# Definition of evil: Laney on trial for killing her sons **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 2, 2004, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847 "2004-04-02T03:50:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Blonde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@Blonde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blonde)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/41 "2004-04-05T03:21:43Z")
> [@Qadgop the Mercotan](#): > > And just what is your preferred solution to that situation? Fuck if I know, hon. I just think we’ve had enough of these “white-mother-kills-small-children-in-Texas-don’t-we-feel-so-sorry-for-her-in-the-insane-asylum” stories. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/42 "2004-04-05T03:47:53Z")
> [@Blonde](#): > > I just think we’ve had enough of these “white-mother-kills-small-children-in-Texas-don’t-we-feel-so-sorry-for-her-in-the-insane-asylum” stories. Feel sorry for her? I certainly pity her. I’ve dealt with many insane people, and I’ve seen what they go through when they get restored to their right mind and have to come to grips with what they did while quite mad. Frankly sometimes it seems the greater mercy would be to kill them _before_ they regain their right minds. So for those who hate her so for what she did, her punishment of living with her deeds, back in her right mind is the most horrific one I can think of. Unless one advocates adding physical torture, I don’t see how it could be more painful for her. There’s some mainstream religion out there right now which I believe advocates justice, mercy, forgiveness, and redemption over punishment and vengeance. I’ve found some of their other tenets difficult to accept, but I really think they’re on the mark on this. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/43 "2004-04-05T04:03:02Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > I have have very little respect for juries to be either qualified or emotionally capable of deciding such things. I’ve seen egregious errors in both directions. If a Texas jury found this unfortunate woman to be insane then you can be pretty damn sure she is as crazy as a bedbug. In Texas a jury finding of not guilty by reason of insanity requires a unanimous decision, if I recall correctly. I think the Texas insanity defense requires an admission of the act and uses the “wilde beaste of the field” standard or something very like it. In other words, the defendand is not allowed to deny having done the deed and has to be found by a jury (in this case) to be nuts and for the act to have been the product of that deranged mental state beyond all reasonable doubt. The only way around this is to junk the age old idea that culpability and cognition are linked and you cannot have one without the other. A civilized Western society does not impose a criminal sanction when the insane act out their insanity. We do however put them someplace where the crazy are safe and the community is safe from them. Unless you subscribe to some sort of blood redemption theory that seems reasonable and humane. I suppose the alternative is a public stoning. Got a rock? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/44 "2004-04-05T14:12:12Z")
> [@kung fu lola](#): > > Jugular, honey. It’s spelled jugular. > > Unless, of course, your veins have opposable thumbs and are capable of throwing objects into the air and catching them. In which case, you’re so cool, you don’t **need** spelling. the latter, of course. 😉 naw, just sloppiness and no proofreading I’m afraid. back to the OP - once again, she seems to absolutely lack an understanding that “mental illness” encompasses quite a range, from “down in the dumps” sort of thing to absolute psychotic breaks. I’ve seen people while they’re in the gripes of a delusion. And what they see certainly seems real to them at the time (one example was men with trenchcoats and machine guns waiting to kill the woman. We mentioned to her that we couldn’t see them - she explained "that’s cause they’re _invisible_. Another absolutely believed that there were little beings _inside her head_ pulling at her jaw, making it jerk from side to side. She was saving her money for a CAT scan which, she was certain, would **show** these creatures.). The children are dead, sadly, for no good reason. That, of course, would also be true for any of a host of other situations, from car accidents, to playgound mishaps, to random violence etc. And, the state would have been responsible for the woman’s meals etc in any event - they were not looking for death penalty. Re: was she really insane [even the prosecutions’ experts agreed](http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/01/laney/index.html) : > [@](#): > > Though Laney is charged with capital murder, Dietz and another prosecution psychiatrist agreed with defense experts that Laney was so mentally ill she did not know killing her sons was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/45 "2004-04-05T14:16:40Z")
:smack: _grips_. not \*\*_gripes_. Nah, that deserves another one. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/46 "2004-04-05T14:23:00Z")
I’m confused about why she was acquitted when Andrea Yates (lived in the same state, seemingly suffering from extreme postpartum depression, doctor had told her and her husband that she shouldn’t have another child before then) wasn’t. Maybe the juries treated an apparent schizophrenic-type psychosis differently from postpartum depression. From what I understand, the same defense lawyer worked on both cases; he was supposed to be on NBC’s _Today_ show this morning to explain why there was the difference in verdicts, but I had to leave for work. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/47 "2004-04-05T15:00:23Z")
> [@Blonde](#): > > I appreciate your viewpoint, but oh my god I wish you could stand my shoes as a mother, reading about her actions. When I heard about it, I wanted to leave work and run home to hug my boys. > Will she really suffer for the rest of her life? I doubt it. She’ll be given a life sentence, and we’ll pay to feed her until she dies of old age. Hopefully, by then she won’t be so convinced that God really wanted her to stone her boys to death. She’s already suffering just for knowing what she has done. She doesn’t deserve death, and to kill her would be a huge mistake for our society. (Frankly, I’m surprised Texas found her insane. The insanity defense rarely holds up there.) Try to imagine the pain this woman is in, and look into yourself for compassion. A civilized society doesn’t just “eliminate” its sick members. Find a place in your heart for someone who is desperately ill and in need of treatment. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/48 "2004-04-05T15:08:52Z")
