Prosecutors not to indict mother who dropped 2-year-old daughter from balcony

Three months for a psychiatric evaluation?

It's going to take them three months to decide whether she is responsible for killing her child?

Of course she was insane! By what possible stroke of logic could deliberately dropping a child off a balcony be consider an act of sanity?

That doesn't change the fact that she ended her daughter's life.

Even if she was not criminally responsible, she would need to be locked away, or "held securely", for other's safety. However I can not see how she can not have been aware of the nature of her actions, based as they were in reality and an accurate appraisal of the situation. We need more details about further action to be taken.

Three months for a psychiatric evaluation?

They take as long as they need to determine whether someone is mentally competent or not. Some people try to lie and pretend they are incompetent, the evaluations are built to determine whether or not that is the case.

Of course she was insane! By what possible stroke of logic could deliberately dropping a child off a balcony be consider an act of sanity?

That doesn't change the fact that she ended her daughter's life.

Nope, it doesn't, it only determines whether or not she is criminally culpable.

We need more details about further action to be taken.

Why?

WTF?! Kill your baby, blame it on stress, and walk away free?

WTF?! Kill your baby, blame it on stress, and walk away free?

Did you miss the part about the psychological evaluation?

Don't confuse mental illness with insanity. Of course she's mentally ill if she tossed the baby off the balcony. But she can still be held criminally liable if they prove that she knew right from wrong when she committed that crime.

What bothers me is that they seem to have given up on the idea of Prosecuting her without her status being determined

Haaa NemuiToday  07:34 am JST

We need more details about further action to be taken.

Why?

Lol, are you serious? Because the article, err, doesn't give any information about further action. It says what they are not going to do but not what they are going to do. They could be about to let her go completely free, they could be about to charge her with manslaughter due to diminished responsibility, they could confine her indefinitely to a mental institution.. those options are just off the top of my head, care to add any more? ;)

Don't confuse mental illness with insanity. Of course she's mentally ill if she tossed the baby off the balcony. But she can still be held criminally liable if they prove that she knew right from wrong when she committed that crime.

You're the first one to bring up mental illness. You realize she had a three-month psychological evaluation to determine exactly what you are describing in your comment, right?

Usually in cases like this, when the suspect is deemed mentally unfit to stand trial, she (or he) will be committed to an institution. For how many years we don't know. That information is seldom publicly released.

Lol, are you serious? Because the article, err, doesn't give any information about further action. It says what they are not going to do but not what they are going to do. They could be about to let her go completely free, they could be about to charge her with manslaughter due to diminished responsibility, they could confine her indefinitely to a mental institution.. those options are just off the top of my head, care to add any more? ;)

And? We don't actually need to know any of that. For people to make an informed comment it might help but it's not necessary for those of us who just want to read the news.

Let's hope they reassess her for prosecution after her psychological exams are complete

Maybe I'm reading this wrong and they've already done their exams and decided to let her go. But let's hope they were very thorough and didn't just look at her and say "That girl crazy." Because trying to prosecute her might endanger their conviction rate.

And? We don't actually need to know any of that. For people to make an informed comment it might help but it's not necessary for those of us who just want to read the news.

Lol, that makes no sense.. you think people are happy to read only part of the news, and are either not interested, on a comments forum, in making comments, or are knowingly, contentedly, making uninformed comments??

Lol, that makes no sense.. you think people are happy to read only part of the news, and are either not interested, on a comments forum, in making comments, or are knowingly, contentedly, making uninformed comments?

It absolutely makes sense. I suggest you read the last part of the article about where no other details were given. That means it is not only part of the news as you suggest but it is the complete news. How much more do you think you need to know? Want to know? That's a different story. And people are always making uninformed comments and often do so quite contentedly. Don't kid yourself.

@miss_oikawa - for the record I agree with the majority of your first comment.

I think it’s pretty obvious she has had mental issues. However, a ruling like this does not send a positive message. People will start to believe they can get away with killing their kids if they can plead mental illness.

People will start to believe they can get away with killing their kids if they can plead mental illness.

It don't come that easily. The tests given for mental competence are extensive. It is practically impossible to fake a mental illness and get away with it. All mental/emotional illnesses have certain traits, characteristics, 'quirks', whatever that take time to find and determine. You can't just say 'oh I got schizophrenia' and that will get you out of trouble, trial or duty. It takes extensive studying and observation. The fact that she was under evaluation and treatment for 3 months says that she has something seriously wrong. If she was faking an illness the doctors would catch her. It appears that she will be in an asylum for a long time, getting treatment and no longer being a danger to others or herself.

Another case determined by maternal privilege. Father does same thing and he'd be excoriated.

Or maybe he wouldn't. We can't know either way, so it's a pointless speculation.

I don't have any statistics to refer to but don't recall ever having read that a father who killed his child/children got off lightly due to mental illness. Whereas I've read of plenty of mothers who have.

If the statistics prove such a lopsided unbalance then I wonder why the leniency?

I don't have any statistics to refer to but don't recall ever having read that a father who killed his child/children got off lightly due to mental illness. 

That proves nothing.

If the statistics prove such a lopsided unbalance then I wonder why the leniency?

Why not try to find the statistics before speculating.

Hmmm, no mention of the father in all this.

Either way, whether it was merely stress, a pre existing mental illness or outright insanity, the response of the mother was to kill an innocent child. No amount of rehabilitation or punishment will eliminate the potential for that reaction to occur again. As such this person has no place in society and should be jailed or institutionalized for life. No excuses for killing a child and dont blame the father either.

mental health issue, no normal mother would do that

Raw BeerToday 03:54 pm JSTHmmm, no mention of the father in all this.

Maybe she's a single mother, maybe divorced.

As such this person has no place in society and should be jailed or institutionalized for life. No excuses for killing a child and dont blame the father either.

If the father were around he'd deserve some blame. Since there's no mention of him even being around at all - period then he deserves no blame because he had nothing to do with this. And there's never an excuse for killing a child - EVER. No matter what, there's NO justifying such an ugly act like that and NO defending it.

As such this person has no place in society and should be jailed or institutionalized for life. 

Mental health is is not a crime.

some added info from Mainichi:

Officers at Sumiyoshi Police Station in Osaka Prefecture said Sekimoto had told others around her that she was mentally unstable and was worried about raising her child. A relative of her 36-year-old husband told the Mainichi Shimbun, "There was one time when she had neurosis or something like that after giving birth, but I heard that she was already better."

Also

Police said Sekimoto lived with her husband and daughter as a family of three.

Seems like this was a mental issue that wasn't treated in time. Furthermore, I think this issue also relates to how Japanese view mental illnesses and would rather push it under the rug. I definitely don't condone what she did and she should pay the consequences of her actions.