to understand.

[cleofus1]

9. i don't need to understand

if you crush the skull of children you should never see the light of day...ever...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. I'm not arguing that...

I am not saying she shouldn't be held for her safety and the safety of others. I'm just arguing the understanding of WHY/HOW she would do such a thing.

Now, with that knowledge, should the state argue for the death penalty in her case? For life without parole? For incarceration at a mental facility or a prison?

For me, that is where the understanding comes in, in the penalty phase of a case.

[booksenkatz]

10. The thing is, I HAVE been there

I've been treated for depression many times, it's often hormonal and it's something I've learned to live with at some level. I understand the blacks (I never called them blues, mine at their worst were much darker). Since I never acted out on any other living thing, it's true that I can't understand going so far as to hurt another being.

But my main questions aren't really about WHY she did it. I'm more concerned about the right/wrong thing, since that's what's being looked at in court. I believe that she knew right from wrong on that horrible night. I also believe she was mentally ill. I don't see where one necessarily excludes the other.

I also have questions about how to prevent this from ever happening again in other families. It seems to me that psychosis can never be diagnosed in Pentecostal families, where hearing voices is a normal part of the belief system. What are we, as a society, to do? We can't outlaw religion. So what the hell do we do? It is entirely unpreventable, and that saddens me to the quick.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

19. I agree...

"I believe that she knew right from wrong on that horrible night. I also believe she was mentally ill. I don't see where one necessarily excludes the other."

I agree. That's what I think most folks -- and our laws -- don't get, that you can hold those contradictory thoughts simultaneously. If it hadn't happened to me personally, I wouldn't have "gotten" it.

I think that could be a major flaw in our laws, the notion of "insanity" and knowing right from wrong as being the criteria.

Andrea Yates "knew" what she was doing was wrong, but was compelled by her mental illness to act none the less. Does that make her any less insane?? Not in my book.

As for what we can do as a society to help stop future events? Massive public education on mental illness would be a good start. It is still the "crazy aunt" (pardon the pun) of health. There are folks on this very board who STILL say the "solution" to any depression is to stop feeling sorry for yourself and go out and do something good for others. :eyes:

As for mental health problems and folks whose religious views either don't believe in it or believe it a sign of satanic influence, you've got me, I really don't have an answer for that. Freedom of religion allows for some potentially damaging problems.

I do feel charges should be brought against a church/minister who participate in an act the results in damage to a person -- there was a case where a child died during an exorcism. Religious views or no, you were negligent in that child's death.

[havocmom]

37. brave testimony, thank you very much

It is very hard to try and show that dark place to people who have never been there. But we won't get serious about the wonderful possibilities of good mental health care in this nation if we don't try to get the point across.

As to those who wonder about an insane person having the presence of mind to lock the husband up and call 911: Insane doesn't mean stupid. Someone who is dangerously unbalanced can go along in society without much notice much of the time. And seriously ill people can have a lot of conflicting things going on inside their heads; that's often the problem.

Not advocating letting people off the hook for their actions. Just hoping that someday we come to better understand the mysteries of the human brain. And to thank those brave people who try to teach how very bad it is to be in that black place.

[PassingFair]

51. Can't outlaw it...

...but we should be able to sue the crap out of them.

[slackmaster]

12. Glad you got through it OK

Kudos for having the self-awareness and insight and the willingness to use available resources.

:toast:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. Thanks!

And thank heavens the resources were there for me to access and that I found aware professionals. I fear too many Americans DON'T have those.

My poor sister is dealing with the very same thing as me in Texas, and it has been like pulling teeth to simply find a doctor who knows what is going on (she finally got it right just yesterday after close to six months and on the 8th try), let alone one who knows the treatment to give. The battle she went through to get the help was exraordinary -- and she KNEW what was wrong with her and needed doing. There are folks out there who don't have that self-knowledge and don't have the right environment to get the help.

Now THAT is scary.... :scared:

[iverglas]

14. lots of people missing lots of points

The tragic details of the dead child's life and death -- that would all would be just as tragic if the child had been killed in an accidental train derailing.

The possibility of planning -- psychotics often have complex delusions and are perfectly capable of planning to act on them, e.g. to kill the individual(s) they believe are planning to kill them.

