Murder trial hear's of "The devil"

aloyisious

Murder trial jury hear's reference to the Devil, re killing of Gay man.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/student-21-was-beaten-to-death-over-gay-pass-at-farmer-trial-told-29364040.html

It's not the first time that the defence has used the "Devil" here as an excuse to explain away the killing of a gay man by another man.

The "body in a barrel" murder trial has taken to the gay angle with the prosecution stating that the victim being gay was the reason why he was killed by his killer, The men left a pub together after a barman heard them discuss condoms, other witnesses said they heard the accused and the victim discuss the fact he (the victim) was gay, the men stopped off at a shop and bought condoms. The prosecution's case is that the killer had an attack of revulsion at the fact he had willingly gone along with the idea of having sex with a gay man, that he might be gay himself.

The defence (Patrick Gageby SC) asked the jury to accept that his client has reduced mental capability, is schizophrenic (at times) and thought he killed the "Devil". The defence asked the jury if they believed his client had the capability to think "Oh ****, I've killed a man, I better sit down and think up an excuse" and if they convicted him of murder (not manslaughter due to reduced mental capacity) and six months down the road his client had another schizo-attack, what would they think then of their convicting him then.

Do you think this type of defence has relevance now-a-days, or is it an insult to one's intelligence, of a "I have to lead the jury by the nose" thought process?

NoQuarter

Whats the point of this thread? Have you a question?

We can all read the papers ourselves thanks.

aloyisious

NoQuarter wrote: »

Whats the point of this thread? Have you a question?

We can all read the papers ourselves thanks.

I've edited my post to include your point, ta

NoQuarter

It's as relevant as insanity is real I suppose. Of course there is a need for it. With regard to leading the jury by the nose, well that's just a product of skilled advocacy, which is what Barristers do.

aloyisious

NoQuarter wrote: »

It's as relevant as insanity is real I suppose. Of course there is a need for it. With regard to leading the jury by the nose, well that's just a product of skilled advocacy, which is what Barristers do.

Maybe I'm being more than occasionally cynical here thinking it's that it's just a suggestion by the defence that his client was temporarily insane when he killed the victim, as backed by the killer's statements to the Gardai about "the devil making him do it" referring to seeing the devil in the victim's eyes before he killed him. I'd be inclined to think the defence want's the jury to read that into that that the victim was the devil and tempted his client and he had to slay him for being evil.

NoQuarter

aloyisious wrote: »

Maybe I'm being more than occasionally cynical here thinking it's that it's just a suggestion by the defence that his client was temporarily insane when he killed the victim, as backed by the killer's statements to the Gardai about "the devil making him do it" referring to seeing the devil in the victim's eyes before he killed him. I'd be inclined to think the defence want's the jury to read that into that that the victim was the devil and tempted his client and he had to slay him for being evil.

No, the defence is trying to show that because the accused was temporarily insane (and they would have doctors reports and testimony to that effect) he did not have the "guilty mind" or the mens rea as we say to commit the crime. Every offence is broken into 2 parts. The physical act and the mental element of the intent to do it or being reckless about it.

so f they can establish that he was so crazy as to see the devil, then he did not have the mental capacity to know what he was doing, therefore lacks the mens rea and is therefore not guilty by reason of insanity.

Of course that is only a legal term and certainly DOESNT mean he walks out of court a free man.

aloyisious

One part of the evidence offered by the psychiatrist (answering questions in the court) who examined the accused was that there was a chance that he might have a schizophrenic episode in the future.

That was an estimate, based on what he could read from the replies he got. The same goes for the estimate he made of the stated behaviour and observations of the accused at the time he killed the victim, He had to base that opinion on what the accused chose to say in response to his questions.

I regret to say that there are more "cute hoors" out and about than there are respected experts in human behaviour, so I'd be very sceptical about what any accused person could and would offer as exculpation for their actions.

Pro Hoc Vice

NoQuarter wrote: »

No, the defence is trying to show that because the accused was temporarily insane (and they would have doctors reports and testimony to that effect) he did not have the "guilty mind" or the mens rea as we say to commit the crime. Every offence is broken into 2 parts. The physical act and the mental element of the intent to do it or being reckless about it.

so f they can establish that he was so crazy as to see the devil, then he did not have the mental capacity to know what he was doing, therefore lacks the mens rea and is therefore not guilty by reason of insanity.

