TX Mom not guilty by reason of insanity

[whoracle]

McKINNEY, Texas (AP) -- A mother charged with murder for cutting off her baby daughter's arms in what her lawyers portrayed as a religious frenzy was found not guilty by reason of insanity Friday by a judge. Dena Schlosser, 38, will be sent to a state mental hospital and held until she is no longer deemed a threat to herself or others. "My own expectation is that she will remain at the hospital for many, many years," defense attorney David Haynes said. Police arrested Schlosser in 2004 after she told a 911 operator she had severed her baby's arms. Officers found the 10-month-old baby, Margaret, near death in her crib and Schlosser covered in blood, holding a knife and listening to a hymn. In issuing the verdict, Judge Chris Oldner said Schlosser had met the legal standard for insanity, but did not elaborate. Both the defense and the prosecution had agreed to let the judge decide the case after Schlosser's previous trial ended in a deadlocked jury in February. Last week it was disclosed that Schlosser had a brain tumor that defense attorneys said could have caused hallucinations. Schlosser glanced toward her former stepfather but said nothing as she was led away. "We have a just verdict in a just case, but yes, it is bittersweet," her lawyer said. "She feels it is her best chance to get better. The case hinged on whether Schlosser was unable to grasp the wrongfulness of the crime - the Texas standard for insanity. The judge relied on evidence he had heard during the first trial. Among other things, psychiatrists said Schlosser suffered severe mood swings and religious hallucinations. One doctor said Schlosser told him she wanted to cut off her baby's arms and her own limbs and head and give them to God. But prosecutor Curtis Howard said the fact Schlosser told her husband that she had "killed the baby" proved she knew what she was doing. "This is a case that could have gone both ways; we knew that," Howard said after the verdict. Schlosser's brain tumor did not become an issue until last week. A witness in her first trial alluded to a possible brain lesion, but miscommunication between doctors delayed confirmation by a neurologist until weeks after the mistrial. Bob Nicholas, Schlosser's former stepfather and the only relative in attendance Friday, said the verdict was the best possible outcome. "This whole case, this whole situation with Dena, was a tragedy," Nicholas said. "We've got the loss of Maggie, who never reached her first birthday. We've got two little girls coping with the loss of their sister and of a loving, caring mother." John Schlosser, Schlosser's husband, has filed for divorce and has custody of the couple's two other daughters. In another similar Texas case, a jury rejected an insanity defense in 2002 from Andrea Yates, the Houston mother who drowned her five children in the bathtub. She won a new trial on appeal and will again use an insanity defense in June. In 2004 in East Texas, Deanna Laney was acquitted by reason of insanity after killing her 6- and 8-year-old sons by bashing their skulls with rocks.- Julia Glick/AP

This bothers me on so many levels that I can't even begin to discuss it without becoming somewhat irritated.

What are your thoughts on these three cases (Schlosser, Yates & Laney)? They all involve the use of religion as motivation. Although I doubt it has much bearing, they're also within the same state.

I'm almost given over to the idea that the only reason Yates was actually found guilty is that she killed all five instead of stopping, as if that means something. She was on several meds for serious mental illness well before she snapped and drowned her children.

Do you believe these three cases might have been handled differently elsewhere in the country?

Why is it that TX of all places did not enforce capital punishment in the murder of 5 children?

[PatrickHenry]

Andrea Yates was obviously mentally ill. That must have brought some clemency in sentencing...

Are you opposed to or do you favor psychiatric treatment instead of prison for the mentally disturbed mom who kills her children?

[Mia]

Wow. These cases are so hard. I mean, you have to have some kind of mental disturbance to kill your own children, don't you? But I can't say in every case that they are legally 'insane'.

I understand why the fact that she killed all 5 had a bearing - it gave her plenty of time to realize what she was doing, but that doesn't interfere with whether she knew it was wrong.

I know that psychotropic meds are involved in many of these types of cases, I wonder if the subject of this article was on any.

I don't see the benifit of having these women in jail with minimal treatment and then releasing them. It's hard for me to say I want the death penalty for a person acting in a mental illness. So I suppose I agree with hospitalization.

I wonder if Mary Kay would have done better if she had gone to a hospital for treatment instead of to jail? I think that should have been the outcome for her as well.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Mia I wonder if Mary Kay would have done better if she had gone to a hospital for treatment instead of to jail? I think that should have been the outcome for her as well.

Mary Kay Letourneau? The teacher who seduced her student?

[whoracle]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Are you opposed to or do you favor psychiatric treatment instead of prison for the mentally disturbed mom who kills her children?

Difficult question. However..given that these women will not be allowed to be parents again, I see no reason for me to pay for rehabilitation.

