Gun and Knife crime

[foreveryoung]

8 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Before the law ... he is innocent. He might be found innocent on the grounds of insanity.

That'll be diminished responsibility which is innocent of murder  but not Manslaughter so still guilty.

[Rds1983]

4 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Before the law ... he is innocent. He might be found innocent on the grounds of insanity.

Last post for the night, then I'm done.

Technically, if this was his defence (i.e. diminished responsibility) and it worked, then he'd wouldn't be guilty of murder, but would likely be found guilty of manslaughter.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious

" all of the elements to prove murder are present, including an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm, a partial defence may be raised in three circumstances. Unlike a complete defence such as self-defence, these operate to reduce guilt for murder to guilt for manslaughter"

He very likely is guilty of a very serious and horrible crime, but at this point in time, from a legal perspective he is still innocent. It's the job of the legal system to determine if he is guilty of a crime or not. It's not down to anyone else to decide.

Admittedly, this is a nonsensical example and unlikely, but he might have a defence that if he didn't do this, then a much, much worse crime would be committed by someoneelse who forced him into this. Until he has his day in court, nobody knows.

[fruitvilla]

18 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

That'll be diminished responsibility which is innocent of murder  but not Manslaughter so still guilty.

So a hospital order is out of the question?

I agree a diminished responsibility is a likely outcome.

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

So a hospital order is out of the question?

I agree a diminished responsibility is a likely outcome.

No, if he’s genuinely mentally ill he'll be incarcerated in a secure mental health institution such as Ashworth or Broadmoor for the rest of his life. Ian Brady the Moors Murderer was never let out for example

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, Rds1983 said:

You're wrong, not all cases are public domain, they usually are but in some cases the names are kept secret from the public.

Google the case R vs R 1991 for an example.

Alternatively, read through the attached:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/hearings-private-camera

"There are certain situations where proceedings can be heard in private (‘in camera’), when the public are excluded and the doors of the court-room closed. These situations are governed by Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules."

Judges and juries are human beings, and in emotional cases like this, public pressure to get a result can lead to mistakes being made. Just look at examples such as the Birmingham 6.

Read all my previous posts over the last few pages and in the Policing thread as there's a lot of crossover.

As I've said in previously, there's a difference between the judicial system releasing someone's name, and it being forced into the open by the general public.

Judges are trained to make these decisions, not the general public who are just after blood.

A law is in place to prevent minors names from being released, it's there for a reason, and in this case it appears the judicial system has had it's hand forced into releasing the name.

I do understand where youre coming from as one of my friend's brother's was also falsely accused of rape whilst at University. However, his name was made public and his life was ruined, he had to leave University and it didnt matter that the accuser later admitted she made it up. His name should never have been put in the public domain. Until you're proven guilty in court, I do feel names should remain private. This is however an incredibly complex scenario as that secrecy makes it harder to build a case. There is no right answer, it's a question of how to do the least harm and for me, innocent people going to jail is right up there. In this particular case, the police are not going to arrest anyone else named on social media as they already have a suspect in custody. If the public put these other people in danger, that is a crime in itself.

As I've said previously, when you start bending these rules, where do you draw the line and it's a slippery slope.

You cannot look at any criminal case like this as a singular entity, that's not how our judicial system works with precedent being set. The actions being taken in this case, could easily affect the actions taken in the next case, and the one after that. You have to try to step back.

Anyway, it's late, I'm very tired, its stupidly hot and it's the last night of my holiday. I'm stepping back from this thread for a while.

EDIT - in case it's not clear from the above. I'm not saying an innocent person going to jail is worse than a crime such as this. I'm saying an innocent person going to jail makes the wider situation worse for all concerned, except the guilty party.

We're not arguing about whether people should be named when they're arrested or not here - to be honest, I might welcome a system where everyone was anonymous unless convicted. But that's not the system we're living in, and the vast majority of people are named when they are arrested (including those accused of multiple murders like Stephen Port or Lucy Letby). You're claiming that the killer isn't being treated as innocent until proven guilty because his name has been released, and that's just not true. Why would his trial be any more prejudiced than that of famed baby-murderer Lucy Letby?

There isn't actually a law to prevent the name of minors being released, it's all just guidelines. And the overall reason is to minimise the chances of them re-offending by being caught up in the negative effects of the justice system, like having their name tarnished by a false accusation like happened to your mate. It's obviously unfortunate that this kid has had that taken away from him, but all that means is that he's not being treated like a child ideally would. That's not the same as him not being treated as innocent.

I get the point about the name being "forced into the open" by the public, but that's the specific situation that (as you say yourself) judges are trained to make a judgement about. They're not going to override the guidelines unless there's a reason to, and presumably the only reason is where the public interest is high and the judge considers it important that the public know the name for some reason. This has happened before, such as in the Brianna Ghey case as was mentioned above. So why are you assuming the judge made the wrong call here? Aren't they better qualified than any of us to know the right call in this situation?

(EDIT - I guess for correctness all mentions of the world "judge" here should be replaced with "CPS", as was pointed out to me earlier.)

Edited August 1 by Panto_Villan

[fruitvilla]

53 minutes ago, bickster said:

No, if he’s genuinely mentally ill he'll be incarcerated in a secure mental health institution

Not sure whether you are disagreeing or not. But if found not guilty by reason of insanity are there not three disposal options?

