Good Old British Justice!
- Thread starter fozzybear
- Start date
Man of Honour
cleanbluesky said:
Yes.
It takes a man off the street who has killed a woman in a frenzied knife attack. The fact he was convicted on the grounds of diminished responsibility does not mean a thing.
Don't send him to prison, give him a suspended sentence. The possibility exists where he could get into another relationship and the same could happen again. While there is a risk, he must be in custody.
Soldato
ACPCUP said:
Fixed.
Associate
Visage said:
I didn't.
You said it was a question of punishment if you negate the fact he went a bit loopy, then I asked you if you thought 30 months was the correct amount of punishment.
Calm down.
Von Smallhausen said:
It means that if the mental grounds for the killing were removed, there would be no need to incarcerate him on the grounds of risk of re-offence. Other grounds, yes, but not those. Your statement is predicated on the assumption that if he was on the outside he'd be a re-offending risk.
Diminished responsibility defenses arent a case of the defendant (or his defense) simply saying 'Sorry, I went a bit mental. Wont do it again....' They're based on an in depth psychological study of the defendant, along with a comprehensive risk assessment. But obviously you know better......
But he didn't murder anyone. A court said so. And murder is, after all, a legal definition. And the court was there, and saw all the evidence. Were you?Pinkeyes said:
Or are we supposed to just lynch people on the basis of newspaper reports and an emotive response, and call it justice?
Associate
daz said:
A screw loose / Depressed or not. The guy stabbed he wife many times because she had an affair. Either way, I would prefer him not to be walking the streets in 19 months time.
The guy needs locking up (with medical help or not) for longer than that !
On the basis of "claiming" DR, no. On the basis of extensive testing and sufficient evidence of it, you would find an otherwise proven murder conviction reduced to manslaughter, yes. But you can still get life for manslaughter - it just isn't mandatory like it is for murder.Cueball said:
Associate
Sequoia said:
Well it depends on how you look at it I guess. I wouldn't say that BBC report was biased in any way - just stating the facts.
Without any medical conditions, I would be amazed if that wouldn't have been called murder.
With the medical conditions, call it what you want - the guy shouldn't be walking free so soon.
Soldato
thats harsh. sounds like a very unbalanced individual who needs psychological help, perhaps maybe anger management classes. all paid for by the tax payer of course!
afraser2k said:
Two wrongs don't make a right!
There've been quite a few cases where I've read newspaper reports, then read Court records. For instance, several appeal court decisions where the actual decision is published (and available on the web).Pinkeyes said:
What I've found, in just about every single case, is that even where a relatively unbiased organ such as Auntie Beeb is reporting, the reports are, at the very least, curtailed and somewhat superficial. This is because legal decisions are often complex. They rely on this point of law, and that, and the difference between this point and that.
My bet would be that a good percentage of the time, the journalist writing an article, BBC or not, neither understands the full implications of how the decision was reached, nor probably had the time to read it (because judges can be VERY long-winded).
Therefore, even in a reputable journal doing their sincere and honest best to be unbiased, what you'll get is a sound-bite, not a speech. It'll be a very simplistic overview. And at worst, you get a diatribe designed to further an agenda, even if that agenda is simply to be inflamatory enough to sell a few more papers.
Which brings me back to my original point - unless you (or I) were in court, it's dangerous to second-guess the people that were.
As for the medical issue, how do we decide whether he was, and/or still is, suffering from a medical condition? Do we decide for ourselves, or do we hear from medical experts on BOTH sides, and try to reach a fair balance? The judge will be doing the latter.
Now, suppose those medical experts testified that while this bloke WAS suffering from a medical condition at the time of the offence, he no longer is. Further suppose that this means he is no longer a danger to society. And finally, suppose you're the judge.
How do you determine sentence? Do you consider what he did, his state of mind at the time, and then try to decide on a punishment that is reasonable in the light of all the evidence before you? Or do you just decide to throw the ******* in a cell and drop the key in the river, DESPITE expert medical testimony that he is no longer a danger to anyone else?
If he's no longer a danger, then locking him away to protect the public is no longer an issue. He still needs to be punished, but surely that punishment should reflect his state of mind at the time? If he was suffering from a medical condition (and perhaps even under drugs), does that not affect things? Ever known someone that was normally a mild and friendly person, but that turned into someone that could snap and snarl at nothing? I have and the drug was Interferon, prescribed for cancer treatment.
My point, as I guess is clear, is that while a sentence may SEEM unreasonably light (and I'll grant you, it does), without having seen and heard all the evidence, we aren't really in a position to judge and NO newspaper report, however well-being and unbiased, has the space to present anything even close to a complete account. And if they did, almost nobody would read it.
Associate
Nicely put Sequoia 
And yes, I couldn't agree more that the reporting of cases does little to show the *ACTUAL* depth of legal argument and any mitigating factors - simply, there is too little information to base a conclusive decision as to whether he has got off lightly or not.
And yes, I couldn't agree more that the reporting of cases does little to show the *ACTUAL* depth of legal argument and any mitigating factors - simply, there is too little information to base a conclusive decision as to whether he has got off lightly or not.
Christ... This guy was a parent at my school!
I remember my sister saying that this girl's mother had been killed, and she'd gone home. The father said it was a robbery. Then a few days later the police arrested the father.
I'd never heard how he'd actually killed her - I sort of forgot about it.
I remember my sister saying that this girl's mother had been killed, and she'd gone home. The father said it was a robbery. Then a few days later the police arrested the father.
I'd never heard how he'd actually killed her - I sort of forgot about it.
Sequoia said:
If he didn't plan to kill his wife, then why did he keep the kitchen knife in a bedside cabinet? Luckily it just happened to be there when he sliced and diced his wife in their bedroom.
It all sounds very convenient to me.