In the case of someone like Mary Kay Letourneau who was obviously going to be released, and given that the victim did not see her as a perpetrator, I say it was rediculous to think that simply locking her away for a while would change her view. Just like locking a pedophile away without some sort of serious mental health program does not change their preference for children when they are released. Reoffense rates are staggering. Psychologically speaking, it probably only emboldened the pair with the whole *us against the world* mentallity.

On that same note, I do not believe that this is a *curable* problem. If at any time these mothers thought they were justified, which they obviously did, then so what if they come to see they were wrong? How mentally subordinant must one be to give over the life of their children to someone elses belief? How will that not carry over to everything else they encounter in life? I don't believe that we can undo that persons hardwired mentality. The inability to reason for themselves is not something I see as a feasibly *curable* disorder.

[phoenix_fire]

You have to wonder, however, how much of what we hear about motive is defense lawyer BS.

[whoracle]

I'm sure a good deal of it is. But does it matter? No matter what the mother thought was a good reason...it isn't.

[Mia]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Mary Kay Letourneau? The teacher who seduced her student?

Yes, I was too lazy to look up the spelling of her last name. I don't think she seduced him, though. If the movie was an accurate portrayal, the student seduced her.

Anyway, she was bi-polar, and some bi-polars have absolutely no sense of right and wrong when in the manic phase. They are in their own world, like being high on a drug.

She should have been hospitalized and treated instead of incarcerated. Maybe she wouldn't have gone right back to him had that been the case.

[whoracle]

Please tell me you aren't relying on ABC made for tv movies, Mia lol. No offense, but that's like turning on Fox News for the latest on the liberal agenda..

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Mia Quote by: PatrickHenry Mary Kay Letourneau? The teacher who seduced her student? Yes, I was too lazy to look up the spelling of her last name. I don't think she seduced him, though. If the movie was an accurate portrayal, the student seduced her. Anyway, she was bi-polar, and some bi-polars have absolutely no sense of right and wrong when in the manic phase. They are in their own world, like being high on a drug. She should have been hospitalized and treated instead of incarcerated. Maybe she wouldn't have gone right back to him had that been the case.

So you justify a grown up woman with an underage male by reason of your assumption that he seduced her?? Do things work the same way if the genders are reversed?

And she was mentally ill, you think? Can you cite a source?

[whoracle]

I've seen nothing that cites a definite diagnosis, although she was forced to continue anxiety and depression meds as a condition of parole. Bi-Polar was her defense...the reality was control.

[Mia]

Quote by: PatrickHenry So you justify a grown up woman with an underage male by reason of your assumption that he seduced her?? Do things work the same way if the genders are reversed? And she was mentally ill, you think? Can you cite a source?

I'm not justifying it. But I think it does make a difference in how the situation is viewed. 'Degrees of wrongness', if you will.

Obviously, it was not OK to sleep with her student, but yes I do think it's different with a male than a female. Men have different ways of viewing sex than women.

As to her mental condition, if my time weren't up on the computer in a couple of minutes, I'd look up a source. Citing her bipolar illness is from memory from the many articles and TV spots about this case through the years.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: whoracle This bothers me on so many levels that I can't even begin to discuss it without becoming somewhat irritated. What are your thoughts on these three cases (Schlosser, Yates & Laney)? They all involve the use of religion as motivation. Although I doubt it has much bearing, they're also within the same state. I'm almost given over to the idea that the only reason Yates was actually found guilty is that she killed all five instead of stopping, as if that means something. She was on several meds for serious mental illness well before she snapped and drowned her children. Do you believe these three cases might have been handled differently elsewhere in the country? Why is it that TX of all places did not enforce capital punishment in the murder of 5 children?

I believe that Yates woman was a cold-blooded killer. To drown your children goes beyond mental-illness. It's too heinous. She obviously didn't act totally mental or the husband wouldn't have left her alone with the kids, although I still think he was mental to some degree as well. Mental finds mental if you catch my drift. He had problems with being too religious before she did. They lived on a school bus for quite a long time which is absurd when you have children.

Cases where they kill one child I think would be different, heinous, but different.

I think they are mentally ill, but I don't think all mental illness makes you kill, or have that desire. The religion factor to me probably is what cracks these women, and it seems to be women mostly. I think women tend to believe in a stronger way. Just an observation.

I don't know why they didn't give the Yates woman the death penalty, possibly cause being alive is more punishment for her.

Women usually do a stint in a mental hospital and in a year or so get out. I think a man/father might get a different sentence, and it would be the death penalty.

