Absolute *** of our time Pt.MXXVI

[Mickyblueeyes]

5 hours ago, Tommy G said:

https://news.sky.com/story/nottingham-attack-sentencing-live-killer-valdo-calocone-to-be-sentenced-over-deaths-of-grace-omalley-kumar-barnaby-webber-and-ian-coates-13055930

Horrendous for the families.

[Parafox]

17 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Doesn't wash for me. He knew what he was doing was wrong, no matter how many voices were in his head. Schizophrenia may have caused it, but doesn't excuse it. 

This taken from the MIND website:

 

If you are charged with murder and can show that you had an 'abnormality of the mind' when you committed the crime, the court will convict you of manslaughter instead. This could mean less punishment. This is called 'diminished responsibility'.

 

Criminal charges - during your trial - Mind

 

I think you'll find Schizophrenia is an "abnormality of the mind".

 

"Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves. People with schizophrenia may seem like they have lost touch with reality".

 

In your first post you state that it was "pretty much proved in court". Is that "beyond all reasonable doubt" or just what you perceive?

 

I'm not condoning or offering to excuse what this man did but your post is a bit narrow minded and IMO, poor and simplistic.

[Paninistickers]

28 minutes ago, Parafox said:

This taken from the MIND website:

 

If you are charged with murder and can show that you had an 'abnormality of the mind' when you committed the crime, the court will convict you of manslaughter instead. This could mean less punishment. This is called 'diminished responsibility'.

 

Criminal charges - during your trial - Mind

 

I think you'll find Schizophrenia is an "abnormality of the mind".

 

"Schizophrenia is a serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves. People with schizophrenia may seem like they have lost touch with reality".

 

In your first post you state that it was "pretty much proved in court". Is that "beyond all reasonable doubt" or just what you perceive?

 

I'm not condoning or offering to excuse what this man did but your post is a bit narrow minded and IMO, poor and simplistic.

I get ya, but couldn't almost all murders be attributed to diminished responsibility?  A jealous rage? Panic? Psychopathy? Narcissism? 

[Parafox]

7 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I get ya, but couldn't almost all murders be attributed to diminished responsibility?  A jealous rage? Panic? Psychopathy? Narcissism? 

Jealousy and panic are not mental health illnesses, more heightened emotional states.

 

Narcissism is a state of mind where one has no empathy, is self centred and arrogant.  Maybe some murderers are narcissists but it is not an excuse in law for a verdict of manslaughter above murder.

 

Many seriously psychopathic offenders eventually end up in secure MH units.

Edited 25 January by Parafox

[FoxesDeb]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

Doesn't wash for me. He knew what he was doing was wrong, no matter how many voices were in his head. Schizophrenia may have caused it, but doesn't excuse it. 

Tell me you don't understand mental illness without actually saying you have absolutely no understanding of mental illness

[HighPeakFox]

23 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Tell me you don't understand mental illness without actually saying you have absolutely no understanding of mental illness

 But he does it with SUCH confidence...

[Bellend Sebastian]

For anyone furious about that bloke being sent to a secure hospital indefinitely, my Missus has worked with a fair few people that have done spells in both those and prison, and apparently they always say that they would much rather be in the latter

[String fellow]

If someone has diminished responsibility, how a court of law can take any plea they make of guilty or otherwise seriously? Presumably, in this case, the accused mental faculties were up to the job of pre-planning his deadly assaults, without realising what he was doing was wrong. Then, his mental faculties were good enough to enter a plea of guilty to manslaughter, knowing that that would help him get off the murder charge. I can only conclude that his alleged schizophrenia was very selective in what it chose to understand.   

[Spiritwalker]

7 minutes ago, String fellow said:

If someone has diminished responsibility, how a court of law can take any plea they make of guilty or otherwise seriously? Presumably, in this case, the accused mental faculties were up to the job of pre-planning his deadly assaults, without realising what he was doing was wrong. Then, his mental faculties were good enough to enter a plea of guilty to manslaughter, knowing that that would help him get off the murder charge. I can only conclude that his alleged schizophrenia was very selective in what it chose to understand.   