The "Satan made me do it" argument by third parties -- no more relevant than anything else third parties might have to say about it; if SHE believed Satan told her to do it and that she had compelling reason do it, *that* is what's relevant, as evidence of the kind of mental defect that prevents knowledge of right/wrong, appreciation of the nature and consequences of one's acts, etc. If third parties want to portray themselves as insane publicly, that's their business ... as long as they don't go doing insane things. ;)

"Accountability" -- people are not accountable for things for which they are not responsible. The mother would not be responsible for the child's death in an accidental train derailing. If she was incapable of appreciating the nature and consequences of her acts, she is no more responsible or accountable for what she herself did. Sometimes bad shit happens for which no one is responsible or accountable.

Whether the woman was responsible for her actions is the issue.

While there are many things that make the event horrible, none of them, in themselves, make her responsible for it.

I am certainly not saying that she was *not* responsible for it. I have neither the information nor the skills I would need to have an opinion on that question.

.

[cleofus1]

15. i'm sorry

I have sympathy for people who suffer from any illnes.
It's my feeling regardless of her delusions the act itself qualifies her for the never see the light of day club.

[iverglas]

17. so who cares?

It's my feeling regardless of her delusions the act itself qualifies her for the never see the light of day club.

*I'm* sorry, but your "feeling" has no more to do with her RIGHTS than, say, anyone else's "feeling" about homosexuality has to do with the rights of gay men and lesbians not to be locked up for *their* acts.

We punish people for the things they do that they intentionally do. Mental illness can make people incapable of intending what they do.

A person who kills a stranger because s/he truly believes that the stranger is an alien who is about to exterminate all of humanity does not intend to kill a human being without legal justification, and it is the intentional killing of human beings without legal justificaiton that we punish people for.

People have the RIGHT not to be punished for doing things that they did not intend to do. The law requires both the actus reus -- the thing done -- and the mens rea the "guilty mind". A person who does not know that what they are doing will kill a human being without justification does not have the necessary guilty mind.

Society also has the right to protect itself from people who are incapable of distinguishing innocent human beings from marauding aliens, or of distinguishing a soap opera on TV from the voice of Satan telling them to kill their neighbour's husband to save his soul. Society is entitled to take whatever measures are strictly necessary to prevent such people from acting on their delusions in such ways. But society is NOT entitled to PUNISH such people for what they have done.

This is simply fundamental to our entire concepts of rights and laws. Five-year-olds who play in cars and release the emergency brake and run over elderly couples, or play with guns and shoot their friends, are not punished for killing them, because they did not appreciate what they were doing and did not intend to kill any human beings. Insane people who act on their delusions and kill people, whether because they did not know that what they were doing would kill a human being or because they thought they were justified (e.g. in self-defence) are not punished for killing them. Just as we no longer punish oxen for goring people.

People like this woman (if she was not legally responsible for what she did, about which I have no opinion) may well be perfectly capable, at some point, of functioning normally, say with medication. There are huge problems involved in deciding what protection society still needs -- how to ensure that they take their medication, for starters. But they still DO have the same rights as the rest of us, and society may only do to them what is strictly necessary to protect itself, just as it may to the rest of us.

.

[cleofus1]

18. my feelings are hurt!

You can blow me off... and you are right...my opinion and 5 bucks will buy a happy meal at mcdonalds and that's about it. It is my ignorant and unfeeling opinion that this lady should never ever see the light of day. I get this funny feeling that she won't either.

[booksenkatz]

20. Planning

The act of planning and of concealing (i.e. taking the older boys outside, one at a time, to kill them, so that her husband wouldn't interfere) indicates to me that she knows it's wrong. Someone who is totally out of control would be totally out of control, right? If she were out of her senses, if she had no idea what was right and what was wrong, didn't even know her own name, she would just start in bashing the boys right there in the home, with no ability to control herself, not caring who saw her. But in fact, Dee was very conscious of the consequences of her acts, she knew what she was doing. The fact that she wasn't able to finish off Aaron tells me that she was not totally out of control.

That's why I want to see justice for those 3 little boys. I sure as heck am not prepared to accept "Oopsie!" just because "God" told her to do this. Manson's girls killed in cold blood because they believe that their God told them to do so; to me, Dee is no different.

