This seems to be a controversial case. I'm not sure if it's the most recent one but it's what popped up in google as most recent. It seems there were a lot of forensic psychologists arguing on the case.
The two opposing viewpoints are mentioned:
"They contended Thornton was in the grip of a depression-fueled psychotic episode and could not distinguish between right and wrong on the day she killed the children, rendering her legally insane and not criminally responsible for her actions."
"Thornton's own words and actions in the hours following the children's deaths demonstrated her awareness of her actions and their consequences. They pointed out Thornton had changed out of blood-stained clothes before leaving the apartment, had visited a police station in an aborted attempt to turn herself in, and later told NOPD detectives in a recorded statement that she knew she "would get in trouble for this kind of stuff.""
This is the full article...What do you think? Did they choose right? and what are your reasons for either viewpoint?