Adge Cutler Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) If he is mentally deranged he will no doubt be serving time in the applicable establishment, getting treatment, warm and well fed. If he's not he will go to a max and unless he is in solitary there's a distinct chance another inmate will get at him. So in his mind it could be a question of life or death. Insane or not I struggle to find a reason to keep people like this alive at the public expense. Makes me weep when I think of that poor woman. Edited November 17, 2016 by Adge Cutler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) I'm more intrigued why he's not being referred to as a terrorist. Because he isn't a terrorist. He is not of a sound mind, which is why hanging him from the nearest tree ( which i don't have a problem with BTW) will not deter another person of the same deranged mind doing the same. Chris Bbs point was valid. From his point he is sane and sensible and what he did was right. Edited November 17, 2016 by keg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 If he is mentally deranged he will no doubt be serving time in the applicable establishment, getting treatment, warm and well fed. If he's not he will go to a max and unless he is in solitary there's a distinct chance another inmate will get at him. So in his mind it could be a question of life or death. Insane or not I struggle to find a reason to keep people like this alive at the public expense. Makes me weep when I think of that poor woman. You've obviously not see the strain on mental health resources and the amount of people with MH illnesses in the criminal system then! Could go either way if they're omitting his past medical history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big bad lindz Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 length of rope and nearest tree and nothing else can be better but that sounds medieval but some time would be a good deterrant for the scumbags of this day and age too many do gooders and lawyers making mega bucks defending the guilty +1 on that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Bu Le Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 Regardless of his plea (not guilty (without mitigation)) he is going to one of two establishments. Either max security prison or a secure hospital for the criminally insane and hopefully for a very long time. Problem with the latter is at some future time he could be declared 'cured' and released, as long as he takes his medication of course............oh yea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 Because he isn't a terrorist. He is not of a sound mind, which is why hanging him from the nearest tree ( which i don't have a problem with BTW) will not deter another person of the same deranged mind doing the same. Chris Bbs point was valid. From his point he is sane and sensible and what he did was right. He's of sound enough mind to get hold of all the gear he needed to commit his depraved crime, I literally wouldn't know how to do that. He planned the whole thing and he spent months if not years being radicalised on the net, had he been a different shade there is no question the word terrorist would have been synonymous with his capture. If he was soooo crazy how come he managed to form and articulate such views and then act on them ? All terrorists kill in a manner which defies belief, doesn't mean they're mentally ill or at least not to the degree it absolves them of responsibility or in any way deserving of pity. The same thing can be seen over in America at the moment, home grown terrorists are quickly labelled things like lone wolf or mentally unstable. Change the colour and all hell breaks loose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 "He did it because he is as mad as a box of frogs, he has a history of mental health issues and seems to be obsessed by different factions. There is no big hidden reason why he has not entered a plea except he is deranged................... .......And so concludes the case for the defence M'Lud" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 He's of sound enough mind to get hold of all the gear he needed to commit his depraved crime, I literally wouldn't know how to do that. He planned the whole thing and he spent months if not years being radicalised on the net, had he been a different shade there is no question the word terrorist would have been synonymous with his capture. If he was soooo crazy how come he managed to form and articulate such views and then act on them ? All terrorists kill in a manner which defies belief, doesn't mean they're mentally ill or at least not to the degree it absolves them of responsibility or in any way deserving of pity. The same thing can be seen over in America at the moment, home grown terrorists are quickly labelled things like lone wolf or mentally unstable. Change the colour and all hell breaks loose. +1 the fact he was able to source an apparently illegal firearm would suggest he has some criminal links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 The problem when we had hanging for murder was that the really nasty people who did the worst things to people would not be hung as they would say that they was mad as no person in there rite mind could or would do something like that. Then you would get the person who was not really bad but did something stupid and ended up killing someone they would be hung now I am not saying that they should not be hung I think both of them should be hung . Looking at it another way which of the two are the most lightly to do it again the one who just lost control and did something stupid or the one with a voice in his/her head telling them to kill someone and which one would be the one who was allowed out to kill again not the one that I would want to meet in the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 The problem when we had hanging for murder was that the really nasty people who did the worst things to people would not be hung as they would say that they was mad as no person in there rite mind could or would do something like that. Then you would get the person who was not really bad but did something stupid and ended up killing someone they would be hung now I am not saying that they should not be hung I think both of them should be hung . Looking at it another way which of the two are the most lightly to do it again the one who just lost control and did something stupid or the one with a voice in his/her head telling them to kill someone and which one would be the one who was allowed out to kill again not the one that I would want to meet in the street. How do you know that's what the problem was ? I do wonder if you just make up everything you say... Someone having voices telling them to kill people used to be sent to a 'lunatic asylum' not hanged! They are so much