- Nov 15, 2006
- 4,628
- Thread starter
- #21
If only we had mob rule. Everything would be so much simpler <sigh>
So disagreeing with a verdict means I want mob rule? I think I might have a little <sigh> here as well
If only we had mob rule. Everything would be so much simpler <sigh>
What evidence is there that this guy didn’t actually murder anyone in Nottingham?
He was also caught on camera wasn’t he? What a silly comparison.
Firstly, these people weren't murdered. Secondly, I am not being sympathetic towards the killer.I wonder where you’d stand if it was your kids or parents who’d been murdered. I doubt you’d be sympathetic in any way towards the killer.
Re: the real trial, I voted murder - yes, with diminished responsibility, so incarceration in a (very) secure mental institution, certainly - but he didn't kill them accidentally, so more than manslaughter in my book.
Exactly - when he tried to murder someone, it was attempted murder - so as far as I'm concerned, when he succeeded in actually killing someone, it was murder. Was his state of mind different when he tried to kill but didn't quite manage it?
Help me here, he pleaded guilty to attempting to murder three people but the ones he did manage to murder was manslaughter? How does that work then?
Can you attempt manslaughter?Help me here, he pleaded guilty to attempting to murder three people but the ones he did manage to murder was manslaughter? How does that work then?
And you appear not to understand the idea that attempted murder, which is unsuccessful (in terms of killing someone), turns into manslaughter when successful basically defies all logic. Yeh, it might be a quirk of the legal system. Big deal, but still stupid.You have no idea what the law is do you. You clearly don't understand it at all.
Attempt implies intention - so yes, in Voluntary manslaughter and also in an attempted murder charge (ie the intent to kill) which is then reduced to a manslaughter conviction in sentencing because of a partial defence (eg diminished responsibility, loss of control)Can you attempt manslaughter?
No it doesn’t mean that at all - it means they will still be charged with murder but have their sentencing reduced to a manslaughter conviction through diminished responsibility (the burden of proof is on the defence)This must mean that someone diagnosed with Paranoid Schizophrenia can’t murder people
And you appear not to understand the idea that attempted murder, which is unsuccessful (in terms of killing someone), turns into manslaughter when successful basically defies all logic.
Yeh, it might be a quirk of the legal system. Big deal, but still stupid.
Ok and thank you for your brief yet articulate replyNo it doesn’t mean that at all - it means they will still be charged with murder but have their sentencing reduced to a manslaughter conviction through diminished responsibility
They could also murder someone when not suffering from their condition.No it doesn’t mean that at all - it means they will still be charged with murder but have their sentencing reduced to a manslaughter conviction through diminished responsibility (the burden of proof is on the defence)
Well said. A terrible situation all round.I've worked with many people diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia (some forensic patients, people with a mental disorder who are currently undergoing, or have previously undergone, legal or court proceedings). Terrible illness, often misunderstood because of awful cases like this one. How this chap was detained under the MH act and released after a short period with meds to self-administer, again and again, is a terrible indication of the state of MH services in the country. Many people will be blamed, likely working in under funded and under staffed services (with extremely high sickness absence levels), with huge case loads and unsympathetic bosses and an unsympathetic public. This incident of an awful murder probably could have been avoided, certainly should have been avoided. I have great sympathy for the victims - wrong place at the wrong time, incredibly incredibly unlucky - their family, the staff who tried to keep track of him and the killer himself (who should never have been living in the community).
I've worked with many people diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia (some forensic patients, people with a mental disorder who are currently undergoing, or have previously undergone, legal or court proceedings). Terrible illness, often misunderstood because of awful cases like this one. How this chap was detained under the MH act and released after a short period with meds to self-administer, again and again, is a terrible indication of the state of MH services in the country. Many people will be blamed, likely working in under funded and under staffed services (with extremely high sickness absence levels), with huge case loads and unsympathetic bosses and an unsympathetic public. This incident of an awful murder probably could have been avoided, certainly should have been avoided. I have great sympathy for the victims - wrong place at the wrong time, incredibly incredibly unlucky - their family, the staff who tried to keep track of him and the killer himself (who should never have been living in the community).
Every trial is unique, and has to be judged on evidence alone. I’m not sure why that needs spelling out.It's almost as if this harrowing case can't be boiled down to 6 words by a bunch of non criminal lawyers who weren't in court throughout the trial.
I'm happy that verdicts aren't reached by social media polls.So disagreeing with a verdict means I want mob rule? I think I might have a little <sigh> here as well