6 years for a life??

walshb

There's something seriously wrong in this country. Mad, bad, insane, diminshed this that or the other, surely a life is worth more than 6 years?
He bludgeoned her with a lump hammer and stabbed her dozens of times with a scissors

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0618/odwyerm.html

flogen

hmm... moved to Legal Discussion (mods, feel free to bounce back if not suitable)

Our man in Havana

After hours or polictics tbh.

johnnyskeleton

What do you suggest?

How do you measure these things?

walshb

johnnyskeleton wrote:

What do you suggest?

How do you measure these things?

I was hoping I would get some suggestions on this sentence. That's why I posted. Personally I believe the guy should be kept away from society for a very long time, mental ilness or NOT, society needs protection from him.
I also believe he murdered the girl, not committed manslaughter as the jury awarded.

Hobart

walshb wrote:

....
I also believe he murdered the girl, not committed manslaughter as the jury awarded.

Committing murder and being found guilty of murder are two very different things. Without commenting on the specifics of the case, if a person is believed to have diminished responsibility and is found guilty of killing somebody well then it follows that he/she cannot be found guilty of murder (I'm open to correction on this, but this would be my reading of the it).

If the court believes that this person had diminished responsibility and did indeed take his sisters life, well then, manslaughter is the correct ruling in this circumstance.

With a guilty manslaughter verdict it then becomes the responsibility of the Judge to decide upon the appropriate sentence. He can impose anything from a suspended sentence to life for manslaughter.

Given the fact that I don't know the exact details of this crime, I could not really comment on the sentence given, but the length of this sentence for this type of crime, does not surprise me.

walshb

Hobart wrote:

Committing murder and being found guilty of murder are two very different things. Without commenting on the specifics of the case, if a person is believed to have diminished responsibility and is found guilty of killing somebody well then it follows that he/she cannot be found guilty of murder (I'm open to correction on this, but this would be my reading of the it).

If the court believes that this person had diminished responsibility and did indeed take his sisters life, well then, manslaughter is the correct ruling in this circumstance.

With a guilty manslaughter verdict it then becomes the responsibility of the Judge to decide upon the appropriate sentence. He can impose anything from a suspended sentence to life for manslaughter.

Given the fact that I don't know the exact details of this crime, I could not really comment on the sentence given, but the length of this sentence for this type of crime, does not surprise me.

Hobart, I'm with you on this one. Definitely here in Ireland there have been far too many people getting away with manslaughter verdicts when it's blatantly obvious to any sane person that they commited murder. That's the main problem I found with this case. He was definitely off his head IMO to do what he did, but what he did was he murdered a person, plain and simple and got off with murder because he was 'off his head'.....Like I said I believe he was off his head, but that doesn't make it manslaughter. He committed murder whilst off his head. Sorry but that's not good enough and he should be put away for a long long time

hullaballoo

This type of discussion is only really suited to tCN, in my opinion. However, I can't see amp taking kindly to it.

Moved to AH. Bake 'em away toys.

Zillah

Its not like this was a gang land killing or anything:

"A 21-year-old man has been sentenced to six years in prison for the manslaughter of his 17-year-old sister on the grounds of diminished responsibility."

"new legislation governing insanity came into force last year"

"[his Mother] said Patrick had had no control over events the night he killed his sister."

Call Me Jimmy

Zillah wrote:

"new legislation governing insanity came into force last year"

lol, that seems kind of funny to me. The guy was insane so he should be let back into society earlier???

chump

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

lol, that seems kind of funny to me. The guy was insane so he should be let back into society earlier???

Do you have any sympathy for him or his family?
Do you think he regrets what he did?
Do you see how it might be possible for someone to be rehabilitated?

Do you actually think?

Call Me Jimmy

chump wrote:

Do you actually think I am a smug prick?

Sure.

oneeyedsnake

I don't really think that people with mental illness should be treated any differently than normal sane people.If their meds aren't working and they are going around killing people then I am afraid that they should be locked yup for the rest of their life with no right to appeal.I mean look at it this way:if I was blind I couldn't rock up to ryanair headquaters and demand a job as a pilot,similary if if was paralysed I couldn't turn up to my local football club and say right lads I fancy the right wing.The fact is these people of psychotic and therefore have lost the right to live in society.

Dudess

walshb wrote:

I also believe he murdered the girl, not committed manslaughter as the jury awarded.

