Guilty of unprovoked metal bar attack - walks free

Here's a question for the After Hours community.

If someone is genuinely 'non compos mentis' and does something violent that is completely outside of character, should that person be held criminally responsible for that action?

By 'non compos mentis' I mean an incident where the individual is acting in a way that he/she is not able to control using his normal mental faculties.

What is the main purpose of Prison. Is it to get revenge on people who have done wrong?
Is it to keep ordinary citizens safe from dangerous criminals?
Is it to punish criminals?
Is it to re-habilitate criminals?
Or is it a mixture of the above.

If someone who was totally non compos mentis (through no fault of their own) and that person assaulted you and caused you serious harm. Do you have the right to insist that this person is thrown into prison to make amends for the pain you have suffered? Or should the main concern be to make sure that the person is safe enough to not pose a risk to him/herself or others in the future?

in this case, the court heard the opinion of psychiatrists and concluded that the man may not have been in control of his actions due to the effects of depression and a sleep disorder. He is under supervision of the psychiatric services and if he does not comply, he will be sent to prison.

I am pie wrote: »

Unless the requirements of Dr Mahony are to have this dangerous criminal held in a secure treatment centre then Dr Mahony is as culpable as the simpering fool of a judge here.

Man batters a woman around the head, comes to his senses (allegedly) apologies and calmly walks out. Makes no apology in court. No findings confirmed around his potential mental condition so we let him walk free only to comply to the requirements of Dr Mahony.

Inept. Dangerously inept.

You have made statements of fact about this case that were not reported in the Independent article
Do you have another source for these facts or did you just make them up to fit the narrative you have created in your own head?
You say for example that he didn't apologise in court but the article says

Kilmartin told the court yesterday: "I am sorry for my actions."

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

The priority is protecting others in society. If we let them out in my opinion they need to be rehabilitated, otherwise whats the point - they'll just do it or something worse again, so may as well keep them locked up.

I agree, the priority should be to protect others in society, however, lets say that the person became violent after taking prescription drugs (as directed by a doctor) and suffering an adverse reaction. The adverse reaction could be temporary and the effects could be to make the person act in an uncontrolled but totally uncharacteristic way. When the effects of the prescription drugs wear off, there is no longer any risk to society.

Should that person be locked up?

I am pie wrote: »

Before you make this argument let's look at what the medical professionals actually said. We can take "concluded that" out of your sentence, because it adds weight to the statement where none exists.

They ruled that no finding was made in relation to a condition which would have meant the accused was not responsible for his actions. The only accepted condition the accused had was depression, i don't mean to belittle that as it is a serious illness but it is not, to my knowledge, an accepted defence regarding responsibility for a brutal assault.

So, what the medical profession "concluded" was that the defendant was suffering from depression. Nothing else. There may be another condition, there may not.

So, surely the duty of the court is to confine this man in a facility where he cannot escape from in order to identify his condition and subsequently treat it as a mimimum.

Frankly, given that no medical reason was actually made around diminished responsibility, a prison sentence with pyschiatric support sounds reasonable to me. Depression is not a valids excuse for smashing someone about the head with an Iron bar.

If you're basing your opinion entirely on the report in the independent, can I suggest that perhaps there was a lot more detail that the Judge considered other than what was in the article?