This night of murder and mayhem wasn't an accident, and from your post, it sounds as if you would classify it as such. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Again, I don't know how we will ever be able to diagnose psychosis in a religious community for whom hearing voices is a normal phenomenon. That's damned scary.

[iverglas]

23. and more

The act of planning and of concealing ... indicates to me that she knows it's wrong. Someone who is totally out of control would be totally out of control, right?

Wrong. Maybe you should try asking someone who can actually tell you, or doing some research. But that isn't as much fun as forming negative opinions about other people out of thin air, and expressly them publicly, of course. It always seems to me that the desire to do this suggests a need of some sort.

Forgive me, but I find the public vilifying of individuals, and calls for their rights to be violated, based on ignorance of the facts and principles that must be considered, offensive, and hugely problematic in a society that values the rule of law and individual rights.

No one has said that a person who is not criminally responsible for his/her acts is necessarily "totally out of control". If you thought that Satan was trying to murder your family, and that the neighbours were in on the plot, would you maybe not look for an opportunity to kill Satan in private so that the neighbours didn't interfere?

Having delusions does not mean not being in control of what one does. It means - in some cases - not being responsible for it.

And that may just leave us all, in some cases, with no one to blame for a bad thing that happened. I know this is contrary to all of the tenets of the Wayward Puritans and their descendants in the cult of Jerry Springer, but it's nonetheless life.

This night of murder and mayhem wasn't an accident, and from your post, it sounds as if you would classify it as such. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Gladly. You are completely wrong, and there is nothing in anything I have said that could conceivably be offered as a reason for saying that it sounds as if I would say anything such thing.

An "accident" is one example of an event for which no one is responsible and for which no one can be blamed. An act of a delusional person may be another. There's nothing about saying this that resembles calling the act of a delusional person an accident. Although, in a sense, it is: the person in question may have intended to do one thing, and done quite another, and so what s/he actually did might be considered "accidental", just as it would be accidental if you intended to toss your garbage in the garbage can and hit your office mate instead.

Try another example. You live alone in a neighbourhood in which the police have notified residents that there is an axe murderer on the loose. You are awakened one night by the sound of breaking glass in your bathroom. You grab your shotgun and rush to the door and see the outline of a large person holding a long object, standing in the bathtub below the broken window. You shoot, and you kill him. You turn on the light, and you discover that the person is your drunken next-door neighbour who mistook your front door for his own, and when his key didn't work, grabbed the garden hoe and broke the window to get in.

Did you unjustifiably kill a human being? No. You reasonably believed that you were in grave danger of being hacked to death with an axe, and that you had no reasonable way of avoiding death other than by shooting. You would not serve a day in prison. You intentionally used force likely to kill against a human being, but you "accidentally" killed your neighbour.

Now imagine that you only believed - very sincerely, and very incorrectly and very insanely - that there was an axe murderer on the loose, and that you had raved about your plans to defend yourself to your neighbours, and they were very afraid that you were going to shoot some innocent person very soon. And that the police, thinking you were a genuine threat to public safety, came to get you to take you to a secure facility for evaluation. And that when you saw a big man holding a billy club break through your front door, you believed that it was the axe murderer come to kill you, and picked up the shotgun you kept in your lap to defend yourself, and shot him.

Did you unjustifiably kill a human being? (I'm saying "justification", although that isn't the correct term for an insanity defence, just for simplicity.) Of course not.

And you would have the right not to be PUNISHED for something you did not do.


Again, I don't know how we will ever be able to diagnose psychosis in a religious community for whom hearing voices is a normal phenomenon. That's damned scary.

Definitely. Because either they're all completely nuts, or they're all liars.

But in the case of the individual on trial, an effort has to be made to determine which it is, and most people who watch media reports about cases and evidence just are not qualified to do that.

It's fine to hope that someone like this woman does not have an opportunity to harm anyone else in future. It's fine to take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that goal. But it is not "justice", for the dead children or anyone else, to propose that she be punished if she was not responsible for what she did.

.

[cleofus1]

25. logical and legal arguments...

will not apply when this goes in front of a jury...she'll be lucky if they don't tie her down in front of the courthouse and run her over with a steam roller. It's funny how most people are protective of little children.

[iverglas]

27. ain't that grand?

According to you, a jury would ignore the law, and blow off the constitution, and violate the constitutional rights of the individual before it, without a second thought.