more likely to be a danger to themselves not anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 The problem when we had hanging for murder was that the really nasty people who did the worst things to people would not be hung as they would say that they was mad as no person in there rite mind could or would do something like that. Then you would get the person who was not really bad but did something stupid and ended up killing someone they would be hung now I am not saying that they should not be hung I think both of them should be hung . Looking at it another way which of the two are the most lightly to do it again the one who just lost control and did something stupid or the one with a voice in his/her head telling them to kill someone and which one would be the one who was allowed out to kill again not the one that I would want to meet in the street. Like you said hang them both. If you had a dog that savaged everyone you'd put it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 How do you know that's what the problem was ? I do wonder if you just make up everything you say... Someone having voices telling them to kill people used to be sent to a 'lunatic asylum' not hanged! They are so much more likely to be a danger to themselves not anyone else. It would seem that you do not understanding what I said I suggest that you look at what I said instead of just blurting out the first stupid thing that comes in to you head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 It would seem that you do not understanding what I said I suggest that you look at what I said instead of just blurting out the first stupid thing that comes in to you head. Perhaps if you could string a functional sentence and paragraph together there would be less opportunity for people to 'mis-understand' you?! You seem to be mis-understood in almost every thread you post in. 🙄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston72 Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 Cheers for the info! I suppose then they will decide whether they will section the guy and put him in a secure placement or decide that he is fit to stand trial and send him to prison! would he not have had some sort of assessment to be deemed fit to stand trial? cant think of anyone specific but I'm pretty sure people have been assessed as unfit to stand trial so logically speaking there must be some sort of assesment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveboy Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper) was found Guilty of murder then found to be mad as a box of frogs. Sent to Broadmoor for 32 years and then found to be sane Now back in a prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston72 Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 Keyboard mishap, I didn't mean for you to look at it form a different viewpoint, I meant that I was looking at it from a different viewpoint. I, too, think he's insane but that insanity will mean to him that what he did was right. I DON'T. But in these "enlightened" times we have to allow for mental issues. Apparently. Sits right with me too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 would he not have had some sort of assessment to be deemed fit to stand trial? cant think of anyone specific but I'm pretty sure people have been assessed as unfit to stand trial so logically speaking there must be some sort of assesment I guess it depends on who's calling the shots! The difference you can get depending on which area you are in, who picks up your case, the doctors / staff you have and I imagine the publicity factor of this case are all playing a role in what is going on at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston72 Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 Peter Sutcliffe (Yorkshire Ripper) was found Guilty of murder then found to be mad as a box of frogs. Sent to Broadmoor for 32 years and then found to be sane Now back in a prison. Ditto Charles Bronson, Robert Maudsley,Ronald Kray and countless others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 I'm more intrigued why he is pleading not guilty to every charge. He was probably advised to plead not guilty so the court gets a good chance to see he is totally bonkers and takes it into consideration. Lets be fair, he's never going to get off is he? Its good for the lawyers to have a nice long drawn out public trial. The last thing they want is a quick guilty plea and all over by lunchtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bb Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 He was probably advised to plead not guilty so the court gets a good chance to see he is totally bonkers and takes it into consideration. Lets be fair, he's never going to get off is he? Its good for the lawyers to have a nice long drawn out public trial. The last thing they want is a quick guilty plea and all over by lunchtime. If he pleaded guilty but insane or words to that effect would there not still be a trial to decide upon his insanity or otherwise? But, as you say, it wouldn't do the legal profession any good at all if all guilty people pleaded guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 But, as you say, it wouldn't do the legal profession any good at all if all guilty people pleaded guilty.I don't know how these defence solicitors/barasters sleep at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 I don't know how these defence solicitors/barasters sleep at night. Very nicely in very expensive beds. Nobody who did what he did can be judged as sane. They don't need a week long trial at the Old Bailey to work that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 (edited) Pics on the BBC, if I'm not mistaken a sawn off CZ, pathology reports suggests an 'expanding bullet', shot through her hands into her head. I've wept, what a tradegy. What a waste of a loving mother. Edited November 18, 2016 by kyska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 Follow a criminally aided solicitor and barrister around for a few days. It is a pretty miserable job. Everyone deserves to be represented, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the basics of proper justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 Follow a criminally aided solicitor and barrister around for a few days. It is a pretty miserable job. Everyone deserves to be represented, anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't understand the basics of proper justice. There are some who abuse the privilege. I personally don't see why career criminals receive free legal aid every time they are arrested. Another thing is that many criminal solicitors now employ non-qualified staff to sit in the initial interviews with some clients. Saves them being called out of bed in the wee small hours as used to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts