uncle_el

as far as this case goes, i believe it's hard to say that she was "insane" when committing the murder because she killed all 5 children individually. in other words, she called in one child, drowned him/her, dressed him/her, placed him/her in bed... repeated that 4 times, and then called her husband. there were also some things she had said prior to the murders that seemed to hint there was a bit of premeditation.
as far as the religious angle on her... her and her husband had some strange understanding of their relationship with God and with each other and with other people. but i digress.

having worked in a hospital for 2 years now on many different services (none psychiatric yet, that's a month away) i've seen people whom most would call crazy. whether they're septic (overwhelming infection), off their psychiatric medications, or something else, i've found that people's actions can be erratic, extreme, and volatile.
i had one woman, who was septic, a drug abuser (iv cocaine/heroin), who needed a lumbar puncture. the intern, myself, and a 4th year neurology resident tried to hold her down to get this done, and she yelled out "i'm going to bite you, aaaaaaahhh" and she tried to bite me in the groin! i still took care of her (of course making sure to keep my groin away from her, lol) every day. when she began to get better, i asked her about it and she had no recollection. she didn't remember being in the er (where the incident occurred), and really didn't remember much of anything.

whether this rises to the level of "insanity" or not, i'm unsure as this is an area of law that i'm definitely not well versed in. but i could see how someone can act "outside of themselves", but would tend to think it would be a fleeting moment in time (though i couldn't put a specified amount of time on that). that's not to say, however, that i think that people who are declared "insane" should be let off the hook. rather, i'm just saying that i understand.

but i do think the courts uphold mental competence as a standard, i.e. being mentally fit to stand trial. if one is not mentally competent to understand what they were doing, what the charges are... where do we go?
in the charge of murder, one has to prove intent. if the person did not intend to kill the person, then it would fall to the level of manslaughter.

i believe this is where the problems come in. the d.a. can only charge the person with one crime related to said dead victim... in other words, the d.a. must charge the perpetrator with murder or manslaughter. murder, depending on the degree (1st, 2nd, 3rd) tends to hold a longer sentence than manslaughter. perhaps if the d.a. weren't so zealous to pursure a murder charge (again, where intent must be proved) and would go with a manslaughter charge (don't have to prove intent, just that the crime was committed by the alleged perpetrator), they would have more convictions.

idk... sorry if i've added confusion to the discussion, as this feels like streaming consciousness, rather than a coherent essay/post of sorts. i feel like i'm playing both sides of the fence.

also of note, depression generally leads to suicidal thoughts, not murderous thoughts... in other words, depressed people, if allowed, may try to kill themselves, not kill others. that's not to say it can't happen, since the lawyers seem to be saying that's what did happen.