And this is, like, a good thing?

I'm looking at all this from the outside, keep in mind, not being in the USA. And I'm seeing exactly the same sort of mentality that leads to imperialist invasions of small countries.

We don't like 'em, so they got no rights. And we got the might to do whatever the fuck we want to 'em.

It's funny how most people are protective of little children.

And it's not remotely amusing that anyone would be so keen to see anyone's rights being violated. Oh, except their own, I imagine. It's just one funny notion of "rights", that I've never quite been able to grasp.

.

[Tansy_Gold]

30. I'm with you, iverglas

The general level of misunderstanding of those with mental illnesses is truly abysmal.

If I could make one point, I think it would be that there seems to be some confusion between "crazy" and "stupid." Just because a person has a mental illness, is delusional, or paranoid, does not mean they are incapable of acting rationally within the parameters of the world as they see it. Is their world the "real" world as the rest of us see it? Maybe not.

If the delusion or other manifestation requires the person to kill, they could very well enlist their own "normal" skills to accomplish the task. This does not mean they are "sane," it only means they are intelligent. Which means that one of the greatest logical arguments against the death penalty is that once you've put the perpetrator to death, you can no longer study him/her and find out what it was that made him/her commit the crime. Hormone imbalance? Evil spirits? A weird recessive gene? A diet low in refined sugar? (ok, sick humor there).

The death penalty does not deter crime, and it removes a vast source of research that might in fact help to deter crime. What the death penalty really serves is our need for revenge, and if we can't rise above that, I'm not sure we can rise above anything. It certainly will not enable us to understand the causes of violence and resolve them. It doesn't matter if it's one violent death, four or five, or three thousand. If we can't get beyond the revenge factor, we're nowhere.

As my friend Pat, who works with the seriously mentally ill, always reminds me -- the only normal people you know are the ones you don't know very well.

Tansy Gold

[booksenkatz]

32. The issue before the court today

is not WHY she did it or HOW she did it. The specific question is whether she knew right from wrong at the moment she committed the murders. It seems to me, as I reflect on what you and others have posted, that it is really a waste of time for the court to reflect on this. Looking at it this way, it becomes immaterial, since a mentally ill person can be in total breakdown or in total control. It's just splitting hairs to hammer out right/wrong in court, the result is the same: 2 children are dead and 1 is devastated for life.

So where do we as a society go from here? Just lock them away forever to keep themselves, and society, safe?

Still asking questions here, please don't hit me!;)

[iverglas]

34. you say you're asking questions ...

... but you keep prefacing them with false premises.

The issue before the court today is not WHY she did it or HOW she did it.

Actually, where a person makes the defence of mental disorder (insanity, however a particular jurisdiction phrases it), WHY s/he did it is PRECISELY the question before the Court.

I once had dealings with someone who refused to pay for food in a fancy hotel because, he said, it was poisoned. (I was a law student on placement in a forensic psychiatric ward.) I was pretty much persuaded that this particular individual really believed this, so let's say he did. Many others, beyond a doubt, believe similar things. (He also said that he believed that the Queen had whispered in his ear ... and he may well have.)

If *you* had been served tainted food in a fancy hotel, would *you* have agreed to pay for it?? Would you think it reasonable for *you* to be charged with "food and lodging fraud" if you instead complained loudly and walked out? Would you not think that the reason WHY *you* did that was somewhat relevant to your "guilt"?

Well, that's exactly what he did, and exactly why he did it.

The specific question is whether she knew right from wrong at the moment she committed the murders.

I kind of doubt that this is really how the statute in question is phrased, but I might be wrong.

The Canadian Criminal Code, for instance, says:

16(1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or <note: "or"> of knowing that it was wrong.

Not "knowing right from wrong", but knowing that a particular act was wrong.

A severely developmentally disabled person might not "know that it was wrong"; a psychotic person also might not know that it was wrong, or might be "incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act". How on earth can someone who sincerely believes that a hotel has attempted to poison him be punished for refusing to pay for the tainted meal?? The "nature and quality of the act" that *he* thought he was committing was to refuse to pay for being poisoned, a fairly reasonable thing for someone to do.

It seems to me, as I reflect on what you and others have posted, that it is really a waste of time for the court to reflect on this. Looking at it this way, it becomes immaterial, since a mentally ill person can be in total breakdown or in total control.

