Mother found not guilty, insane in attacks

Chicago Tribune ^ | September 21, 2013 | Steve Schmadeke

[ConservativeStatement]

A mentally ill woman who stabbed her infant daughter 10 times in the face with a pair of scissors before boarding a crowded CTA bus and stabbing a woman and her young daughter was found not guilty by reason of insanity Friday.

Nancy Laroche, 34, who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, was found by her fiance's mother kneeling over her crying 10-month-old daughter on Jan. 9, 2008, at their Bronzeville apartment, according to testimony at her bench trial in Cook County Circuit Court.

[ConservativeStatement]

"The bus became an uproar." Opinionated buses ping.

[Jeff Chandler]

There are no crazy people in the South?

[Jeff Chandler]

Or scissors?

[EDINVA]

no buses, apparently

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

Ann Coulter wrote a good article the other day on this, how the crazies are allowed to run amok killing people...........

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-09-18.html#read_more

[sport]

The inmates are now running the aslyumn.

[TheConservativeParty]

Her picture says it all. “I get away with anything.”
Let her live with the libtard judge.

[jameslalor]

Assuming you’re talking about the verdict (not-guilty by reason of insanity), I’d have to disagree with you there.

Despite popular myth, not guilty by reason of insanity is both incredibly rare and very difficult to prove. It’s not accurate to describe it as a liberal crap verdict.

You see, as a general rule in most states, it’s going to be an affirmative defense that shifts the burden of proof. That is, it’s the job of the defense to assert the claim that the defendant is insane, and then PROVE that insanity to the court. The trial shifts from the prosecution trying to prove guilt, to the defense trying to prove insanity. In many states the burden of proof for the defense is clear & convincing rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Keep in mind this is the legal definition of insanity as well, not the popular or the medical definition. Usually the legal definition is something along the lines of: “Suffering from a mental defect so severe that the defendant did not know right from wrong”. Little things like running from the police, hiding evidence, or simply saying “I’m sorry” or sobbing after the crime can be enough to torpedo the insanity claim. The defense can trot out as many crackpot psychiatrists as it wants, claiming that the defendant suffers from everything listed in the DSM, and still not rise to the level of legal insanity.

I’m aware of a case where a mother ran amok and killed her two children, up to and including decapitating one and walking around with the head cradled in her arms. At the time of the trial she was, as I was informed, so out of her gourd that she didn’t even realize her kids were dead and had no real concept of where she was during the trial or what was going on. She was unable to mount an effective defense, naturally due to the fact that she wasn’t even there mentally, and was never able to assert and prove insanity. If I recall correctly, she was considered fit enough to stand trial, and was convicted.

That’s the norm when it comes to “insanity” in the courts. Day in and day out the justice system deals with broken people, and simply being screwed in the head isn’t enough to keep you out of prison. You can be seeing visions and hearing voices all the live-long day and it’s largely immaterial when it comes to the determination of guilt or innocence. It’s only in very rare cases that derangement reaches incredibly proportions for the law to consider culpability lessened in the least. Take note of, for example, the Manson Family. That’s, from a legal perspective, sane enough to stand trial and sane enough to be fully culpable for all crimes committed.

[diverteach]

Ummm....the judge first declares her insane and THEN orders her to the hospital for mental evaluation. Bass ackwards!

[Two Kids' Dad]

She looks really yellow. Like, Simpsons yellow.

[hinckley buzzard]

Thanks for this. I have posted similar explanations over the years but it always bears repeating. New viewers, old ignorati who don't learn, still misunderstand the realities.

One observation, in the parallel case you describe, the woman who was "unable to mount a defense" should have been found incompetent to stand trial and committed for treatment until such time as she was restored to competency. Then the issue of sanity at the time of the act could have been fairly adjudicated.