A few words on this.
Y'all know me, and y'all know that I believe that the only acceptable number of prisoner executions is zero. But that is a perfect world number, and we do not live in a perfect world. Unfortunately, I do believe it is sometimes required of society to take the lives of the incarcerated.
I know it sounds heartless, but I believe it is necessary, despite all my religious belief to the contrary. But religion is a utopian philosophy, religion is the compass light that tells us how things could be better. Civil government, however, must take a far more pragmatic approach.
Here is a tragic case of a mother who killed her three young children, but is certifiably crazy. I mean, she knowingly killed them in order for them to get into heaven and be raised by God instead of her. Because of the insanity defense, she will most likley be looked after for the rest of her life in a state mental institution - undergoing incarceration indefinitely.
Let me say that I am proud of our society for trying to temper vengeful and emotional justice with compassion. The existence of the insanity defense at all, as problematic as it has turned out to be, is a testament that our nation strives to uncover the natures of our better angels.
However, and again - I may sound heartless, but I do not believe that represents justice for those children. There comes a time, I believe, that your crimes outweigh the compassion society employs in order to take care of the infirm of mind. I believe there is a barrier that can be crossed where society and civil government are not acting draconian to demand a prisoner execution, when the action isn't to be used as a deterrent but as a means to its own end, that society and civil government are responsible for persuing such action.
I think such action should be persued in this case, despite the woman's mental instability. That is one of the reasons I believe in keeping the death penalty, though rarely to be employed, as a legal punishment to certain crimes.