• Hospital Order: The defendant may be committed to a secure psychiatric hospital for treatment.
• Supervision and Treatment Order: The defendant may be released under certain conditions that include supervision and mandatory treatment.
• Absolute Discharge: In rare cases, the defendant may be released without conditions if the court believes they do not pose a risk to themselves or others.

 

[PaulC]

8 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

Not sure whether you are disagreeing or not. But if found not guilty by reason of insanity are there not three disposal options?

• Hospital Order: The defendant may be committed to a secure psychiatric hospital for treatment.
• Supervision and Treatment Order: The defendant may be released under certain conditions that include supervision and mandatory treatment.
• Absolute Discharge: In rare cases, the defendant may be released without conditions if the court believes they do not pose a risk to themselves or others.

 

It's going to.be hard  for a jury to find him not guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility. I don't see that happening. The crime is too severe. 

[Chindie]

The severity of the crime has little to do with it. If they find evidence he's nuts, he's going to a facility, probably for the rest of his life. They already know he's got some sort of neurodevelopmental disorder as he apparently is on the autism spectrum, they'll be spending the next few months trying to work out if that goes further, or if he's in some way delusional.

[PaulC]

12 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The severity of the crime has little to do with it. If they find evidence he's nuts, he's going to a facility, probably for the rest of his life. They already know he's got some sort of neurodevelopmental disorder as he apparently is on the autism spectrum, they'll be spending the next few months trying to work out if that goes further, or if he's in some way delusional.

This is a very volatile situation. Crimes against children. Justice will be have to be seen to be done. My daughter has autism. Being on the autistic spectrum doesn't mean he Is not capable of knowing what he is doing.  Anyway this subject is best not discussing anymore. My thoughts are with the families of the murdered and injured children. Whst punishment he gets is not my concern.

[fruitvilla]

1 hour ago, PaulC said:

It's going to.be hard  for a jury to find him not guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility. I don't see that happening. The crime is too severe. 

My hope for the forthcoming trial, if it is by jury, is that they select twelve intelligent people, who can understand the letter of the law, follow the judge's instructions, follow the evidence, and are not swayed by public opinion or their emotions.

Seems like a reasonable hope albeit an unlikely one.

[PaulC]

8 hours ago, fruitvilla said:

My hope for the forthcoming trial, if it is by jury, is that they select twelve intelligent people, who can understand the letter of the law, follow the judge's instructions, follow the evidence, and are not swayed by public opinion or their emotions.

Seems like a reasonable hope albeit an unlikely one.

My hope is thst the victims families see that the sentence fits the crime and gets some kind of justice. The community there will never get over this. Whet he did was horrific. People should never loose sight of thst 

Edited August 2 by PaulC

[NurembergVillan]

11 hours ago, PaulC said:

Being on the autistic spectrum doesn't mean he Is not capable of knowing what he is doing.

This is correct. But some sort of ASD might be the tip of an iceberg in this case. That is what the CPS will need to find out.

[foreveryoung]

3 hours ago, PaulC said:

My hope is thst the victims families see that the sentence fits the crime and gets some kind of justice. The community there will never get over this. Whet he did was horrific. People should never loose sight of thst 

The sentence won't fit the crime for the parents, cause he'll still be alive!!!

[NurembergVillan]

15 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

The sentence won't fit the crime for the parents, cause he'll still be alive!!!

That's quite an assumption to make on behalf of the parents.

Until you've been in their position it's impossible to comprehend how it feels. If the lad was dead it's done and dusted for him but their mental anguish goes on.

[foreveryoung]

4 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

That's quite an assumption to make on behalf of the parents.

Until you've been in their position it's impossible to comprehend how it feels. If the lad was dead it's done and dusted for him but their mental anguish goes on.

I really don't think it's much of a assumption at all. 

[fruitvilla]

4 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

7 hours ago, PaulC said:

My hope is thst the victims families see that the sentence fits the crime and gets some kind of justice. The community there will never get over this. Whet he did was horrific. People should never loose sight of thst 

The sentence won't fit the crime for the parents, cause he'll still be alive!!!

I could be wrong ... but my sense is some of us here are after retribution.

[Davkaus]

25 minutes ago, fruitvilla said:

I could be wrong ... but my sense is some of us here are after retribution.

Hard to blame people in a case like this tbh.

I'm pretty firmly set against the death penalty across the board, and think our prison system should be focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. But if I were leading this lad to a cell, I wouldn't worry too much about making sure his shoelaces had been removed.

[chrisp65]

There’s a lack of imagination when the ultimate punishment possible is death.

 

[fruitvilla]

58 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Hard to blame people in a case like this tbh.

I'm pretty firmly set against the death penalty across the board, and think our prison system should be focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. But if I were leading this lad to a cell, I wouldn't worry too much about making sure his shoelaces had been removed.

While I get this point of view, it certainly is not mine. There is a deep philosophical/scientific underbelly to this question. And it is the question of free will and the fundamental nature of this unfolding universe. It is easy to go with our intuitions and feelings. Thought requires a bit more effort.

[Rds1983]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

Hard to blame people in a case like this tbh.

I'm pretty firmly set against the death penalty across the board, and think our prison system should be focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. But if I were leading this lad to a cell, I wouldn't worry too much about making sure his shoelaces had been removed.

If the death sentence was in place for some crimes, there's a chance it then gets expanded out to other crimes, all of which increases the risk that at some point an innocent man is executed.