> [@Blonde](#): > > Well, she’s been acquitted of her crime now. Where is there any protection of the children in these cases? It’s not the first time we’ve heard of a religious, quiet white mother brutally killing her own children. > I disagree with the verdict. I don’t dispute the fact that one can all of a sudden seek into a deep depression, but she took the lives of two small children. And, for that - we’ll be paying for her meals for as long as she lives. Did she have a history of depression? Should her husband or other family members have seen this coming? Who knows. All I know is - two boys are dead for no damn reason. You can’t protect your children from everything. There are always risks. Mental illness isn’t something that can always be diagnosed before something bad happens. She wasn’t depressed, as I understand it. She was psychotic and delusional. Huge difference. > [@](#): > > Did she have a history of depression? Who knows? Lots of people have a history of depression and other mental illness. Most of them don’t kill their children. Are you suggesting that anyone who’s been on Prozac should have their children taken away? I hope you found a small country to house them all in… She has had episodes of psychosis before (four, I think). The reason the kids are dead is because their mother is sick. Would you rather we starved her to death? I certainly hope your children are learning compassion _somewhere_. It’s obvious they aren’t getting much at home. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/49 "2004-04-05T15:26:05Z")
> [@Ferret Herder](#): > > I’m confused about why she was acquitted when Andrea Yates (lived in the same state, seemingly suffering from extreme postpartum depression, doctor had told her and her husband that she shouldn’t have another child before then) wasn’t. Maybe the juries treated an apparent schizophrenic-type psychosis differently from postpartum depression. From what I understand, the same defense lawyer worked on both cases; he was supposed to be on NBC’s _Today_ show this morning to explain why there was the difference in verdicts, but I had to leave for work. Probably the most marked difference between the Laney case and the Yates case was the expert witnesses. In the Laney case, all five of the psychologists in the case testified she was legally insane at the time of the murders. That included the prosecution’s own expert and the judge’s expert. In Yates’ case, the prosecution expert testified Yates was not insane at the time of the killings. So in one case, all the experts agreed the killer was insane, and in the other, there was a split decision, with the State’s expert saying she was not insane. I don’t know about you, but to me, the fact that there seemed to be unanimous decision by all the experts that Laney was insane at the time of the murders, makes it significantly different than the Yates case. ---
**Author:** ![Shirley\_Ujest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shirley\_Ujest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shirley_Ujest)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/50 "2004-04-05T15:30:49Z")
Granted, I followed the Andrea Yates story more closely, but I am really surprised at this Laney gets off on insanity. I was even more surprised that Yates didn’t get the insanity case. What is the condition of Laney’s youngest? I haven’t read one word on his/her state. Both cases are very frightening indeed. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/51 "2004-04-05T15:32:27Z")
**Hamlet** , as an attorney, can you then explain something to me? As you (and I) noted, _even the prosecution experts_ agreed that the woman was legally insane at the time of the event. Given that wasn’t really in dispute, how are the charges themselves justified? Am I wrong in believing that the prosecutor seemed to be looking for a sort of jury nullification, the ‘facts be damned, we’re so outraged by this, even though all experts agree she’s legally insane, we’ll ignore that and find her legally guilty anyhow’?? ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/52 "2004-04-05T15:42:45Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I don’t know about you, but to me, the fact that there seemed to be unanimous decision by all the experts that Laney was insane at the time of the murders, makes it significantly different than the Yates case. That makes sense, thanks. I’d missed that all of the experts agreed in this latest case, as I hadn’t been following it closely. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/53 "2004-04-05T18:35:53Z")
> [@Shirley Ujest](#): > > Granted, I followed the Andrea Yates story more closely, but I am really surprised at this Laney gets off on insanity. I was even more surprised that Yates didn’t get the insanity case. > > What is the condition of Laney’s youngest? I haven’t read one word on his/her state. > Both cases are very frightening indeed. I heard he’s blind and permanently brain-damaged. I didn’t hear how severe the brain damage is, but suffice to say his life is forever changed. So sad… ---
**Author:** ![StinkPop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c67d28/32.png) [@StinkPop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StinkPop)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/54 "2004-04-05T19:31:36Z")
Now that Laney has been acquitted, is the DA going to go after God? After all, this isn’t the first time God was responsible for the death of a child. He sent His own kid to His death, for Christ’s sake. We’ve got to get God off the streets before He kills again! ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2004, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/55 "2004-04-05T21:48:44Z")
