Using logic discerning "insanity defense"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20071016-21031500-bc-us-wombbaby.xml
snip

Expert: Killer believed she was pregnant

KANSAS CITY, Mo., Oct. 16 (UPI) -- A psychiatrist testified Tuesday an unstable Kansas woman believed she was pregnant when she killed an acquaintance and cut the woman's baby from her womb.

Vilayanur Ramachandran said Lisa Montgomery is delusional and suffered from pseudocyesis, The Kansas City (Mo.) Star reported.

Montgomery could face the death penalty if convicted of strangling Bobbie Jo Stinnett in Skidmore, Mo., and cutting her fetus from her womb. The defense does not deny the killing but says Montgomery, who lived in Kansas and knew Stinnett through their mutual interest in dog breeding, was deranged at the time and did not understand what she was doing.

***
Um, anyone notice a problem with this argument? If she thought she was pregnant why did she have to go out and procure a baby from someone else?

She may well be insane but the argument that someone thinks she is pregnant, and then goes to cut the baby out of someone else is self contradictory.

My thoughts on the insanity defense. I do not believe it applies unless the person is so out of control that they cannot physically or mentally stop themselves. That's a lot rarer than people think.

Any "preparation" and "cover up" work really negates an insanity defense. The ability to control one's decision making is contraindicative of an insanity defense. (Notice I'm not saying that the person may not have a mental illness. I am saying that there's a difference between a suspect having a mental illness, and stating that the mental illness was in control when the crime occurred.) Lawyers have really taken advantage of jurors on this issue for a long time. An insanity defense should be legitimate only when the person truly is unable to stop themselves due to being taken over by a specific illness at the time of the crime. Having a mental illness is different than an insanity defense. People need to wise up about this for their own safety. People can have a mental illness ("be insane") and still be culpable for crimes, as they, not the mental illness, are in control when they commit the crimes. People totally missed that about the Yates crime years ago. And by the way, people with mental illnesses are not stupid. Some now think that they can be cogent (willing and in control) while committing a crime (they could stop themselves if they wanted to) yet know they can claim the insanity defense. They actually tell themselves that they cannot stop themselves as they plan, conduct, and cover up the crime. A truly "insane defense" person is not even having those thoughts; they really are running amok unable to discern reality and stop themselves. Again, this is not to say that people do not have "reasons" and "mental illnesses," but I am reminding people that a person can be guilty of a crime and have a mental illness. A mental illness is rarely the actual reason for a violent crime in the sense that it takes control and is a legitimate defense for the specific criminal act.