What's Going On In Nottingham?
Discussion
In my admittedly peripheral experience it can be a lot harder to get out when under a mental health order than prison, whole life tariffs being an obvious exception. I'm not saying this guy has played the system but those that do try the mental health card can find a straight guilty plea would have seen them out sooner.
durbster said:
mac96 said:
oddman said:
For those who are struggling to understand the decisions made in regard to whether he had criminal responsibility for the offences and the rationale for a hospital order, the Judge's sentencing remarks can be found here
To me these remarks are a model of clarity and compassion - well worth reading beyond the headlines to get a greater understanding of the hows and whys of dealing with these difficult cases.
Thanks for posting that, very interesting.To me these remarks are a model of clarity and compassion - well worth reading beyond the headlines to get a greater understanding of the hows and whys of dealing with these difficult cases.
It may be obvious, but I didn't know that a huge downside of a prison sentence would be the prospect of eventual release into the supervision of the Probation Service who would naturally be totally unqualified to asses his mental state and spot signs of deterioration. So meaning that reoffending would be more likely .
I sincerely hope the sentence is appealed and is successful to protect any future victims.
Let's not forget if he is released any mental health service staff that deals with him will be in real danger.
FiF said:
"Hey guys, even though it'll never happen, here's what the law theoretically says. Shall I write it as a headline to get it shared and funnel traffic to our paid service landing page?" FiF said:
Normal modern DT click hate for the frothers. I assume an initial review after 3 years is standard. Cannot see any medical professional letting him out after 3 years.Hugo Stiglitz said:
Which for me, forms why the judgement fails as it is merely paying lip service to the many victims and fails to protect (or put in place) protective orders to prevent what will be an extremely dangerous offender who has killed and will kill again.
I sincerely hope the sentence is appealed and is successful to protect any future victims.
Let's not forget if he is released any mental health service staff that deals with him will be in real danger.
Except the judge has no right to put in the judgement any provisions on his future care. He will now be held in a secure unit. A judge has no expertise in his condition of his potential for treatment. So can make no recommendations that's for the professionalsI sincerely hope the sentence is appealed and is successful to protect any future victims.
Let's not forget if he is released any mental health service staff that deals with him will be in real danger.
Mrr T said:
FiF said:
Normal modern DT click hate for the frothers. I assume an initial review after 3 years is standard. Cannot see any medical professional letting him out after 3 years.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/26/no...
Mrr T said:
FiF said:
Normal modern DT click hate for the frothers. I assume an initial review after 3 years is standard. Cannot see any medical professional letting him out after 3 years.Hugo Stiglitz said:
Which for me, forms why the judgement fails as it is merely paying lip service to the many victims and fails to protect (or put in place) protective orders to prevent what will be an extremely dangerous offender who has killed and will kill again.
I sincerely hope the sentence is appealed and is successful to protect any future victims.
Let's not forget if he is released any mental health service staff that deals with him will be in real danger.
Except the judge has no right to put in the judgement any provisions on his future care. He will now be held in a secure unit. A judge has no expertise in his condition of his potential for treatment. So can make no recommendations that's for the professionalsI sincerely hope the sentence is appealed and is successful to protect any future victims.
Let's not forget if he is released any mental health service staff that deals with him will be in real danger.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Mrr T said:
FiF said:
Normal modern DT click hate for the frothers. I assume an initial review after 3 years is standard. Cannot see any medical professional letting him out after 3 years.Hugo Stiglitz said:
Which for me, forms why the judgement fails as it is merely paying lip service to the many victims and fails to protect (or put in place) protective orders to prevent what will be an extremely dangerous offender who has killed and will kill again.
I sincerely hope the sentence is appealed and is successful to protect any future victims.
Let's not forget if he is released any mental health service staff that deals with him will be in real danger.
Except the judge has no right to put in the judgement any provisions on his future care. He will now be held in a secure unit. A judge has no expertise in his condition of his potential for treatment. So can make no recommendations that's for the professionalsI sincerely hope the sentence is appealed and is successful to protect any future victims.
Let's not forget if he is released any mental health service staff that deals with him will be in real danger.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crow...
MrBogSmith said:
Anyone can ask for the sentence to be reviewed under the UL scheme.
The UL scheme, as I understand it and as someone who used it resulting in a sentence increase, is to correct incorrect sentences. I'm not sure it can change the fundamental offences.
Therefore I don't see how anyone can conclude this isn't correct given evidence provided from the 5 expert witnesses.
I suspect he'll be detained indefinitely.Un f
king believable.
This country is shot to st.I assume this isn't a parody post given the nature of the topic.
This isn't something new across criminal justice systems across the world. It's long been acknowledged that that some people may not have the capacity to go down the usual route of a normal prison.
If the evidence leads to a conclusion of severe-enough mental health issues (it's a very high threshold, despite that people have implied here), then that's the appropriate route to take.
It may, understandably, not be a satisfactory outcome for the family, but we either have the option to place extremely dangerous, seriously mentally ill offenders in secure hospitals / facilities, or not. And if we do, which we do, then they will be used.
It's been in its modern form, IIRC, since 1957.