I believe this man had been diagnosed with schizophrenia long before the murders took place.

[LiberalFox]

I think I'll take the opinion of qualified medical professionals in conjunction with the legal system over some random men-with-opinions on the internet.

 

Or maybe people with schizophrenia are just making it all up so they can get away with* murder.

 

*being locked up indefinitely in a high security psychiatric facility 

 

[SpacedX]

12 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Doesn't wash for me. He knew what he was doing was wrong, no matter how many voices were in his head. Schizophrenia may have caused it, but doesn't excuse it. 

But that's the point. The unanimous verdict from the forensic psychologists, psychiatrists and mental health professionals that examined him was that these murders would not have taken place had it not been for his schizophrenia and severely deteriorating mental health. 

 

Unfortunately, anosognosia is common amongst schizophrenics and many people with a serious mental illness don't take their prescribed medication. Non-adherence is a major problem in the treatment of schizophrenia and estimated rates in the illness are about 50%. Its high prevalence, can have potentially severe clinical costs and severe consequences for public safety. The risk of psychotic relapse in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder increases almost five times after 5 years.

 

When these terrible tragedies occur, I am reminded of the similar case of Christopher Clunis who stabbed an innocent bystander to death on Finsbury Park Tube station in 1992. Clunis was charged with murder also admitting manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and was indefinitely detained at Rampton. Clunis had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. The incident raised intense scholarly debate about the inadequate treatment given to him in addition to the fact that with an extensive history of psychiatric illness, including previous displays of violent behaviour, he should not have been at liberty to harm the public. It was also later discovered that he had eschewed his medication. 

[String fellow]

9 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

I think I'll take the opinion of qualified medical professionals in conjunction with the legal system over some random men-with-opinions on the internet.

 

Or maybe people with schizophrenia are just making it all up so they can get away with* murder.

 

*being locked up indefinitely in a high security psychiatric facility 

 

It was qualified medical professionals who four years earlier had decided that in their opinion, the accused was psychotic, but not a threat to others.

This verdict of guilty of manslaughter has effectively equated someone who killed three innocent people in vicious, pre-meditated knife attacks, who then sought to evade capture and nearly killed three others in the process with anyone who helps an elderly terminally-ill relative to fly over to Switzerland to end their life painlessly in a euthanasia clinic. If the law can't distinguish between those two scenarios in terms of the conviction, there's something wrong with our legal system.

Having said that, I'm merely 'some random man-with-opinions on the internet', so my opinions count for nothing - except when I'm called up for jury service.

[leicsmac]

Speaking personally, as horrific an event as this is, I'm not entirely sure why so many people want to put a distinction between someone being confined to jail for the rest of their lives and being confined to a secure mental hospital for the rest of their lives.

 

Is the mere idea of jail somehow more "just", even though the guy is going to be under lock and key for the rest of his life either way? I don't get it.

[grobyfox1990]

11 hours ago, LiberalFox said:

I think I'll take the opinion of qualified medical professionals in conjunction with the legal system over some random men-with-opinions on the internet.

 

Or maybe people with schizophrenia are just making it all up so they can get away with* murder.

 

*being locked up indefinitely in a high security psychiatric facility 

 

Apart from when a group of some 'random men-with-opinions on the internet' actually have their opinions relied upon, you know, jury...

Despite the posturing on this thread, the only people who really do matter are the bereaved families.

And guess what, qualified professionals make mistakes...!! Who would have thunk it!! Hence this sentence will go for review., would be amazed if not. 

[grobyfox1990]

43 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Speaking personally, as horrific an event as this is, I'm not entirely sure why so many people want to put a distinction between someone being confined to jail for the rest of their lives and being confined to a secure mental hospital for the rest of their lives.

 

Is the mere idea of jail somehow more "just", even though the guy is going to be under lock and key for the rest of his life either way? I don't get it.

Yes, it is. The concept of 'jail' is confinement and punishment for committing a crime.