Of course that is only a legal term and certainly means he walks out of court a free man.

The guy more than likely wont walk free from court,


If someone is considered to have actually committed the offence but was insane at the time, the verdict may be not guilty by reason of insanity. This decision is made by a jury. If this verdict is reached, the judge may order that the person be committed to a psychiatric hospital or unit in broadly the same way as applies in the case of being unfit to be tried.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/mental_health/criminal_insanity_and_mental_health.html

In fact been unfit to plead or not guilty by reason of insanity can be worse than guilty. While guilty of murder is life usually 15 years served guilty by reason of insanity can mean central mental for the rest of life.

LoveCoke

infosys wrote: »

The guy more than likely wont walk free from court,


If someone is considered to have actually committed the offence but was insane at the time, the verdict may be not guilty by reason of insanity. This decision is made by a jury. If this verdict is reached, the judge may order that the person be committed to a psychiatric hospital or unit in broadly the same way as applies in the case of being unfit to be tried.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/mental_health/criminal_insanity_and_mental_health.html

In fact been unfit to plead or not guilty by reason of insanity can be worse than guilty. While guilty of murder is life usually 15 years served guilty by reason of insanity can mean central mental for the rest of life.

a hotel instead of prison

Pro Hoc Vice

LoveCoke wrote: »

a hotel instead of prison

Doubt it's like the Westin, also you can walk out of any hotel I have ever stayed in, also I have never been forced to take medication in a hotel. The point is that a verdict of not guilty by insanity does not automatically lead to freedom.

LoveCoke

infosys wrote: »

Doubt it's like the Westin, also you can walk out of any hotel I have ever stayed in, also I have never been forced to take medication in a hotel. The point is that a verdict of not guilty by insanity does not automatically lead to freedom.

he walked out

a verdict of not guilty by insanity does not automatically lead to freedom.

but hosp is better than prison

NoQuarter

infosys wrote: »

The guy more than likely wont walk free from court,


If someone is considered to have actually committed the offence but was insane at the time, the verdict may be not guilty by reason of insanity. This decision is made by a jury. If this verdict is reached, the judge may order that the person be committed to a psychiatric hospital or unit in broadly the same way as applies in the case of being unfit to be tried.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/mental_health/criminal_insanity_and_mental_health.html

In fact been unfit to plead or not guilty by reason of insanity can be worse than guilty. While guilty of murder is life usually 15 years served guilty by reason of insanity can mean central mental for the rest of life.

Thanks for the lesson but I prefer to use the many law book on my shelf instead of citizens information. I think it's fairly obvious from the context and tone of my post that I had left out the word "doesnt" walk free from court.

coylemj

Only a plea of insanity could excuse the apostrophe in the thread title.

Pro Hoc Vice

NoQuarter wrote: »

Thanks for the lesson but I prefer to use the many law book on my shelf instead of citizens information. I think it's fairly obvious from the context and tone of my post that I had left out the word "doesnt" walk free from court.

I prefer to use legal text books as well but as few are on the Internet they hard to link to, I suppose I could have linked the the relevant act but that would not have set out the situation in a simple way. Sorry if I misunderstood your last sentence because you inadvertently left out a word, mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa.

Victor

LoveCoke wrote: »

a hotel instead of prison

By all accounts, the Central Mental Hospital is reputed to be almost Dickensian and is completely unsuited for it's use.

coylemj

Victor wrote: »

By all accounts, the Central Mental Hospital is reputed to be almost Dickensian and is completely unsuited for it's use.

+1 I had a minor operation a few years ago in St. Vincent's Hospital in Elm Park, D4 which was built in 1970. The mens' washroom looked like something out of an army barracks, there were no showers and for washing and shaving there was one long sink obviously designed for four or five men to stand side by side with no privacy.

Lord only knows what Dundrum is like, definitely not a holiday camp I'd say.

Tssk

To me this looks like two families are dealing with the tragic fall out from an inadequate mental health system

aloyisious

The accused was found guilty of murder by an 11-to-1 decision of the jury, sentence to follow.

Pro Hoc Vice

aloyisious wrote: »

The accused was found guilty of murder by an 11-to-1 decision of the jury, sentence to follow.

I'm amazed at how quite the usual boards legal kickers are. A person is brought to court charged with murder all the parts of the system do their jobs, a guilty verdict and a life sentence for a horrendous crime. No indignation and this is how the system works the cast majority of the time.