And the moral of the story is...

[diamond geezer]

*

Deanna Laney leaves the courtroom after closing arguments in her trial Saturday. In the background is an enlarged photo of her son Aaron.
(CNN) -- A jury acquitted a Texas mother of killing two of her sons and seriously injuring the third after determining she was insane at the time.

As the verdicts were read, Deanna Laney's face quivered, but the 39-year-old shed no tears.

Laney would have received an automatic life sentence had she been convicted of capital murder.

Instead, she will immediately be taken for evaluation to a maximum security state psychiatric hospital, where she could stay as long as 40 years.

Laney admitted bashing her three children in the heads with rocks. She said God told her to do so.

If you think you hear god talking to you..

Your insane!

[darkblue]

There's already a thread on this in 'current events' I believe....but yeah. That's absolutely shocking. I don't think we get such horrific tragedies occuring over here...

[blue&whiteman]

I think some people are born with the capability to do something so horrible and others gain it from an abusive life. either way its very sad and just the thought of it makes my heart ache :(

[Neserk]

I don't know her personal history but it would be interesting to see if she has a diagnosible mental illness. BTW, "insane" is a legal term, not a psychiatric one.

[pseudobrit]

I don't know her personal history but it would be interesting to see if she has a diagnosible mental illness. BTW, "insane" is a legal term, not a psychiatric one.

That's because psychology is still partially subjective. When using science as concrete evidence in the legal system, it must be objective (like DNA testing or ballistics physics). If it's too subjective, like a polygraph, it's entirely inadmissible. Psychology is respected and recognised enough that it's admissible, but when it is, it's often made through mutliple experts in the field, because they seldom arrive at a consensus.

Then it's up to the judge or jury to decide which mixture of facts and theory applies to the defendant.

[Neserk]

That's because psychology is still partially subjective. When using science as concrete evidence in the legal system, it must be objective (like DNA testing or ballistics physics). If it's too subjective, like a polygraph, it's entirely inadmissible. Psychology is respected and recognised enough that it's admissible, but when it is, it's often made through mutliple experts in the field, because they seldom arrive at a consensus.

Then it's up to the judge or jury to decide which mixture of facts and theory applies to the defendant.

:confused:

[pseudobrit]

What's the confusion?

[Neserk]

What's the confusion?


What you said made no sense to me.

[pseudobrit]

What you said made no sense to me.

I was expounding on your observation that insanity is a legal definition. I was trying to show why. It's because psychology is not an exact science, and since the legal system doesn't accept inexact answers as concrete proof, it's up to the legal system, not the psychology field, to define an absolute such as "insanity."

[Neserk]

I was expounding on your observation that insanity is a legal definition. I was trying to show why. It's because psychology is not an exact science, and since the legal system doesn't accept inexact answers as concrete proof, it's up to the legal system, not the psychology field, to define an absolute such as "insanity."

okay... I don't think that is why... but okay...

[pseudobrit]

okay... I don't think that is why... but okay...

That was always my understanding of it: that psychology was not equipped to judge when someone was legally "insane" and mentally unfit to stand trial. What is your understanding of it?

[Neserk]

That was always my understanding of it: that psychology was not equipped to judge when someone was legally "insane" and mentally unfit to stand trial. What is your understanding of it?


Without having looked up the history I *suspect* the idea of insanity predates the advent of modern psychology. Insanity is a legal definition that states someone didn't know right from wrong when they committed a crime. Psychology does not use the term insanity. They'd be more likely to say someone had a psychotic break. And, I believe it is psychologists and psychiatrists who are the experts who determine (ie testify) rather or not someone was "insane" at the time they committed a crime. They also are the ones to determine (ie testify) rather or not a person is mentally fit to stand trial. I don't think it has to do with Psychology being a social science versus a hard science.

[amnesiac1984]

Without having looked up the history I *suspect* the idea of insanity predates the advent of modern psychology. Insanity is a legal definition that states someone didn't know right from wrong when they committed a crime. Psychology does not use the term insanity. They'd be more likely to say someone had a psychotic break. And, I believe it is psychologists and psychiatrists who are the experts who determine (ie testify) rather or not someone was "insane" at the time they committed a crime. They also are the ones to determine (ie testify) rather or not a person is mentally fit to stand trial. I don't think it has to do with Psychology being a social science versus a hard science.

Well I think your kind of both right. Pseudo, you're right in basically saying that its up to the judge and jury to decide whether or not they believe said experts, and neserk, err you right too, cos umm Psychology is seen jsut as valuable as a "hard science" although it depends on who the judge is.

[Neserk]

Well I think your kind of both right. Pseudo, you're right in basically saying that its up to the judge and jury to decide whether or not they believe said experts, and neserk, err you right too, cos umm Psychology is seen jsut as valuable as a "hard science" although it depends on who the judge is.


Having a BA in Psychology and having benefitted greatly from its research I would say it is about as hard a science as you can get when dealing with the human mind ;)

[mactastic]

So, I've asked this before and never gotten a suitable reply so here goes... How do we know God didn't ask her to do this? God has asked this of at least one person before supposedly, although in that case he is said to have relented in the end. But suppose there WAS some kind of holy missive here? And would that mitigate any sentence for this woman? I would think devout Christians would be afraid that come judgement day they might have to answer for why they punished this woman for doing His work.

And on a related note, I would like to know the differences between this and the Andrea Yates case. Was the difference just the luck of the jury makeup? Or was there some kind of fundametal difference between the two cases?

[skunk]

But suppose there WAS some kind of holy missive here?
That's GW-type reasoning! "God TOLD me to smite those A-rabs...." ;)

[zimv20]

So, I've asked this before and never gotten a suitable reply so here goes... How do we know God didn't ask her to do this?
yeah, maybe it's just a case of pre-emption. an imminent danger. little hitlers and saddams and such. isn't such a doctrine standard operating procedure these days?

[blue&whiteman]

I think some people are born with the capability to do something so horrible and others gain it from an abusive life. either way its very sad and just the thought of it makes my heart ache :(

its like I said earlier...

you guys are really over analyzing this. people like her have issues and if god really did make her do this then i'm that much more happy I have Buddha as my spiritual leader.

[poopyhead]

And on a related note, I would like to know the differences between this and the Andrea Yates case. Was the difference just the luck of the jury makeup? Or was there some kind of fundametal difference between the two cases?

the yates jury was death qualified and thus probably more likely to hand down a guilty verdict whereas the jury in this latest case was not also in the yates case the psychologists disagreed on whether or not she was sane in the latest case all of the psychologist agreed she was insane

[Neserk]

That's GW-type reasoning! "God TOLD me to smite those A-rabs...." ;)


This belongs on the religious extremists thread!

[Frohickey]

If you think you hear god talking to you..

Your insane!

Its capital 'G', as in God.

And the real moral of the story is..."If you think you hear God talking to you, and this extradimensional being tells you to kill your 3 sons..."

Ask him to submit it in writing, in triplicate, along with verbal confirmation from a burning bush. :D :p :D

[Neserk]

Ask him to submit it in writing, in triplicate, along with verbal confirmation from a burning bush. :D :p :D

ROFL

[wwworry]

one thing that bugs me is how people argue about the outcome of trials based on secondhand media sources. None of us were there and heard all the evidence. Like when those TV "news" programs give you half the evidence then ask you if the verdict was correct with a call in poll. :eek:

If I'm not in the jury room I trust that, at the very least, the people in the jury room had more information than I ever will.

I always wanted to use an "eek".