Five suspended life sentences?!!?

Reku

nesf wrote:

I disagree. There is an enormous difference between taking drugs of your own violation and then committing a crime and someone suffering from a mental illness which they have no control over and then committing a crime.

Fine, how about those born XYY, that is a illness over which they have no control (and short of a test showing it they will usually be unaware of it) and yet most of them end up in prison since their testosterone levels result in them being EXTREMELY agressive. How is this any different than this woman, her condition is a result of hormones, their condition is a result of hormones. Surely they should be placed in psychiatric institutions and not prisons (certainly in the US they go into the prison system, not institutions) since if this trial were anything to go on it's all good as long as you can claim you were under the effect of hormones.
Does this mean a considerably lesser crime such as vandalism should be forgiven if it's just that point in her cycle when she does it? The whole thing is just a complete disgrace.

nesf wrote:

You do have to take responsibility for your actions but to say that someone doesn't know right from wrong unless they are a sociopath is simply wrong.

Well if they don't know right from wrong they really don't have any place in society and should be locked away indefinitely.


And I agree with others in that the only difference between attempted murder and murder is how well you do it, as such both should carry equal sentences IMO (perhaps if you make an action afterwards that could clearly only save the person and does, then I might consider that it deserves a lesser sentence, but otherwise no).

Kimbot

nesf wrote:

I disagree. There is an enormous difference between taking drugs of your own violation and then committing a crime and someone suffering from a mental illness which they have no control over and then committing a crime. It shouldn't (and generally isn't) a get out of jail for free card but there are good grounds for considering it in a case. You do have to take responsibility for your actions but to say that someone doesn't know right from wrong unless they are a sociopath is simply wrong. You're confusing the general sense of that term with the personal sense.

However, I don't for a second believe that everyone who claims mental illness in court actually does have one.

Actually you can control a mental illness!! By seeking professional help!
I know a lot of women that give the "I can kill you and get away with it" excuse, women do tend to get it lighter when it comes to jail terms because as the law stands men are stronger and have more control than women!! The one thing that gets me about it is that she planned what she was doing and someone suffering from a mental illness will not plan such an event, they will just snap and that will happen!! How the family didn't cop something was wrong a long time ago is beyond me!!

nesf

jonny24ie wrote:

Actually you can control a mental illness!! By seeking professional help!

That is not necessarily true, not everyone's condition can be treated successfully. Plus, a person who is mentally ill might think that they are fine, which is part of the problem. If they can't be treated and are undoubtedly a danger to society then sure, lock them up in a mental home, but if they can be treated then give them care until they're in a condition to re-enter society.


People seem to have a big problem differentiating between justice and punishment a lot of them time. One does not equate the other.

nesf

farohar wrote:

Well if they don't know right from wrong they really don't have any place in society and should be locked away indefinitely.

Should we lock away children then? Seriously, you're oversimplifying things here.

Kimbot

nesf wrote:

That is not necessarily true, not everyone's condition can be treated successfully. Plus, a person who is mentally ill might think that they are fine, which is part of the problem.

Yes but your comment was suggesting that all mental illnesses can't be helped. I'm just pointing out that people can be helped where possible!!In this case I think that applies because she was able to take out life insurance and all sorts which means it was well planned and she should go down for that!!

Reku

nesf wrote:

Should we lock away children then? Seriously, you're oversimplifying things here.

We're talking about adults here, children are covered by a different sentencing system, but fine, I'll rephrase that as ANY ADULT, if they don't know right from wrong they really don't have any place in society and should be locked away indefinitely. For sh**s sake we're talking about murder here nesf, anyone who understands what death is knows that it is wrong to kill someone intentionally, it's not a particularly grey area were talking about here, it's premeditated murder.
However you have raised the point that being a child has not been accepted as a valid excuse (Jamie Bulger killers) so why should an adult really have any excuse for murder other than self defence.

nesf

jonny24ie wrote:

Yes but your comment was suggesting that all mental illnesses can't be helped. I'm just pointing out that people can be helped where possible!!

Ah, ok. I didn't mean to imply that, only to say that in the case where mental illness could be acceptable as a defence the person would have to be of not sound judgement due a cause not of their own violation, rather than this being a default state of affairs for people with mental illnesses.

Plenty of people with mental illnesses are perfectly sound of judgement and mind most of the time and at these times they should be fully culpable for their actions.

MooseJam

crazy stuff, it's very true woman get it easier in court, and are viewed more sympathetically by the public, I don't know why this is so as half the population is male

nesf

farohar wrote:

We're talking about adults here, children are covered by a different sentencing system.
However you have raised the point that being a child has not been accepted as a valid excuse (Jamie Bulger killers) so why should an adult really have any excuse for murder other than self defence.