Surely in order for a killing to be deemed murder, there has to be evidence of premeditation. The guy was experiencing some kind of mental breakdown and he killed his sister during this "episode", so it couldn't have been premeditated. For that to be the case, he would have planned it well in advance, and according to those who assessed him, that wasn't the case. He went into the kitchen with the weapons and when his sister saw him, she laughed, thinking he was just messing around.

I don't think he should be sent to prison, surely that will only cause his already fragile mental health to deteriorate even more? I wonder why he isn't being sent to a secure psychiatric unit?

oneeyedsnake wrote:

I don't really think that people with mental illness should be treated any differently than normal sane people.If their meds aren't working and they are going around killing people then I am afraid that they should be locked yup for the rest of their life with no right to appeal.I mean look at it this way:if I was blind I couldn't rock up to ryanair headquaters and demand a job as a pilot,similary if if was paralysed I couldn't turn up to my local football club and say right lads I fancy the right wing.The fact is these people of psychotic and therefore have lost the right to live in society.

As long as attitudes like that exist, people with mental illnesses will continue to hide what they're going through due to a fear of speaking out, which means no treatment, which could lead to serious consequences.
Have you any familiarity with mental illness - for example, has it affected a loved one?

oneeyedsnake

Dudess wrote:

Surely in order for a killing to be deemed murder, there has to be evidence of premeditation. The guy was experiencing some kind of mental breakdown and he killed his sister during this "episode", so it couldn't have been premeditated. For that to be the case, he would have planned it well in advance, and according to those who assessed him, that wasn't the case. He went into the kitchen with the weapons and when his sister saw him, she laughed, thinking he was just messing around.

I don't think he should be sent to prison, surely that will only cause his already fragile mental health to deteriorate even more? I wonder why he isn't being sent to a secure psychiatric unit?



As long as attitudes like that exist, people with mental illnesses will continue to hide what they're going through due to a fear of speaking out, which means no treatment, which could lead to serious consequences.
Have you any familiarity with mental illness - for example, has it affected a loved one?

Yes I am familiar with mental illness. I am studying it as part of my degree and my grandfather died from complications associated with a mental illness.In some cases it is impossible to cure mental illnesses, much like it is impossible to cure AIDS. These people should be locked away from society, I know these sounds harsh but it is what is referred to as "tough ****". People are born everyday with disabilities which have varying consequences on how there lives pan out, for these psychotic individuals it unfortunately means a life time of sedatives and imprisonment.

G&T

Suppose the evidence from the family would be taken into consideration,
re. impact report.

They have already lost a daughter maybe they dont want their son to be put away for life.

His family will have to decide the best course of action for him when he is released,treatment at home or in an institution.

Im not sure if there are brothers or sisters still at home,
would be wary myself of letting him home,if it was a moment of madness who's to say it wouldn't happen again.

As odd as it seems the parents will probably do the right thing by him,
he is their child and he is sick.

Nermal

Dudess wrote:

Surely in order for a killing to be deemed murder, there has to be evidence of premeditation.

Gibberish. So I can kill anyone, so long as I don't plan it, and claim it was just a bit of a 'mental' episode?

The concept of 'diminished responsibility' is a cop-out. We are all fully responsible for our own actions, no matter what our mental state. He should be in a box for the rest of his life.

Dudess

Nermal, are YOU familiar with mental illness? For example, has it affected a loved one?

Nermal

Dudess wrote:

Nermal, are YOU familiar with mental illness? For example, has it affected a loved one?

Does it need to have in order for me to understand this case?

Dudess

Yep, because then you might understand the horror and trauma of severe psychiatric disorders for those who have to live with them - those directly affected, and their families.

The guy's own family don't believe he should be incarcerated.

"He should be in a box for the rest of his life" - stigma? What stigma? :rolleyes:

Nermal

Dudess wrote:

The guy's own family don't believe he should be incarcerated.

What relevance has that? If he killed me, would my family have say the same thing?

Dudess wrote:

"He should be in a box for the rest of his life" - stigma? What stigma? :rolleyes:

I'm not stigmatising people with mental illnesses, I'm stigmatising murderers. They should never return to society.

heyjude

G&T wrote:

Suppose the evidence from the family would be taken into consideration,
re. impact report.

They have already lost a daughter maybe they dont want their son to be put away for life.

His family will have to decide the best course of action for him when he is released,treatment at home or in an institution.