I really have no clue what you could mean by this.

The purpose of criminal trials is precisely to determine the criminal responsibility of the individuals charged with crimes.

The purpose of criminal trials really is not to hold people accountable for things that they were not responsible for doing.

It's just splitting hairs to hammer out right/wrong in court, the result is the same: 2 children are dead and 1 is devastated for life.

And the result would be exactly the same if the children in question had been in an accidental train wreck. You going to want the mother imprisoned for life in that case too, because, what, somebody's gotta pay?

So where do we as a society go from here? Just lock them away forever to keep themselves, and society, safe?

Maybe -- IF it is necessary to do that. You know: no deprivation of liberty without due process, and all those fine words.

.

[booksenkatz]

36. You know something?

I've been at DU since the beginning, and this is the first time I've reached a point where I have to conclude that another person and I are simply having trouble communicating with one another. You are totally misunderstanding me, and I am totally misunderstanding you. I've attempted to have some respectful discourse and exploration of the feelings evoked by this terrible case, and wondering if emotion and the law can ever be resolved; but for reasons that are unknown to me, you seem only to be looking for a fight. It's apparent that you have some issues that are only inflamed by my posts, and I accept that; but I don't care for your abrasive approach, and I don't care to accept further abuse from you while trying to figure out this issue. So I'm cashing in. Somebody tinkled in your Cheerios this morning, but I swear to God it wasn't me.
:shrug:

[NashVegas]

43. Actually ...

According to you, a jury would ignore the law, and blow off the constitution, and violate the constitutional rights of the individual before it, without a second thought.

Apparently, yes.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x455431#455481

[booksenkatz]

26. Whoa, whoa, hoss

Hey, I admitted from the beginning that I feel emotional about this and am having alot of trouble trying to find that ideal, objective place. I admitted that I needed to vent my feelings about it. I'm not presenting myself as an expert on anything here. I've learned alot from DU over the years when I use it as a sounding board. There's no reason to attack me for that. I'm searching for ideas, ok? So I guess, yes, in a way, that makes me needy. I'm sorry if that makes me less of a human being in your eyes (or as you would have it, a Wayward Puritan and Jerry Springer fan :eyes:). I don't admit to having a single answer. Not one. Please note that I use LOTS of question marks in my posts. I'm here at DU to learn; what are you here for? Not all of us have all the answers like you do. I would think that a person with all the answers would find DU pretty boring.

But back to the case at hand. I don't think that your examples quite fit with what's happening in the Laney case. She didn't think she was in any personal danger. She killed just because her God told her to. Without question.

It might help achieve some clarity if we could all have a calm discussion, some calm give-and-take, instead of all the drama and name-calling.

[SemperEadem]

24. yes, but what had control of her?

She, clearly, was not in control of her own mind--so what was? Her religion? The voice of God? The word of God? Her eyes on his divine mission spelled out to her in black and white in her bible as she smashed her son's skull over and over? That book is supposed to be love and truth, just like the subject of it is supposed to be, and now here she is, about to go to prison for practicing what's written in it.

She's not crazy. She's a calculating murderer who doesn't want to have to submit herself to an earthly court for following a law she believes trumps the one demanding justice. That she placed the rock under the bed shows premeditation on her part, regardless of who was in control of her body. The fact remains that she thought to put her weapon of choice in place when her husband wouldn't be there. Crazy doesn't mean you're also not clever.

[iverglas]

28. thou has spoken

I should now shut up, I imagine.

She, clearly, was not in control of her own mind--so what was?

Shall I assume (since *you* don't think she was not in control of her mind) that you are saying that *I* think or said this?

I didn't. Try again, or direct your remarks to someone else.

We all use our minds to process the inputs we get from the world. Some people get strange inputs, not from the world, but from whatever is going on in their brains. That's fact.

She's not crazy. She's a calculating murderer who doesn't want to have to submit herself to an earthly court for following a law she believes trumps the one demanding justice.

That's entirely possible. But you don't know whether it's true any more than I do, chum. Your need to say it, and the reason for that need, and the effects of your saying it, are what bother me.

.

[SemperEadem]

29. I didn't make you the focus of any of my post

stop finding an argument when there is none.