Your reply to my message doesn't make sense.The UL scheme, as I understand it and as someone who used it resulting in a sentence increase, is to correct incorrect sentences. I'm not sure it can change the fundamental offences.
Therefore I don't see how anyone can conclude this isn't correct given evidence provided from the 5 expert witnesses.
119 said:
MrBogSmith said:
Square Leg said:
Manslaughter then..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamsh...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamsh...
Not a big surprise given his MH history. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamsh...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamsh...
I suspect he'll be detained indefinitely.
king believable.This country is shot to s
t.This isn't something new across criminal justice systems across the world. It's long been acknowledged that that some people may not have the capacity to go down the usual route of a normal prison.
If the evidence leads to a conclusion of severe-enough mental health issues (it's a very high threshold, despite that people have implied here), then that's the appropriate route to take.
It may, understandably, not be a satisfactory outcome for the family, but we either have the option to place extremely dangerous, seriously mentally ill offenders in secure hospitals / facilities, or not. And if we do, which we do, then they will be used.
gt_12345 said:
Every criminal has a mental illness if you look hard enough.
Should we stop jailing people because they're narcissists?
No, this isn't something new. Should we stop jailing people because they're narcissists?
It's been in its modern form, IIRC, since 1957.
I'm saying most criminals have some mental illness, so none should go to prison??
gt_12345 said:
Your reply to my message doesn't make sense.
I'm saying most criminals have some mental illness, so none should go to prison??
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm saying most criminals have some mental illness, so none should go to prison??
They do, but it's about the magnitude of the mental illness and the legal thresholds.
Most people, both criminal and not, who have MH issues have capacity to make and understand their decisions.
A small minority of people have such severe mental health issues / illness, that they don't have the capacity to make decisions / understand what they are doing.
The law has a high threshold for this to be satisfied and only a small minority of people are sentenced to be detained in secure hospitals rather than prison.
The points I am trying to make is this isn't anything new, it's not a flippant / common decision the courts make, and there's not a 'mental health' card that criminals can easily 'play' in order to be detained in a hospital rather than prison. Indeed, most people who try to raise these partial defences (diminshed responsibility etc ) fail.
oddman said:
ajap1979 said:
Louis Balfour said:
I seem to recall that Earthdweller IS plod.
Wow. That’s a little worrying. The cerebral pole of the criminal justice system is demonstrated by the cogent sentencing remarks of the Judge which I posted upthread.
I'm not sure what's so impressive about the judge's reasoning. He seems to have gone down a psychiatric rabbit hole and lost sight of the fact that this is a violent maniac who randomly killed innocent people in the street. Of course he had mental health problems. It seems a bit redundant to say it. Let alone at such length. He can be cured, managed or taken out and shot for all I care, he should never see the light of day again.
Mrr T said:
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Mrr T said:
FiF said:
Normal modern DT click hate for the frothers. I assume an initial review after 3 years is standard. Cannot see any medical professional letting him out after 3 years.Hugo Stiglitz said:
Which for me, forms why the judgement fails as it is merely paying lip service to the many victims and fails to protect (or put in place) protective orders to prevent what will be an extremely dangerous offender who has killed and will kill again.
I sincerely hope the sentence is appealed and is successful to protect any future victims.
Let's not forget if he is released any mental health service staff that deals with him will be in real danger.
Except the judge has no right to put in the judgement any provisions on his future care. He will now be held in a secure unit. A judge has no expertise in his condition of his potential for treatment. So can make no recommendations that's for the professionalsI sincerely hope the sentence is appealed and is successful to protect any future victims.
Let's not forget if he is released any mental health service staff that deals with him will be in real danger.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crow...
I question whether he was just mad or both mad and bad. When he was caught he suddenly had the clarity to give him self up to force. Whereas when there was no threat to himself (unarmed targets) he used insanity defence. The clarity was selective for self preservation.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Mrr T said:
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Mrr T said:
FiF said:
Normal modern DT click hate for the frothers. I assume an initial review after 3 years is standard. Cannot see any medical professional letting him out after 3 years.Hugo Stiglitz said:
Which for me, forms why the judgement fails as it is merely paying lip service to the many victims and fails to protect (or put in place) protective orders to prevent what will be an extremely dangerous offender who has killed and will kill again.
I sincerely hope the sentence is appealed and is successful to protect any future victims.
Let's not forget if he is released any mental health service staff that deals with him will be in real danger.
Except the judge has no right to put in the judgement any provisions on his future care. He will now be held in a secure unit. A judge has no expertise in his condition of his potential for treatment. So can make no recommendations that's for the professionalsI sincerely hope the sentence is appealed and is successful to protect any future victims.
Let's not forget if he is released any mental health service staff that deals with him will be in real danger.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crow...
I question whether he was just mad or both mad and bad. When he was caught he suddenly had the clarity to give him self up to force. Whereas when there was no threat to himself (unarmed targets) he used insanity defence. The clarity was selective for self preservation.
Regardless of the above do we have any confidence, looking at the previous track records of him and various authorities that in the probably very remote event of a future positive assessment that on release or even temporary trial outings that monitoring would be sufficient?
Clearly a difficult one but opinions may vary. Btw I've sat in court and listened to a "It woz the voices in me 'ead guvnor" attempt at a defence.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff