Larry Murphy (Read mod note on post 1 before posting)

cson

I was in Penney's there today and boom; Halloween costume sorted - going as Larry Murphy.

Kasabian

cson wrote: »

I was in Penney's there today and boom; Halloween costume sorted - going as Larry Murphy.

Dangerous choice what with all the vigilantes you may encounter.

cson

Kasabian wrote: »

Dangerous choice what with all the vigilantes you may encounter.

Extreme Vigilante Escape?

Kinda like the bull run in Spain.

Warper

Maybe we should be looking at our rapist brothers in the Catholic Church, who are beyond the scope of the law. Murphy served time for his crime - end of. This tabloid chasing of him is reminiscent of a violent mob who are incapable of thinking for themselves. It is being done by the type of people who watch Sky News and buying tabloids.

R P McMurphy

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

My 2 cents - the justice system in this country is well used to protecting rapists. Larry Murphy is in good hands.

Excellent point, the instutionalisation of rape and the leniency of the sentences handed out for it in the Irish republic is disgusting. Sometimes reading about cases and the way in which they are dealt with, you would be forgiven for thinking that the person was on trial for a trivial matter. Certainly goes back to the rape of children by members of the religious orders. The deal which the then minister Michael Woods agreed to limit the amount of compensation religious orders should pay was one of the greatest injustices in the history of the state and a legacy which should hang around this man's neck like an anvil

Run_to_da_hills

cson wrote: »

I was in Penney's there today and boom; Halloween costume sorted - going as Larry Murphy.

It would beat any scream costume and wouldn't take too much. IE. Gold NY hoodie, baseball cap and a pair of shades.

http://i34.tinypic.com/28mmzhd.jpg

SV

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm sure she will be happy justice has been served.

Justice has not been served.

cson

SV wrote: »

Justice has not been served.

FFS.

I ordered that Justice 20 minutes ago. :mad:

mike kelly

unknown13 wrote: »

The guy has done his time. I don't know why the general public is worried about him, let An Garda Siochana worry about him.

There was much less uproar when Wayne Dundon was released

Kasabian

mike kelly wrote: »

There was much less uproar when Wayne Dundon was released

That's a whole other thread.

Your username is funny considering your post.

Kimia

Did yer man ever come back and confirm he was a guard?

Kasabian

Kimia wrote: »

Did yer man ever come back and confirm he was a guard?

They took his PC off him in Templemore

MarcusFenix

Kasabian wrote: »

They took his PC off him in Templemore

I LOL'd at this...

mike kelly

Kasabian wrote: »

That's a whole other thread.

Your username is funny considering your post.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the wave of hysteria surrounding Murphys release. Why him and not others? Is rape a worse crime than murder?

sam34

doccy wrote: »

What really makes me mad is that there was always a solution to this problem that didn't have to involve witch hunts, lynching mobs etc.
Murphy should simply have been re-arrested as he left prison and brought to a psychiatric institution and kept there for the rest of his days or until he could prove he was no longer a threat to society. I would be pretty confident that he would never be released.

nope, not a solution actually.

psychiatric institutions are for the mentally ill. there has never been any suggestion or evidence that murphy has a mental illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, other psychosis, depression etc.

there is no doubt he is a psychopath, but that is not a mental illness as such.

people, and the media, will use terms like "sicko" and "crazed" to describe him, but they are not clinically accurate.

under the mental health act 2001, psychopaths cannot be detained in psychiatric hospitals purely because they are psychopaths (obviously if they also have something like schizophrenia, they can be detained for treatment of that if necessary)

lastly, even if someone has a mental illness, they cannot be detained "for the rest of their days". the possible periods of detention range from 21 days initialy, to a max of 12 months. each detention is reviewed by an independent tribunal. so there is no such thing as locked up in psychiatric care forevermore, under the current mental treatment act.

Kasabian

mike kelly wrote: »

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the wave of hysteria surrounding Murphys release. Why him and not others? Is rape a worse crime than murder?

Who has Dundon been convicted of murdering, if that's your comparison?

mike kelly

Kasabian wrote: »

Who has Dundon been convicted of murdering, if that's your comparison?

he hasn't actually been convicted of murdering anyone but is that important? does it make him any less dangerous? Bin Laden has never been convicted of anything either

Kasabian

mike kelly wrote: »

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the wave of hysteria surrounding Murphys release. Why him and not others? Is rape a worse crime than murder?

Murder in my view is the more evil a crime . Rape in itself is a barbaric act and for some victims shapes their futures beyond comprehension.

I believe that this man is the same man that went into prison , there has been no tangible evidence that he has changed. There is a lot of circumstantional evidece that the crime he was convicted of may be a crime he has commited before but where murder was the outcome.

I personally am intelligent enough to know that circumstantial evidence does not make you guilty but what he is guilty of is rape and attempted murder and not showing a shred of remorse for his actions .

That makes him a danger to all right thinking people.

To try and debate this against the evils of people like Dundon and Bin Laden is futile.

The facts are as they are, he is free to maybe attack another defeceless woman and has not given any indication of any thing else.

Showing remorse for your actions shows a degree of humanity , he in my eyes is not human because of his failure to do this.

DeltaC

sam34 wrote: »

under the mental health act 2001, psychopaths cannot be detained in psychiatric hospitals purely because they are psychopaths (obviously if they also have something like schizophrenia, they can be detained for treatment of that if necessary)

Excerpts from the 2001 Mental Health Act:

The Act defines mental disorder as mental illness, severe dementia or significant intellectual disability where:
• Because of the illness, disability or dementia, there is a serious likelihood that you may cause immediate and serious harm to yourself or to other people or
• Because of the severity of the illness, disability or dementia, your judgement is so impaired that failure to admit you to an approved centre would be likely to lead to a serious deterioration of your condition or would prevent the administration of appropriate treatment that could only be given by such an admission and your reception, detention and treatment in an approved centre would be likely to materially benefit or alleviate your condition.

Mental illness means a state of mind which affects your thinking, perceiving, emotion or judgment and which seriously impairs your mental function to the extent that you require care or medical treatment in your own interest or in the interest of other people.

Severe dementia means a deterioration of the brain which significantly impairs your intellectual function and affects thought, comprehension and memory and which includes severe psychiatric or behavioural symptoms such as physical aggression.

Significant intellectual disability’ means a state of arrested or incomplete development of the mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning and abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct.

...

If a Garda has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is suffering from a mental disorder and that, because of the disorder, there is a serious likelihood of the person causing immediate and serious harm to himself/herself or another person, the Garda may take the person into custody. If necessary, the Garda may use force to enter the premises where it is believed that the person is. The Garda must then go through the normal application procedure for involuntary detention in an approved centre. If the Garda's application is refused, the person must be released immediately. If the application is granted, the Garda must remove the person to the approved centre.

...

When you are received at an approved psychiatric centre, you must be examined by a consultant psychiatrist on the staff. You may be detained for a maximum of 24 hours in the centre for the purpose of carrying out this examination. If the psychiatrist is satisfied that you are suffering from a mental disorder, he/she then makes an involuntary admission order. If the psychiatrist is not satisfied that you are suffering from a mental disorder, you must be released immediately. The admission order is valid for 21 days. It authorises your reception, detention and treatment in the centre for this period.
A renewal order may extend this period by a further 3 months. This must be made by the consultant psychiatrist responsible and he/she must have examined you in the week before making the order. A further renewal order may be made by the same psychiatrist for a period of 6 months and subsequently for 12 months at a time.