[0007]

40. Anybody that kills another person especially their own children

are mentally unbalanced. And it appears that this person was disturbed by a religion, religious factor.

And if you can't see that point, then all I can say is, that you my friend, dress up like an earthly being and play God!!

[joeunderdog]

31. All true, but the NGRI defense rarely works.

When "guilt" is not in question, it's usually the only defense left, so that's why attorney's try it. Juries don't usually buy it, especially from housewives who are by every measure a slice of mainstream america in all other regards.

Alot of very very psychotic people are considered criminally responsible because they know right and wrong by society's standards and by the letter of the law.

[noonwitch]

33. She's nuts and needs to be locked in a secure psych hospital for the rest

of her life.

[0007]

38. Wow!! Sounds like the husband is also a very sick man

This is beyond comprehension how a person can be so visibly sick and not detected by persons in
the community. What religion were the Laney's?

They better look at all of her nutty friends and the folks in her church.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

39. I understand how you feel....

As a mother, I feel a knot in my stomach every time I read something like this. I can too well imagine helpless children crying out to the parent...confused and wondering why mommy or daddy is hurting them.

For years I thought such people should be put to death. I can't imagine wanting to live if insanity led me to commit such an atrocity against anyone, let alone my own children.

That's exactly how I felt a few years ago, when I first learned about the brutal attack and murder of an 8 year old boy who was playing in his front yard when a madman came up to him and started stabbing him. I was angry, and wept for this child I'd never seen before. His 2nd grade photo was on the news and in the papers every day.

Then I saw the photos of the attacker. I wanted to hate him. I couldn't. I could only hate what he did. The man's face was a portrait of inner agony. I don't know...maybe you had to see it to understand; but all I could think was that there was no hell we could subject the guy to that he hadn't already experienced via the voices in his mind.

I weep for both of them now...

[booksenkatz]

44. Let me try a different tack

So far in this thread, it has (basically) been stated that:
a) the most insane human being on the face of the earth can be at the same time the most controlled person on the face of the earth... you wouldn't even know by his actions that this person is insane, that's how clever he might be; and
b) insane people cannot be held responsible for their actions.

I HAVE NO ARGUMENT WITH EITHER STATEMENT.

Now, then.

Describe for me what a sane murder looks like. What would Dee have done differently that night that would demonstrate to us that she is a sane murderer as opposed to an insane murderer? She showed through her cunning and concealment and several other actions that she knew killing the boys was wrong. So now I'm wondering, what happens during a sane murder? Is motive the only factor in determining sanity? "If his motive makes sense, then he's a sane murderer, but if his motive makes no sense, then he is an insane murderer." Is that the standard? I'm not being facetious, I really want to know. There must be a legal standard somewhere, I'd love to learn about it. Because it would seem to me, a layman, that all murders are inherently acts of insanity, to some degree. And if all murders are acts of insanity, and the insane cannot be held responsible for their actions, then what's to be done? If you look at it this way, then it seems to be a waste of time to split hairs in court trying to figure out all this minutiae about sanity/insanity/right/wrong if, in the end, no one can be held responsible for such crimes. How is the criminal designation of "murderer" defined?

All they've discussed in this case so far (at least yesterday and this morning) is whether or not she knew right from wrong at the very instant of the murders; the psychs seem to agree that you can be totally sane one moment, then "snap", and then be sane again afterwards. (I don't see how can that possibly be determined in hindsight, even by the best psychs.) I'm starting to think that this hearing is a complete waste of time, an exercise in futility. Get the woman some psychiatric help and make sure she can never hurt another child, or herself, again. Isn't that what we all want, in the end?

I've got a massive Excedrin headache.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

46. I can give you a hundred examples...

of "sane" murders that involve no influence of mental health.

Go down into East LA. Drive-bys almost daily. Not because "God" told anyone to do so, but because of an initiation into a gang or retribution.

A person is shot during the course of a common robbery.

A young, Asian college student in a Halloween costume walks on to a man's property and is shot dead because he doesn't obey an order to halt.

Those are all murders in which there is no indication of mental health issues, which are not that unusual, and which involve no extenuating circumstances.

The type of act Dee committed (highly unusual), combined with her mental health status ("I am doing God's work"), combined with her religious situation are things that TOGETHER can lead to a diagnosis of insanity. Take away those elemnts and you can have a "sane" murder by her.