[carriew]

as someone with 2 little ones and no mental illness(at least not that I am aware of lol)I can empithise with these women somewhat. I can tell you that even totally sane people can sometimes snap. kids are hard. very hard. they are frusterating and they dont listen and they do alot of stupid things that makes one insane even if you were ok before.

while giving my kids a bath and washing thier hair and they scream like you are drowning them just cause you are rinsing thier hair I am very very careful to not get the baby shampoo in thier faces and it doesnt matter they still flip out. everytime they do that I think back to yates. I can tell you it is hard to be a mom even when the circumstances are perfect. let alone with a major mental issue.

I can believe that it became unbearable for them and they snapped. do I think its right NO. I think that they should be locked up in jail for the remainder of thier lives.

I dont believe in insanity as a get out of jail free card. ok your insane but you still did it. they should be punished as if they were any other person who drowned 5 kids. maybe it will stop the other impluse killings of children by the one person in life who is supposed to protect them.

has anyone seen the movie The others?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: carriew I dont believe in insanity as a get out of jail free card. ok your insane but you still did it. they should be punished as if they were any other person who drowned 5 kids. maybe it will stop the other impluse killings of children by the one person in life who is supposed to protect them.

One of the most common misconceptions about the courts and criminal justice system - that a successful insanity defense is a "get out of jail free" card. It is nothing of the sort. In fact, most people who use this defense wind up incarcerated in a state mental hospital for longer than what would have been their jail sentence. There is no determinate sentence with this defense - you are placed in the state's care until the doctors say you are safe for society, which for many people is never.

I used to work for the NYS Attorney General's office, and I helped out with the attorney who did what were called the OMH cases - Office of Mental Health. These were cases where people who were criminally committed were petitioning for their release. The AG represented the state and tried to keep them in confinement. The guy never lost a case.

[carriew]

well what if in texas that guy that fullfills your friends role sucks and these women get out and in time to get pregnant again.

ok your crazy go to jail and be medicated and locked in a room there. I think even if they become ok again they should still spend the rest of thier lives in jail. ok now your better you can be sent to jail now.

I can tell you that as a mother if I ever snapped and killed my kids I would beg others to kill me to put me out of my misery I could never live another day knowing what I did. I wouldnt be trying to go to a hospital id be pleading guilty and asking for a letheal injection so I could be with my kids and try to make it up to them.

rent the movie the others it has nichole kidman in it and it is very good.

[whoracle]

even if those women did get out, they would be required to attend some sort of therapy session. Therefore they wouldn't be able to hide a pregnancy. Don't kid yourself into thinking that they'd be allowed to keep the child. Even if it wasn't intercepted by DCF at the hospital at the time of birth...say because they decided to do it at home...between parole officers and therapy someone would know and the child would be taken away. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if an at home birth mandated the presence of DCF.

And Marilyn, how is lopping of your child's arms *less* heinous than drowning it? How is stoning a child to death *less* heinous than drowning it?

[Christianboy]

i feel that insanity is a highly used excuse. if they are mentally ill, there are facilities for that. if they are not in one, and they do something, thier condition should have no sway in the trial. i mean, anyone can act mental, say "God made me do it" which is stupid on so many levels, but thats beside the point. the point is, if you can get off on insanity, what will keep others from tryin it? lock em up, they can get thier therapy in jail, where they cant hurt anymore people. bottom line, insanity is no excuse for ANYTHING like that

[Cephus]

The overwhelming majority of these insanity pleas are really "I don't want to get punished for what I did" pleas. I think we need to eliminate, or at least vastly reduce the ability to be let off for being insane. It's getting so bad now that simply doing something wrong is "insane" because otherwise you wouldn't have done it.

Besides, do we really want crazy people running around? I'd much rather see the whacko loon who hacked up 27 people on death row than in treatment and getting out again someday.

[PatrickHenry]

You guys get a grip. Andrea Yates was certifiably mentally ill BEFORE the killings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates

Yates confessed to drowning her children, but her defense asserted postpartum psychosis as the reason she committed the killings. Although all expert testimony agreed that Yates was clearly psychotic, Texas law requires that in order to successfully assert the insanity defense, the defendant must prove that he or she could not discern right from wrong at the time of the crime. In March 2002, a jury rejected the insanity defense and found Yates guilty but spared her the death penalty. The trial court sentenced Yates to life imprisonment with eligibility for parole in 40 years.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...218445,00.html

In Texas, the law on insanity defenses is among the most restrictive in the nation. So narrow are the nuances of the state's centuries-old law that it was not enough for Yates' defense lawyers to simply prove that she twice attempted suicide, had been hospitalized four times for psychiatric care and nursed a psychosis before the drownings clearly documented in thousands of pages of medical records. No, Andrea's motives may have been delusional, but if she were able to distinguish right from wrong — good from evil — while committing the crime, jurors had little choice but to reject her plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and convict her.

Delusional and in need of treatment, obviously. A danger to the community? Hardly...