Im not sure if there are brothers or sisters still at home,
would be wary myself of letting him home,if it was a moment of madness who's to say it wouldn't happen again.

As odd as it seems the parents will probably do the right thing by him,
he is their child and he is sick.

His 6 year jail sentence dates from 30 November 2004, which means that even without remission/good behaviour/parole etc, he could be out in a little over 3 years, with remission he could be out next year.

And while I accept that his family aren't mental health professionals, it is unsettling that they will be making the decisions about what is best for him, they didn't take any action after his previous violent outbursts and left him on his own with his younger sister at the time of the killing.

If they look benignly on his actions in the future, then he could be left unsupervised and free to come and go as he pleases, as soon as he is released.

I sure wouldn't want this guy anywhere near any of my loved ones after his release. What if he has another episode ten years from now, last time he killed his beloved sister with no provocation, what would he do with a stranger ?

oneeyedsnake

Dudess wrote:

Nermal, are YOU familiar with mental illness? For example, has it affected a loved one?

It dosen't make any difference who is familiar with mental illness dudess.
The guy is a complete psycho:he smashed his own sister to death with a hammer!There is no way this guy can ever be let loose on the public again.The sentence is a disgrace and is just another example of how this country is going to complete pot.

chump

oneeyedsnake wrote:

It dosen't make any difference who is familiar with mental illness dudess.
The guy is a complete psycho:he smashed his own sister to death with a hammer!There is no way this guy can ever be let loose on the public again.The sentence is a disgrace and is just another example of how this country is going to complete pot.

So in summary you believe someone who suffers a mental episode/breakdown is incapable of redemption?

There is nothing that can be done to eliminate/diminish the likelihood of a further episode/breakdown?

That no system can be put in place to monitor their mental stability?

You believe all these things?

G&T

The more I think about it the more I think the judge has given the guy a 6 year sentence and the family a life sentance.

If he was to harm someone else they will feel they are to blame since they will be responsible for him on his release.

Dudess

I think there's a little confusion here. I agree that the sentence is too short. In my humble opinion, it appears he should be placed in a secure psychiatric unit for a much longer period of time (although for life, I don't know). What I have a problem with is people saying that those with mental illness should be treated the same way as those who are sane. I'm shocked at that attitude.

Nermal

chump wrote:

There is nothing that can be done to eliminate/diminish the likelihood of a further episode/breakdown?

Even if you can make the likelihood zero, he murdered someone. He didn't burgle a house, use harsh language or get a parking fine, he battered someone to death with a hammer. Why does he deserve another chance?

4Xcut

chump wrote:

Do you see how it might be possible for someone to be rehabilitated?

First i would like to state that i do believe it possible to rehabilitate some people. HOWEVER, prison is not rehabilitative. It is a psychological tool, designed to control people with fear. It uses the fear of usings one's liberty to scare people into not breaking the law. It was a job it did quite well untill sentences astarted becoming so lenient too i might add.

dregin

A guy stabbed a girl in Cavan some time last year (killing her) and apparently he's already out.

Nermal

Dudess wrote:

What I have a problem with is people saying that those with mental illness should be treated the same way as those who are sane. I'm shocked at that attitude.

In respect of their guilt, they should be the same, because they committed the same act. That the odd neuron was misfiring should not have a bearing on their sentence. If you wish him to spend the rest of his existence in a padded box rather than a box, that seems acceptable. So long as he never exits it.

G&T

I think they are talking about degree's of insanity,

Can a person who is insane be cured and no longer a threat?

If you have one insane moment should you be branded insane for life?

In this case I think he should be assesed further in a secure environment,more answers are needed.

oneeyedsnake

So in summary you believe someone who suffers a mental episode/breakdown is incapable of redemption?

Sometimes they are sometimes they are not,it depends on the individual and the circumstances surrounding and causes of their episode.

There is nothing that can be done to eliminate/diminish the likelihood of a further episode/breakdown?

After commiting such a horrendus crime anything less than elimination of the likelihood of a further episode is unacceptable.Is this realistic or achieveable?I have no idea I do not have the required qualification nor enough information about the murders mental history to answer this question and I doubt you do etheir.

That no system can be put in place to monitor their mental stability?

