She's got to be found guilty. There's no way she didn't know she was harming those children.
Did she claim she was just giving them a "tubby?"
She is in the clutches of the state either way. The insane asylum is a branch office of the pen. Compare to the judicial decision to force that kid to have a particular cancer treatment: the state owns both of them.
Yates being pronounced not guilty represents a flaw in judicial logic, IMHO. There should be in our system of justice the possibility of finding an accused "guilty, but not culpable by reason of insanity."
Incidentally, I belive criminal law draws a distinction between "not guilty" and "innocent." This was brought out, as I recall, in the instance of OJ, who was found "not guilty" but not "innocent," and presumably to this very day continues his search for the "real killer." (I suspect he shaves without using a mirror).
Perhaps a real lawyer would care to comment on this.