> [@wring](#): > > **Hamlet** , as an attorney, can you then explain something to me? > > As you (and I) noted, _even the prosecution experts_ agreed that the woman was legally insane at the time of the event. Given that wasn’t really in dispute, how are the charges themselves justified? Am I wrong in believing that the prosecutor seemed to be looking for a sort of jury nullification, the ‘facts be damned, we’re so outraged by this, even though all experts agree she’s legally insane, we’ll ignore that and find her legally guilty anyhow’?? The actual determination of insanity is one that can only be made by the jury hearing the case. It isn’t a “you have more experts, so you win” determination, but one for the jury to make. Until they say she’s legally insane, she’s not. I haven’t followed the Laney case enough to know the facts that the prosecution argued to rebut the findings of all the experts, but they are free to argue that she was not legally insane when she murdered these kids, despite the experts testimony. Personally, if my own expert opines that the defendant was legally insane at the time of the murders, I’d be a bit uncomfortable arguing otherwise to a jury, unless there were sufficient facts to rebut the findings. But then again, I’m not a Texan prosecutor. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/56 "2004-04-06T00:17:28Z")
> [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > If a Texas jury found this unfortunate woman to be insane then you can be pretty damn sure she is as crazy as a bedbug. In Texas a jury finding of not guilty by reason of insanity requires a unanimous decision, if I recall correctly. I think the Texas insanity defense requires an admission of the act and uses the “wilde beaste of the field” standard or something very like it. In other words, the defendand is not allowed to deny having done the deed and has to be found by a jury (in this case) to be nuts and for the act to have been the product of that deranged mental state beyond all reasonable doubt. Well, I should probably add that I don’t have much respect for Texas juries or the Texas justice system either. > [@](#): > > The only way around this is to junk the age old idea that culpability and cognition are linked and you cannot have one without the other. A civilized Western society does not impose a criminal sanction when the insane act out their insanity. We do however put them someplace where the crazy are safe and the community is safe from them. Unless you subscribe to some sort of blood redemption theory that seems reasonable and humane. I suppose the alternative is a public stoning. Got a rock? Who are you talking to? What I subscribe to is the idea that actual experts are the only ones qualified to judge whether someone was legally insane or not responsible for their actions. Juries are notoriously awful at doing so. In this case, I’d like to see the actual arguments that the experts based their reasoning on, rather than simply their yea or nay. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/57 "2004-04-06T01:11:48Z")
> [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](#): > > This is not a contest where anyone gets bonus points for being _the most outraged_ . Yeah, you’re horrified. That’s very noble. Guess what? Other people are too. Even _GASP_ people who don’t have children! I rather think that quote neatly sums up the most proper response to the OP’s desires for a death penalty. Yes, the story is a dreadful, tragic sad one. However, it appears all of the people involved along the way did their jobs professionally and fairly. Hence, we should accept the umpire’s decision and recognise that the Prosecuting DA worked to the best of their abilities. However, as to the author of this thread? I gotta say something here. To get on an internet postboard and actively lobby for a death penalty? Even when the prosecution consciously chose not to do such a thing? Well… I reckon there’s something inherently creepy about that. There are some things you should just keep to yourself I reckon. And the assertion that because the author of the OP is a mother of similar aged children and by extension is more qualified than the rest of us to desire the death penalty in this instance? Well, all I can say is that they used to burn witches at the stake hundreds of years ago… and I thought the bloodlust gene was fading into obscurity - obviously not. ---
**Author:** ![Blonde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@Blonde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blonde)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/58 "2004-04-06T02:47:40Z")
> [@Boo Boo Foo](#): > > However, as to the author of this thread? I gotta say something here. To get on an internet postboard and actively lobby for a death penalty? Even when the prosecution consciously chose not to do such a thing? Well… I reckon there’s something inherently creepy about that. There are some things you should just keep to yourself I reckon. > > And the assertion that because the author of the OP is a mother of similar aged children and by extension is more qualified than the rest of us to desire the death penalty in this instance? Well, all I can say is that they used to burn witches at the stake hundreds of years ago… and I thought the bloodlust gene was fading into obscurity - obviously not. Well, you pick the issues and comments YOU should keep you yourself, hon, and I’ll pick mine. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/59 "2004-04-06T02:59:03Z")
The problem is Blonde, when it comes to keeping your thoughts to yourself, you didn’t. By extension, your last comment there was inherently inane by definition. The fact that this thread was started by YOU, and not by me, clearly proves that one of us in capable of keeping one’s thoughts to one’self. ---
**Author:** ![Blonde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@Blonde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blonde)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2004, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847/60 "2004-04-06T03:20:00Z")
> [@Boo Boo Foo](#): > > The problem is Blonde, when it comes to keeping your thoughts to yourself, you didn’t. By extension, your last comment there was inherently inane by definition. > > The fact that this thread was started by YOU, and not by me, clearly proves that one of us in capable of keeping one’s thoughts to one’self. She held two of her young children down and beat their skulls in with rocks, and maimed her third child. Following her drug treatment and “rehabilitation” it’s likely she’ll be out of the mental hospital within a few years. Justice? I don’t think so. That’s my opinion, cowboy, and I’ll stand by it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/definition-of-evil-laney-on-trial-for-killing-her-sons/237847.md?page=4)