April 03, 2004
Mother Who Stoned Children Acquitted
MSNBC - Mother who stoned sons to death acquittedThis is a Texas trial. It's supposed to be just about impossible to successfully argue an insanity defense in Texas. I'd like to see a good compare-and-contrast article between this case and the Andrea Yates case. Both mothers live in Texas, both killed their children, both home-schooled their children, both called the police afterward. Yates was found guilty. Her insanity defense was post-partum depression. Laney was found not guilty. Her insanity defense was that God told her to do it.
The jury found that she did not know right from wrong. Her defense was that God chose her as a test of faith. That right there - "a test" - says to me that it was something that she otherwise did not want to do. She did know it was wrong aside from allowing herself to be overruled by God. I'm sorry, but that's not insanity. That's following religious beliefs that are incompatible with the law. She phrased it as a test. She knew right from wrong. She only thought it was right to do wrong. There's a difference.
I don't know enough about the case, but there's enough here to really worry me. Yates was suffering and was found guilty. Laney acted with the certainty that she was led by God, and she was found not guilty. I just wonder if some of these Texas jurors were given pause by their own religious beliefs and gave their not guilty belief out of religious fear rather than out of mercy and good judgment.
I personally would have found them both not guilty. Maybe Laney lucked into twelve reasonable Texas jurors and Yates didn't. It just still really bothers me that Yates was found guilty.
Update: Talkleft has more discussion.
Let's see... in Texas, I believe the insanity defense is that you're not sane enough to understand the difference between right and wrong. If you believe God tells you to do something, you're probably more like to think it's the right thing to do. If you believe the devil tells you something (as Yates supposedly did) you're probably more likely to think it's the wrong thing to do. So maybe Yates' jury thought she should have known she was doing wrong even if she was insane.
Just a wild guess. The truth probably comes down to whether or not one had a better lawyer than the other and a whole lot of luck.
Posted by: Suzanne at April 4, 2004 10:48 AMThen there's the whole Abraham/Issac thing from the Bible. It really is possible some of the jury could relate to chosing God over society or your children.
Posted by: Suzanne at April 4, 2004 10:50 AMHello, she killed her children
Posted by: Pam at April 9, 2004 10:11 PMLaney's baby will suffer permanent brain damage from the brutal injuries his mother inflicted on him. He may never be able to walk.
She smashed one son's head so badly his brains were liquified.
Laney cried when she heard the verdict, proving that she is aware of what's going on in the world around her.
Why do you believe that she and Yates are victims?
I see that kind of logic a lot. This person did this horrible thing, and did this horrible thing, and did this horrible thing, so THEREFORE this person needs to be PUNISHED.
It just isn't a truism. It ain't necessarily so.
Plus there's the thing that *either* the mothers *or* the kids are victims.
It's a false choice.
I think a more interesting question is, why do you think it means she needs to be locked up in prison rather than a mental ward?