• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

feck feck feck

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by WotNxt
    Ignoring the quip about "righteous revenge", why should insanity be a get out clause for criminal activity? The conviction should be the same regardless of of sanity/insanity and then the sentence reflect it in whether the convicted is sent to ordinary prison or a secure treatment centre. The length of sentence ought to be at least as long for the insane if not longer if they need to be "cured" (if possible) before release so as to protect the public.

    I'm getting really quite sick of people speaking up for perpetrators' rights and ignoring the victims rights (already violated by the perp!) and the dangers these perps present to society.
    Insanity as a defence to murder is very very rarely sucessful. More common is murder being reduced to manslaughter through diminshed responsibility. Take the case of a schizophrenic whose condition is poorly managed by the health services or which should have been sectioned but isn't. They kill someone under a delusion. The courts will find their responsibility for their actions is diminished (but not removed) by their illness, hence manslughter. Insanity would be a complete defence as the person is in no way responsible for their actions (although whethere they'll ever get out of a secure mental hospital or not is a different matter). Anyway, I'm not a lawyer so spologies if any of the details are wrong.

    Also, I'm not saying this applies to this man - time will tell, I'm sure and justice may or may not be served as always.

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by Old Greg
      Also, I'm not saying this applies to this man - time will tell, I'm sure and justice may or may not be served as always.
      If there were justice he would be beaten to a pulp. Mind you a few decades in the scrubs might be good - prefrably with nasher from 'E' wing - he's always looking for a pretty cellmate...

      Comment


        #23
        Originally posted by Old Greg
        Insanity as a defence to murder is very very rarely sucessful. More common is murder being reduced to manslaughter through diminshed responsibility. Take the case of a schizophrenic whose condition is poorly managed by the health services or which should have been sectioned but isn't. They kill someone under a delusion. The courts will find their responsibility for their actions is diminished (but not removed) by their illness, hence manslughter. Insanity would be a complete defence as the person is in no way responsible for their actions (although whethere they'll ever get out of a secure mental hospital or not is a different matter). Anyway, I'm not a lawyer so spologies if any of the details are wrong.

        Also, I'm not saying this applies to this man - time will tell, I'm sure and justice may or may not be served as always.
        Regardless of the insanity or the dimished responsibility of the perpertrator, the effects on the victim and their family, friends, colleagues and society as a whole is pretty much the same.

        I say let the punishment fit the crime not the criminal.

        Comment


          #24
          Old Greg,

          agreed with the old diminished responsibility gambit but..............

          In this case old mate "child killer" was a shining normal corporate **** wit who showed clear and perfect capability in his job an normal course of affairs......

          until he did this, and why ?

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by barely_pointless
            Old Greg,

            agreed with the old diminished responsibility gambit but..............

            In this case old mate "child killer" was a shining normal corporate **** wit who showed clear and perfect capability in his job an normal course of affairs......

            until he did this, and why ?
            Well, I wasn't trying to apply this to this this guy. Just trying to help clarify the insanity business. Seeing as all we have at the moment is media reports, I'll form my own judgement later (although as has been said earlier, I'm immediately suspicious that a rich banker might be able to swing the evidence to suit his defence).

            Comment


              #26
              Fsck me, the guy snapped and killed his daughter, and he's now on suicide watch.

              Oh, that's right - nobody on here's ever said or did anything that they immediately regretted, you're all perfect in every way.

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by meridian
                Fsck me, the guy snapped and killed his daughter, and he's now on suicide watch.

                Oh, that's right - nobody on here's ever said or did anything that they immediately regretted, you're all perfect in every way.
                No, no spit-flecked, puce-coloured, quivering examples of barely-pent-up, volcanic rage on here. Defintiely not.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by meridian
                  Oh, that's right - nobody on here's ever said or did anything that they immediately regretted, ...
                  Well, yes, I have, actually. However, I have never killed anyone with my bare hands ... which I guess must be just by sheer luck then - as i am certainly not perfect!

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X