The concept of a hospital is not.

Amidst the virtue signalling and clamor to prove we are so with it and totally totally get mental health on this thread, the mere fact a triple killer in broad daylight has not been given the perceived ultimate societal punishment obviously and clearly gives a distressing signal to law-abiding citizens, and an opportunistic one to nefarious citizens.

[Tommy G]

13 hours ago, String fellow said:

If someone has diminished responsibility, how a court of law can take any plea they make of guilty or otherwise seriously? Presumably, in this case, the accused mental faculties were up to the job of pre-planning his deadly assaults, without realising what he was doing was wrong. Then, his mental faculties were good enough to enter a plea of guilty to manslaughter, knowing that that would help him get off the murder charge. I can only conclude that his alleged schizophrenia was very selective in what it chose to understand.   

His legal rep would of done all the advising, he’ll know the loopholes 

[Lionator]

Honestly I think Ashworth is a worse fate for him than prison anyway. He'll be drugged up to the max, in solitary confinement. 

 

He is guilty and it is terrible, but really the police and wider system really let the families down in my opinion. It comes back to the deliberate underfunding and undercutting (but that's another story). 

 

The families have the right to be angry but we shouldn't use this case to stigmatise those who function well in society even with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, who have experienced terrible pain and trauma within their lives. There may even be people on this forum with that diagnosis.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yes, it is. The concept of 'jail' is confinement and punishment for committing a crime.

The concept of a hospital is not.

Amidst the virtue signalling and clamor to prove we are so with it and totally totally get mental health on this thread, the mere fact a triple killer in broad daylight has not been given the perceived ultimate societal punishment obviously and clearly gives a distressing signal to law-abiding citizens, and an opportunistic one to nefarious citizens.

Then perhaps those that think this should visit such a secure mental unit, perhaps even stay there a few days to see how it really works, in order to disabuse themselves of that notion - because IMO they are mistaken.

 

WRT the above discussion on opinions that matter, if the only ones that mattered were that of the bereaved families, then we would have a legal system based mostly on Old Testament-style vengeance - and there's a reason that most civilisations decided to back away from that idea shortly before or after they became civilisations. Justice requires to be dispassionate.

[grobyfox1990]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Then perhaps those that think this should visit such a secure mental unit, perhaps even stay there a few days to see how it really works, in order to disabuse themselves of that notion - because IMO they are mistaken.

 

WRT the above discussion on opinions that matter, if the only ones that mattered were that of the bereaved families, then we would have a legal system based mostly on Old Testament-style vengeance - and there's a reason that most civilisations decided to back away from that idea shortly before or after they became civilisations. Justice requires to be dispassionate.

But they are not going to visit a mental unit lol, that is not realistic and a moot point. Perhaps those who think financial services is all about blood-sucking money merchants should spend a day in my world and realise we work long and hard and are making a co-ordinated and daily difference to future life on this planet. But that's not going to happen so why even posit it as a question?

 

You are confusing the opinions of the bereaved with the justice system. Their opinions matter, the virtue signallers  trying to create a brand on a football forum' do not. Neither form the justice system thankfully.

[Lionator]

43 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yes, it is. The concept of 'jail' is confinement and punishment for committing a crime.

The concept of a hospital is not.

Amidst the virtue signalling and clamor to prove we are so with it and totally totally get mental health on this thread, the mere fact a triple killer in broad daylight has not been given the perceived ultimate societal punishment obviously and clearly gives a distressing signal to law-abiding citizens, and an opportunistic one to nefarious citizens.

I don't see what opportunity you're suggesting? No one is going to think "oh I'm just going to murder lots of people and claim schizophrenia", because a) psychiatrists can see through that b) this person had extensive history of insane delusions. He literally went to the mi5 building and asked to be locked up. 

 

The second point is there's actually very little difference between a secure hospital and high secure prisons, which I don't think the general public gets. He is not being shipped off to Pontins here, he will be in solitary confinement and he'll be on all sorts of horrible drugs (google Clozapine) against his will.  If he gets put on Clozapine then he'll be dead before he'd ever be considered safe for release anyway.