It does seem that this may be a viable option. The only problem is that it can be argued that involuntary psychiatric patients have the same right as anyone else to protection from Murphy.

sam34

DeltaC wrote: »

It does seem that this may be a viable option. The only problem is that it can be argued that involuntary psychiatric patients have the same right as anyone else to protection from Murphy.

its not a viable option

section 8 (2) of the act states that it is not lawful to admit a person involuntarily solely because that person is a) suffering from a personality disorder, b)is socially deviant or c)is addicted to drugs or intoxicants.

i dont know how to link to specific pages, but if you scroll down to page 11 here, you'll see it: http://www.mhcirl.ie/Mental_Health_Act_2001/Mental_Health_Act_2001.pdf.


the mental helath commission have provided teh following guidelines: "difficulty in adapting to moral, social, political or other values in itself should not be considered a mental disorder, and non-conformity shall never be a determining factor in diagnosing mental illness"


there is no doubt whatsoever that murphy is a psychopath, ie has a dissocial personality disorder. but he cannot be detained under teh mental health act for that reason, even if he presents a danger to others because of that personality disorder. there has been no sugegstion or evidence that he has a mental illness.

the reality is that there are plenty people out there who are a danger to teh public who do not have mental illness and thus cannot be kept in psychiatric care. they are dealt with by the criminal justice system.

DeltaC

sam34 wrote: »

its not a viable option

section 8 (2) of the act states that it is not lawful to admit a person involuntarily solely because that person is a) suffering from a personality disorder, b)is socially deviant or c)is addicted to drugs or intoxicants. .


the mental health commission have provided teh following guidelines: "difficulty in adapting to moral, social, political or other values in itself should not be considered a mental disorder, and non-conformity shall never be a determining factor in diagnosing mental illness"

I pulled the simplified wording off the CIB for brevity and accessibility, and I do take your point (in the wider, more general sense I would be inclined to agree), but I think you will find the following, in combination with Murphy's repeated assertions that he "just snapped" can be claimed to override all that in this, specific, instance:

Because of the illness, disability or dementia, there is a serious likelihood that you may cause immediate and serious harm to yourself or to other people or in the interest of other people.

It would, certainly, solve an awful lot of problems.

The Waltzing Consumer

Maybe Larry could open a head shop, then the Government could act, or maybe he organise some stag hunt, something really important so the government could act straight away. Come on Larry, do you not wanna breed some dogs?

It is a pity the government can't act when it comes to rape and threats to society, if only they were serious offences, like breeding dogs, stag hunting and head shops.

doccy

sam34 wrote: »

nope, not a solution actually.

psychiatric institutions are for the mentally ill. there has never been any suggestion or evidence that murphy has a mental illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, other psychosis, depression etc.

there is no doubt he is a psychopath, but that is not a mental illness as such.

people, and the media, will use terms like "sicko" and "crazed" to describe him, but they are not clinically accurate.

under the mental health act 2001, psychopaths cannot be detained in psychiatric hospitals purely because they are psychopaths (obviously if they also have something like schizophrenia, they can be detained for treatment of that if necessary)

lastly, even if someone has a mental illness, they cannot be detained "for the rest of their days". the possible periods of detention range from 21 days initialy, to a max of 12 months. each detention is reviewed by an independent tribunal. so there is no such thing as locked up in psychiatric care forevermore, under the current mental treatment act.

The first point I'd make is that Murphy himself said he "flipped." While in prison he never sought any treatment so it is a fair assumption to say he could again "flip" at any moment.
Yes I was being disingenuous- I was trying to suggest a way to twist the law in order to keep a dangerous man off the streets. I suggest the reason this man did not want treatment was he didn't want anyone digging too closely into his past, for obvious reasons.
Is it true in California that serious sex offenders are allowed to serve their sentences before being transferred to an institution where the onus is on them to prove they have been cured or recovered from their condition.
The second point I would I would make is their is not an independent tribunal in this land that would release this man ever, knowing who he is.

sam34

DeltaC wrote: »

I pulled the simplified wording off the CIB for brevity and accessibility, and I do take your point (in the wider, more general sense I would be inclined to agree), but I think you will find the following, in combination with Murphy's repeated assertions that he "just snapped" can be claimed to override all that in this, specific, instance:



It would, certainly, solve an awful lot of problems.

simply put, it would be illegal and it cannot be done.

the "just snapped" claim from murphy doesnt quite cut it, given his premeditated stalking of the woman. also, that, even if it were true, is not necessarily indicative of any particular mental illness.

and you're overlooking the phrase "because of the severity of the illness, dementia or disability..." ... he doesnt have a mental illness.

is his actions were down to illness, he would have gone through the forensic psychiatry services at dundrum, not purely the criminal justice system.

