A judge said the mother-of-three had “embarrassed the nation.”

Summary

Allexis Ferrell, a 27-year-old Ohio woman, was sentenced to one year in prison for killing and attempting to eat a cat.

The case gained global attention after it was falsely linked to Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, by Donald Trump and JD Vance, despite Ferrell being a U.S. citizen from Canton, 170 miles away.

The baseless claims were widely debunked by authorities.

Ferrell, a mother of three, was found competent to stand trial and requested treatment for substance abuse.

Judge Frank Forchione called the crime “repulsive” and sentenced her to the maximum term.

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    15·
    15 days ago

    The defendant had previously pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, but a competency report from Akron’s Psycho-Diagnostic Clinic said she was capable of understanding the court proceedings.

    The Canton Repository reported that the mother-of-three’s psychological report said she was “irritable, aggressive, deceitful, lacks remorse, shows a reckless disregard for the safety of others and fails to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.”

    Fucked up

    • deranger@sh.itjust.works
      9·
      15 days ago

      The defendant had previously pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, but a competency report from Akron’s Psycho-Diagnostic Clinic said she was capable of understanding the court proceedings.

      IANAL, but not guilty by reason by insanity and competent to stand trial are completely different things. You can be competent and not guilty by reason of insanity. Insanity defense means you were out of your mind at time of the crime, not at time of trial or permanently.

        • deranger@sh.itjust.works
          4·
          14 days ago

          No, “not guilty by reason of insanity” is the insanity defense. There is no distinct temporary insanity.

          A person is “not guilty by reason of insanity” relative to a charge of an offense only if the person proves, by a preponderance of the evidence and in the manner specified in section 2901.05 of the Revised Code, that at the time of the commission of the offense, the person did not know, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, the wrongfulness of the person’s acts.

          • raef@lemmy.world
            2·
            14 days ago

            Okay, I see what you were saying now. Obviously, someone can be insane before, during and after the crime as well. I thought you were excluding chronic insanity with the last sentence

      • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
        31·
        15 days ago

        In legal proceedings, being fit to stand trial is the opposite of insanity. Pleading not guilty for insanity suggests a chronic mental health issue that leaves the person incapable of understanding or making sound judgements.

        We have a similar system in place in the medical field. If a person is unable to demonstrate basic self awareness in the moment, they cannot consent to medical care. For us, this means implied consent takes effect and we are allowed to act in what would be considered a reasonable manner to save the patients life. There are systems in place for people who are chronically not oriented; be it medical power of attorney, advanced directives, DNRs, etc

        From what I understand, this is (in spirit at least) what’s happening in a legal setting as well. If a person isn’t capable of understanding the legal proceedings, then they need to be treated for their illness before the case can continue. I could be misremembering but a not guilty verdict by reason of insanity isn’t a get out of jail free card, it’s a “go to a state run mental institution until you’re able to stand trial” card. You’re still being locked up, often times into an environment that is significantly worse than the prison you would’ve gone to instead. Possibly for longer than the sentence they would’ve (and still may) served in prison. It’s an awful system with massive flaws that punishes some of the most disadvantaged people in society for being neglected by the state to a point where they’re a danger to themselves and those around them.

        • deranger@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          14 days ago

          Insanity defense means you were insane at the time of the crime. Fit to stand trial means your ability to comprehend the trial as the trial happens. They are separate things in a temporal sense.

          Pleading not guilty for insanity suggests a chronic mental health issue that leaves the person incapable of understanding or making sound judgements.

          It can be an acute condition as well, only affecting the defendant at the time of the crime.

          From Wikipedia:

          The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendantis not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act.

          Ohio Supreme Court also has something:

          How Is Competency Different From a Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity Plea?

          Competency to stand trial is a determination by the judge about a defendant’s present mental condition and about the defendant’s capacity to understand the proceedings and assist in the defendant’s own defense. A plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) asserts an affirmative defense regarding the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense and focuses on the defendant’s knowledge of the wrongfulness of the defendant’s actions at that time.