http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/11/ya....ap/index.html
Quote:
...Debbie A. Holmes met Yates about 20 years ago when both were nurses at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. She said she still visits Yates and writes her letters.
Yates, 42, is being retried in her children's 2001 bathtub drowning deaths because her capital murder conviction was overturned by an appeals court that ruled erroneous testimony might have influenced the jury.
She has again pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
Her attorneys say Yates suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and did not know it was wrong to kill 7-year-old Noah, 5-year-old John, 3-year-old Paul, 2-year-old Luke and 6-month-old Mary....
|
I read a lot of news, both cnn, and elsewhere, so I've watched this trial for a while.
My only question for this particular discussion (Though to see it move on elsewhere is great too) is how can "Not knowing it was wrong to drown 4 children" count as a defense???
I mean really, in my opinion, that justifies locking her up even more. Psychopaths who serial kill almost never see what they do as wrong. They, for the most part, are completly devoid of a moral compass. And we justifiably lock them up, or execute them.
How can not knowing right from wrong justify as a defense??
Your thoughts?