Yes,keep him in a mental institution,forever or until the likelyhood to reoffending is eliminated.

he should be placed in a secure psychiatric unit for a much longer period of time (although for life, I don't know)

I completely agree,When I mentioned life sentence in my previous posts I ment life in a mental institution not a prison.Whatever chance you have of salvaging the poor guys sanity your not going to acheive it in prison full of gougers

andrew

Nermal wrote:

In respect of their guilt, they should be the same, because they committed the same act. That the odd neuron was misfiring should not have a bearing on their sentence. If you wish him to spend the rest of his existence in a padded box rather than a box, that seems acceptable. So long as he never exits it.

The law can't be applied equally in every case, context has to be taken into account. A completely sane person, completely in control of all their faculties, who premeditates and carries out a murder, is not of the same order as a person with mental problems who has an episode and ends up killing someone. They aren't under their own control anymore - for example, if someone slipped you LSD and you went crazy and killed someone, would you believe that you were fully responsible for the crime committed? Its the same in this case - the guy simply couldn't control himself, and so his responsibility is deminished. I think he should be put into a psyc unit for a time (until he has been rehabilitated/can be controlled, if possible), and agree 6 years in prison is too leniant.


[edit] yup pretty much agree with you in your other post

RoundyMooney

Dudess wrote:

I think there's a little confusion here. I agree that the sentence is too short. In my humble opinion, it appears he should be placed in a secure psychiatric unit for a much longer period of time (although for life, I don't know). What I have a problem with is people saying that those with mental illness should be treated the same way as those who are sane. I'm shocked at that attitude.

Agree++

This is the nature of the beast when it comes to After Hours though, [Yoda]AH'ified, this thread has become[/Yoda]

Probably why it's one of my fave boards fora

oneeyedsnake

andrew wrote:

The law can't be applied equally in every case, context has to be taken into account. A completely sane person, completely in control of all their faculties, who premeditates and carries out a murder, is not of the same order as a person with mental problems who has an episode and ends up killing someone. They aren't under their own control anymore - for example, if someone slipped you LSD and you went crazy and killed someone, would you believe that you were fully responsible for the crime committed? Its the same in this case - the guy simply couldn't control himself, and so his responsibility is deminished. I think he should be put into a psyc unit for a time (until he has been rehabilitated/can be controlled, if possible), and agree 6 years in prison is too leniant.


[edit] yup pretty much agree with you in your other post

So what your saying is someone who is drugged with one of the most potent psychoactive drug known to man should be treated the same as a person with a history of mental illness and violent outbursts?

No you can't compare a person being drugged with LSD with someone whose brain chemistry had jacked it in, they are completely different scenarios. By and large once the LSD has passed though the drugged person system then they will be free of the psychotic tendencies and therefore they no longer posses a threat to society but with someone with shot brain chemistry the chances are they will never recover or at the very best the road to recovery will be a long one.

You say the context must be taken into account yet you go on to support this point with an example where the context is blatently ignored.

You are correct however that in both cases highlighted above the individuals responsibility has been diminished, if this was the only factor in sentencing then both guys would receive the same sentence, however the fact that one of the individuals is mentally ill then surely he must be committed to a mental institution while the other should be given a suitable manslaughter sentence.

andrew

I was using LSD as an example only to show how a person's responsibility can be deminished due to mental problems out of their control

oneeyedsnake

andrew wrote:

I was using LSD as an example only to show how a person's responsibility can be deminished due to mental problems out of their control

Sorry I see that now but just for the record the drugged guy would probally walk away with a suspended sentence wouldn't he?

Boggles

This guy was proper crazy!!

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2005/02/23/story190728.asp

Dudess

And what the guy in the above article was experiencing perfectly demonstrates what people with an extreme mental illness can go through. Completely off-the-wall shít and there is clearly not enough of an understanding.

walshb

Nermal wrote:

Gibberish. So I can kill anyone, so long as I don't plan it, and claim it was just a bit of a 'mental' episode?

The concept of 'diminished responsibility' is a cop-out. We are all fully responsible for our own actions, no matter what our mental state. He should be in a box for the rest of his life.

Spot on!!! This premeditated scenario apllies in some cases, but not all.
As far as I am aware a murder can occurr without it being premeditated or planned days or weeks in advance. We could easily say this boy premeditated it seconds before the first hammer blow if that's how perfect you want to be.

So If I am having a friendly arguement or debate and I suddenly snap and beat my friend or sister or brother to death and stab them 90 bloody times with a scissor, I can claim I didn't plan it, I just snapped??