Run_to_da_hills

It's now hit the UK Tabloids.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302755/Serial-rapist-Larry-Murphy-heading-Britain-release-Dublin-prison.html

sam34

doccy wrote: »

The first point I'd make is that Murphy himself said he "flipped." While in prison he never sought any treatment so it is a fair assumption to say he could again "flip" at any moment.
Yes I was being disingenuous- I was trying to suggest a way to twist the law in order to keep a dangerous man off the streets. I suggest the reason this man did not want treatment was he didn't want anyone digging too closely into his past, for obvious reasons.
Is it true in California that serious sex offenders are allowed to serve their sentences before being transferred to an institution where the onus is on them to prove they have been cured or recovered from their condition.
The second point I would I would make is their is not an independent tribunal in this land that would release this man ever, knowing who he is.

so he says he "flipped". do we believe him? has he shown himself to be trustworthy?

i, you or anyone else could "flip" at any time... should we all be locked up indefinitely?

i have no idea what the legislation in california is.

any independent tribunal would be legally obliged to release this man if it were shown that his detention was illegal because he didnt meet teh inclusion criteria and actually met the exclusion criteria. otherwise they and he would end up in european human rights courts.

Ash.J.Williams

doccy wrote: »

The first point I'd make is that Murphy himself said he "flipped." While in prison he never sought any treatment so it is a fair assumption to say he could again "flip" at any moment.
Yes I was being disingenuous- I was trying to suggest a way to twist the law in order to keep a dangerous man off the streets. I suggest the reason this man did not want treatment was he didn't want anyone digging too closely into his past, for obvious reasons.
Is it true in California that serious sex offenders are allowed to serve their sentences before being transferred to an institution where the onus is on them to prove they have been cured or recovered from their condition.
The second point I would I would make is their is not an independent tribunal in this land that would release this man ever, knowing who he is.

exactly, just look at what Charles manson has to go through every year. Every year he's brought out before a parole board where his crimes are read out, he pleads his case and then told "NO" back to jail manson!!! The recent ones are on youtube, looks good and humiliating for him!!!
On the subject of manson, he was never convicted of killing anyone either, he's just a bad bad man, that will never get out of prison!

Amalgam

If he goes off and commits further crime, you won't hear a ****ing thing from the same bozos going all lefty on *his* rights etc..

Dermot Ahern will be unavailable for comment..

At the same time you have the case of Maurice Lyons, kept inside and costing the state money, despite being NO RISK WHATSOEVER, yet they can't get rid of this prize prick quick enough.

doccy

sam34 wrote: »

so he says he "flipped". do we believe him? has he shown himself to be trustworthy?

i, you or anyone else could "flip" at any time... should we all be locked up indefinitely?

i have no idea what the legislation in california is.

any independent tribunal would be legally obliged to release this man if it were shown that his detention was illegal because he didnt meet teh inclusion criteria and actually met the exclusion criteria. otherwise they and he would end up in european human rights courts.

So you are saying that anyone who had a proven psychotic episode does not meet the criteria to be institutionalized? I don't agree.
For example why is Malcolm MacArthur still locked up?

sam34

doccy wrote: »

So you are saying that anyone who had a proven psychotic episode does not meet the criteria to be institutionalized? I don't agree.
For example why is Malcolm MacArthur still locked up?

what? no, i am not saying that.

murphy has not had a "proven psychotic episode"

there has never been a report of him having had a psychotic episode.

him using the phrase "i flipped" does not mean he had a psychotic episode.

psychosis is a mental illness.

psychopathy/psychopathic behaviour/psychopathic personality disorder is not, and these people are specifically exempt from being detained under the act (unless they also have a mental illness that fits teh criteria)



i have no idea where or under what legislation or grounds malcolm macarthur is still incarcerated.