currently, the way this works is that the woman will be declared not guilty - or not criminally responsible - if the defense can demonstrate that she wasn't capable of forming intent. but who cares? how does that have any relevance in determining how dangerous this woman clearly is to the people around her?
a modern system of science-based law would flip the logic over and instead order her to be permanently incarcerated with no chance of parole if it can be demonstrated that she lacks the capacity to form intent, because there would be no way to mitigate the threat she poses to the community around her.
it's not that the question of intent isn't of continuing value in law. it is. but this ancient medieval system of dominance and submission, that is difficult for modern people to even understand at all, doesn't interact well with what the science says. the science is relatively clear that this woman is very likely to repeat offend and that she's never going to be fully capable of rehabilitating. the system of law was devised in an era where these analyses and determinations were not of any consideration and the only real issue before the judge was whether you obeyed the king's orders.
the system is reformable. it doesn't need to be redesigned from scratch, and it has good foundations. however, cases like this demonstrate the need for the system to update itself to make the law more reactive to the science and less reactive to medieval concepts of social control through implied violence and the assertion of physical dominance.
submission to the king is not a real-world concern here, but it's still what the law is in truth actually about.