 

Of course the baying mob wants what they see as just punishment, in fact I think for a lot of people, prison would not be enough for this person. These psychiatrists are also not the bleeding heart liberals a lot of people think they are, it's actually one of the most oppressive professions out there. 

 

The families have not got justice, however that is partly due to the inactions of the state, and not solely on the guy who killed their loved ones.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

But they are not going to visit a mental unit lol, that is not realistic and a moot point. Perhaps those who think financial services is all about blood-sucking money merchants should spend a day in my world and realise we work long and hard and are making a co-ordinated and daily difference to future life on this planet. But that's not going to happen so why even posit it as a question?

 

You are confusing the opinions of the bereaved with the justice system. Their opinions matter, the virtue signallers  trying to create a brand on a football forum' do not. Neither form the justice system thankfully.

Fair to say - a little more empathy all round would be a good thing. I made the point about visits because it's reasonably obvious that people mistakenly make a big distinction between secure mental units and jails and that's not accurate. Perhaps some more time looking it up online, instead.

 

I was confusing opinions and justice system because I thought they were being confused on here already - absolutely agree that no such opinions have any place in the justice system.

Edited 26 January by leicsmac

[Paninistickers]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Is the mere idea of jail somehow more "just", even though the guy is going to be under lock and key for the rest of his life either way? I don't get it

It's a technical point but this fella is under the jurisdiction of the health service now, not the judicial system. 

 

If we use Peter Sutcliffe as an example, he was a prisoner who was referred to Broadmoor. He was eventually deemed no longer to be mentally ill and referred back to the prison service. 

 

This fella has evaded that.

[Paninistickers]

1 minute ago, Paninistickers said:

It's a technical point but this fella is under the jurisdiction of the health service now, not the judicial system. 

 

If we use Peter Sutcliffe as an example, he was a prisoner who was referred to Broadmoor. He was eventually deemed no longer to be mentally ill and referred back to the prison service. 

 

This fella has evaded that.

Added; despite the stick I've got on here as being part of a baying mob who doesn't understand mental illness, im afraid the naivety is on them, not my comments.

 

The CPS could've gamed the system as the defence team did, but chose not to. He could've easily been charged with murder, put it to a jury and if found guilty, the prison services could have subjected him to a mental health order to wash their hands of him after sentencing. 

 

Worst case scenario, the jury find him not guilty of murder and agreed with a plea of manslaughter by diminished responsibility and we are where we are today.... and in that way, the families would feel less robbed of justice

 

CPS are underfunded and lazy. They go for the lowest common denominator time and time again. 

[Torquay Gunner]

2 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Added; despite the stick I've got on here as being part of a baying mob who doesn't understand mental illness, im afraid the naivety is on them, not my comments.

 

The CPS could've gamed the system as the defence team did, but chose not to. He could've easily been charged with murder, put it to a jury and if found guilty, the prison services could have subjected him to a mental health order to wash their hands of him after sentencing. 

 

Worst case scenario, the jury find him not guilty of murder and agreed with a plea of manslaughter by diminished responsibility and we are where we are today.... and in that way, the families would feel less robbed of justice

 

CPS are underfunded and lazy. They go for the lowest common denominator time and time again. 

Sadly the entire Justice system is underfunded including the Probation Service, Prison Service and the Courts.   I work in the courts and the backlog is horrendous.

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

It's a technical point but this fella is under the jurisdiction of the health service now, not the judicial system. 

 

If we use Peter Sutcliffe as an example, he was a prisoner who was referred to Broadmoor. He was eventually deemed no longer to be mentally ill and referred back to the prison service. 

 

This fella has evaded that.

A technical point that a lot of people appear to be putting a lot of unnecessary value on and a distinction withouta difference, it would seem to me.

 

As people above have said, for me the much bigger issue is that numerous government entities failed to deal with this man before he committed these terrible acts.