I think the jury made a good call on this one. This woman didn't act out of anger or rage, greed or jealousy, or for any personal gain - none of the "normal" motives for murder. She heard voices in her head, and from an "authority" she simply wasn't able to resist. She's obviously crazy. As the article said; she'll be going to a maximum security mental hospital - and that is a high security prison, make no mistake about that. In fact, a place like that is probably a darned sight worse than your average high security prison, I'd bet. And I don't think that there is any guarantee at all that she'll be allowed to go free even after 40 years if she's still crazy. If she's still crazy and still poses any sort of threat to herself or to society they can legally keep her in a mental hospital forever, if they wish. That's the law. Psychiatrists can do what judges can not; they can lock you away forever without a trial or a jury of any sort, their say-so alone is sufficient. If she's not still crazy in 40 years then why not let her free again? The purpose of most prisons is rehabilitation as much as punishment, I think, after all. If somebody truly has been rehabilitated (or has been returned to sanity) then where do you stand, morally, if you desire to just continue to punish them forever anyway? That's not right, either. Personally, I think that anybody that just gets off on punishing others relentlessly or in seeing them punished is a little distrubed too, if you ask me.