Yes, but the whole mental health debate is around people who aren't of sound mind and not of sound judgement when they commit a crime. This creates a problem since they are not rationally going out to commit a crime necessarily versus someone of sound mind and judgement who would in committing the crime be acting rationally if not in a sociably acceptable manner.

Does that distinction make more sense to you?

Kimbot

nesf wrote:

Ah, ok. I didn't mean to imply that, only to say that in the case where mental illness could be acceptable as a defence the person would have to be of not sound judgement due a cause not of their own violation, rather than this being a default state of affairs for people with mental illnesses.

Plenty of people with mental illnesses are perfectly sound of judgement and mind most of the time and at these times they should be fully culpable for their actions.

Exactly! And in this case and many others that go through our courts people will always try to get away with it and the easiest way to do so is to claim that your nuts!! Alot of doctors (maybe even all) can't properly diagnose mental issues so they should not be able to use that excuse in a court of law. I know people that were misdiagnosed as children as been a nutballs!! Its wasn't a mental illness it was just loosing the rag too easy and the guys that gave the verdict where the best in the business!!

Reku

Once again nesf, if they can't be trusted to make such decisions unsuppervised then clearly they need permanent supervision, in a nice padded cell/cell with bars for the rest of their lives. If they can put the thoughts together to plan out a murder then their thinking can't be all that impaired.
And you missed some of my previous post due to replying while I editted, sorry.

Kimbot

on another note, how can you determine if they were of sound mind at the time unless you were assessing them at that moment in time??

MarkR

I knew this girl some time ago, actually minded her twins. I won't say much but it was only by the grace of god it was attempted murder, and not murder. (Neighbour's heard children crying and had a long ladder).

Still, i'm not a doctor (I don't even play one on tv!). As they are all back playing happy families we have to hope she's over her madness.

I think the real feeling of outrage over the crime is that most mothers who kill or attempt to kill their babies usually kill themselves immediately afterwards, while she obviously had no intention of doing this.

In regard to the suspended sentences (If you try to kill anyone again we'll put you away for real this time! No messin'!), what would she have had to do to have it activated? Are we talking not paying your tv licence, or serious crime?

Victor

Irish Wolf wrote:

Why five suspended sentences? I thought there were only 4 other people involved.. her husband and three children..?

Criminal Damage Act, 1991 Section 2 - arson gets life (and possibly a fine).

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/act/pub/0031/sec0002.html

Damaging property. 2.—(1) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—

( a ) intending to damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be damaged, and

( b ) intending by the damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered,

shall be guilty of an offence.
.
.
(4) An offence committed under this section by damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
.
.
( b ) on conviction on indictment—

(i) in case the person is guilty of arson under subsection (1) or (3) or of an offence under subsection (2) (whether arson or not), to a fine or imprisonment for life or both, and

Raiser

Heard on the radio about 2 weeks ago that theres a load of people [figure anyone ?] currently in jail for non-payment of the Pat Kenny tax [ie. TV License]

Terry

Really?

They gave up on me.

Cue summons in the door tomorrow morning.

Irish Wolf

Victor wrote:

Criminal Damage Act, 1991 Section 2 - arson gets life (and possibly a fine).

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/act/pub/0031/sec0002.html

Thanks Victor - but can you clarify it please - she got 4 suspended life sentences for the people she attempted to murder, and another suspended life sentence for arson??

I guess it's a moot point - but you never know when the law could be on your side*...







*only joking of course

Jesus Wept

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: I am confident that she is no longer a threat to her husband, family, society, or herself anymore. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Tha Gopher

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/6922504.stm

The actual killer (female) gets 10 years. Guy who helped gets 25 years. All scumbags but honestly, this is ridicilous. Give him 25 by all means, but imo give the actual killer the same if not more

thebaz

Equality should be equality , not just for the nice things

cournioni

Tha Gopher wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/6922504.stm

The actual killer (female) gets 10 years. Guy who helped gets 25 years. All scumbags but honestly, this is ridicilous. Give him 25 by all means, but imo give the actual killer the same if not more

Wow... Now that is ridiculous. :mad:

Reku

thebaz wrote:

Equality should be equality , not just for the nice things

To which the usual BS feminist response tends to be "but men had it better for centuries, now women deserve a turn", they want retribution for things that they weren't even the victims of (how many women alive today were alive for those centuries) not equality.

Victor

Tha Gopher wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/6922504.stm

The actual killer (female) gets 10 years. Guy who helped gets 25 years. All scumbags but honestly, this is ridicilous. Give him 25 by all means, but imo give the actual killer the same if not more

In fairness, she is/was a minor and the two guys were big into manipulation.