Absolute crap. He murdered her because he was mad and bad. Planned, premeditated or whatever, it was an unprovoked attack on a girl miding her own business. That's nothing but murder.

The_B_Man

if he suffered from a moment of madness, would that not indicate hes unstable? he may seem fine but theres always that possibility that he can relapse and kill someone else! i wouldnt want someone passin me by on the streets who is capable of doing sometihing like that. if a person kills someone while of sound mind, then they're obviously not wanted on our streets due to the level they can sink. if someone kills someone while not of sound mind, and are unable to control themselves, then thats as bad, if not worse! they sound mind person might have some restraint, or at worst, only use their "murderous powers" to get something, like in a robbery. The unstable person of unsound mind would have no control of when and where this happens, so could conveivably kill at random in the streets, where there are more ppl. am i making sense?

with regards to "curing" or rehabilitating these killers: how do we know they'll ever be 100% cured? Its more of a hit and hope job tbh!

johnnyskeleton

oneeyedsnake wrote:

The guy is a complete psycho:he smashed his own sister to death with a hammer!There is no way this guy can ever be let loose on the public again.

I think you are imposing your view of the case over the jury's view. While you are perfectly entitled to say what you think, when a jury makes its decision that decision is for all intents and purposes fact (or as near to fact that we can ascertain). So the jury found that he is not a psycho and not a murderer. To gainsay the jury in this way seems to me a knee jerk reaction. The commonly expressed views that he is a psycho or a murderer is what people want to believe, it is not necessarily a reflection of the reality of the situation. It is hard for people to accept that normal people can flip and have a psychotic episode. But that is what happened. People don't want to believe that, they want to believe that anybody who does such a thing is insane or a murderer (i.e. someone different than themselves). You can look for someone to blame as long as you want, but that has more to do with you than it does with the facts of the case.

oneeyesnake wrote:

The sentence is a disgrace and is just another example of how this country is going to complete pot

I don't think it is a disgrace. I think the judge had a very difficult decision, one which would never get the full support of Evening Herald readers no matter what he imposed. But he recognised on the one hand that a sentence must be served (and 6 years is a long time - it only seems short when you read about it in a vitriolic newspaper article) and on the other that this was an unpredictable and unavoidable killing. It is more tragedy than villany.

By the way, what sentence would not have been a disgrace? Would a life sentence be fit and proper and make everything right in the world? I mean, how would a longer sentence make this country better?

walshb

johnnyskeleton wrote:

I think you are imposing your view of the case over the jury's view. While you are perfectly entitled to say what you think, when a jury makes its decision that decision is for all intents and purposes fact (or as near to fact that we can ascertain). So the jury found that he is not a psycho and not a murderer. To gainsay the jury in this way seems to me a knee jerk reaction. The commonly expressed views that he is a psycho or a murderer is what people want to believe, it is not necessarily a reflection of the reality of the situation. It is hard for people to accept that normal people can flip and have a psychotic episode. But that is what happened. People don't want to believe that, they want to believe that anybody who does such a thing is insane or a murderer (i.e. someone different than themselves). You can look for someone to blame as long as you want, but that has more to do with you than it does with the facts of the case.



I don't think it is a disgrace. I think the judge had a very difficult decision, one which would never get the full support of Evening Herald readers no matter what he imposed. But he recognised on the one hand that a sentence must be served (and 6 years is a long time - it only seems short when you read about it in a vitriolic newspaper article) and on the other that this was an unpredictable and unavoidable killing. It is more tragedy than villany.

By the way, what sentence would not have been a disgrace? Would a life sentence be fit and proper and make everything right in the world? I mean, how would a longer sentence make this country better?

And what sentence did this innocent girl get. Her life is gone, finished. So I'm sorry, but he still has his life and better still, it begins in a couple of years.
How is this justice. The guy is a complete lunatic. I am not denying this, because to do what he did, he has to be. But I do not agree that he can use this as a plea and basically say that it was a moment of madness, it will NOT happen again......Oh thanks mate, OK then 6 years and best of luck to you. It's not good enough. Whatever spin is put on it, mad , bad, evil, premeditated, the devil told him to do it etc etc etc, he battered an innocent girl to death without motive, provocation or otherwise.

So in a word, YES a life sentence is the only sentence he should receive. Not for revenge, but for purely the safety of society and to possibly prevent this person from ever harming another human being again. I certainly would not be surprised if I am reading in the papers in a few years that this lunatic has killed again....