As for the legal standard used, I don't think the law has kept up with what we are now beginning to understand about how the brain health works and how it can influence a person. As I mentioned in another post, I don't think we can rely anymore on the old if they knew is was "wrong" they must not be insane. I think the Andrea Yates case is the best example of this. She knew it was wrong to hurt her children but there is a no more textbook example of a woman in full-blown psychosis than poor Andrea Yates. But the law as written required she be found sane and guilty of murder.

Now THAT is fucked up.

And I agree. Get the woman help and keep her (and us) safe from harm.

[booksenkatz]

48. The problem is

that the ONLY thing we have to go on here is Dee's word that God told her to do this. There is zero history of mental illness here; at least Andrea Yeats (Yates?) had quite a record in her defense. Dee's friends and family saw nothing, she never sought treatment for any problems whatsoever. Just before the murders, she made a friendly phone call to her mother-in-law. No one saw a problem for years and years and years.

So if the ONLY thing we have to go on about what happened that night is Dee's word, then couldn't any murderer just say "God told me to do it" and get off with a lighter sentence? That's what's really bothering me here. Just because a woman kills her kids doesn't automatically make her insane... does it?

As for your examples, I think an argument could be made that those people who so carelessly shot someone are mentally insane. Why not? What's the definition? In Texas, all they look at is whether or not you knew right from wrong at the moment of the crime; and how on earth is that provable, anyway?

Lotsa questions (as usual) in the thread that won't die, LOL!

[PassingFair]

52. God is talking to her....

and there is "no history of mental illness"? WTF That IS mental illness.
A woman where I work is going around the bend, too. Sez she hears voices in the other rooms when she's home. She's under tremendous stress, caring for her mentally ill, violent son on weekends and worrying about him throughout the week. She thinks he's possessed by demons. I listened as long as I could, then I stopped her, told her I was VERY concerned for HER mental health. I told her that ANYONE under her kind of stress would start experiencing weird states, and for her own good, she should see a professional (non-religious) counselor. Told her this exorcism crap can get out of hand, like that case in Atlanta (shiver).
Hope she takes my advice. But I doubt it. She just looked at me and said,"You don't believe".

[booksenkatz]

53. At what point do we draw the line, though?

This is an entire sector of religion we're talking about which believes that hearing from God is very normal. My gosh, that could almost be said of most religions, couldn't it? At what point does it cease being religious belief and lapse into pure psychosis (from a societal point of view)?

My concern is that the ONLY thing the psychs have to go on is what she says happened in her head. Her family, church, neighbors, friends, saw only a perfectly normal woman for 38 years or so. There is nothing whatsoever to corroborate that this woman is legally (notice I said legally) insane. With Andrea Yates, there was plenty of corroboration. So if we let Dee off easy based solely on what she says, then what is to stop any other criminal from saying that the crime was due to God's voice? Is it fair for the accused to say, "I am a very religious person, therefore you should go easy on me"?

Where do we draw the line between what people believe their God wants them to do and what we as a society need them to do? What is the difference between Dee and her God, and the Manson Girls and their God Charlie? I personally think Susan Atkins was insane to stab a pregnant woman and consider removing her baby, but we locked Susan and her buddies away for life. What is the difference between Dee and suicide bombers who act on behalf of their God? If Osama bin Laden is truly behind 9-11, then do we let him off easy because he says he's only acting for Allah, to destroy the infidels for Allah?

Someone mentioned on CourtTV a very good point. When a man kills his children violently, we go ballistic and throw the book at him. But when a woman kills her children violently, we say, oh, well, she's just crazy. No one wants to imagine that a woman could possibly kill her children in cold blood, but it is apparently easy for us to think that a man can. What's the difference?

[pansypoo53219]

45. i choose to look on the bright side

she just removed budding fundies before they had a chance to breed like she did.
for that i say-haleluia.
yes, that is cold,but like sucks.

[cleofus1]

47. the thread that wouldn't die

once again...she needs to be put in a box and locked up...give her meds and let her see a shrink...but never ever let her see the light of day. I don't care how crazy she is. She is dangerous and a killer of little children...she'll be lucky if she doesn't get the needle.

[pansypoo53219]

49. both the husbands should be

locked up as well.