[Closed] Prison Sentencing...

from the article:

The effect of the diminished responsibility is to reduce these crimes from what would have been exceptionally wicked crimes of murder to what are still very serious crimes of culpable homicide.

I think the salient points are (from the article you linked):

He added: "You, and others, must understand that while your responsibility is diminished, you are still responsible for your actions.

"The effect of the diminished responsibility is to reduce these crimes from what would have been exceptionally wicked crimes of murder to what are still very serious crimes of culpable homicide.

"diminished" is the key word.

EDIT: z1ppy is as fast as his name suggests 🙂

This:
"She was initially charged with murder but last month admitted three counts of the lesser charge of culpable homicide on the grounds of diminished responsibility"

and this:
" after Donald Findlay QC spent more than two hours delivering a plea of mitigation on her behalf"

because she was found guilty of culpable homicide on the grounds of diminished responsibility whihc reduces the charge from murder to manslaughter

I assume the question would be - why was she of 'diminished responsibility'? I didn't spend too much time reading the article but was there an underlying medical condition or was it just an easy way of getting the conviction?

why was she of 'diminished responsibility'?

I guess I must be a liberal yoghurt weaver because I think:

1) Anyone who commits murder must be mentally ill, or was at the time, how is it possible to do this without being screwy?
2) What good does locking her up do for anyone? (unless she is still dangerous?)

caveat
3) If I was the husband I think I would need a lot of counselling /drugs to prevent me from plotting some awful fate for her..

My belief would be that almost anyone who kills their children their head is not working properly

Clever trick - blew up the house & then threw herself off a balcony

Anyone who commits murder must be mentally ill

I think Donald Findlay summed up saying "his client doesn't care what happens to her life now". 16 years and a life sentence IMO.

TJ and MF agree with me. I'm off to [s]celebrate[/s] commiserate myself...

So basically she 'proved' she was insane in the membrane by trying to kill herself so was of diminished responsibility?

Well if you believe in the religious notion of evil, then stoning her to death by the righteous would probably seem a more suitable punishment.

Personally I would lean towards the probability that she was suffering from some form of mental breakdown at the time, and the punishment could be actually excessive.

"Now I have not got a clue about the judicial system but how can a woman who stabs her three children to death only get 16 years? "

My guess is the judge looked at the law , the facts of the case in detail and all of her relevant personal circumstances rather than just going with his knee jerk response to a headline.

TJ and MF agree with me. I'm off to celebrate commiserate myself...

toys, I think you've come a long way 🙂 I agree with you too.

Don't worry DD, I think you'll find I've been agreeing with you over on the henson's a ****/not a **** forum .

Toys - it just shows you can be right sometimes

I'm disappointed as I expected to start an argument not a love in.
Oh well Laphroig anyone?

Oh well Laphroig anyone?

Have you no taste man?!?

Are you proposing an alternative? Something Oirish?

No, spoiling for a fight. I know cock all about whisk(e)y tbh. Not that I'd let that stop me foightin' about it dough.

Mastiles - to get diminished responsibility accepted it's basically a battle of the psychiatrists, you need various detailed reports saying that you were severely mentally unwell, it isn't just as easy as saying "diminished responsibility" although it is the "thing to do" at the minute, "the fashion" so to speak.

@ Toys - locking her up will be the only way of (a) protecting the public at this time (which they clearly need to do) and (b) be the sole way of her getting the relevant treatment for her illness.

The other thing is (I'm not sure about Scottish law) but if that was sentencing in English law the 16 year tariff is a time before she can apply for parole. SO it doesn't mean she will be released after 16 years, that is when she can apply for parole and she will be released pending the parole board thinking she is not a danger to society.

I have just finished working on this case and you think 20 years for that!!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3539518/Son-hacks-his-mum-to-death-with-a-machete.html

MC, I'm not saying don't lock her up, I just don't see the outrage in "only" 16 years..

DD too late there has been too much kissing on here for anyone to get fighty..

With you now Toys, that makes sense. sometimes though locking someone up is the only way they get the relevant help/treatment they need (if indeed they are mentally ill).

In brief the evidence is that locking people up for long periods of time has little or no beneficial effect on their criminality. (not sure of current recidivism rate, but last time I did check it was well over 90%). Therefore do something else which is more effect.

There you go sorted! Even Ken Clarke has figured that one out so it must be blindingly obvious 😯

MC agreed.
BB I think this is my position too..

I'm surprised by how liberal everyone is today, I can't decide if it's real or if it's just standard STW to be contrary to the OP's position...

I thought the longer sentances 5 yrs plus you could actually address behaviour - its the sentances of a few weeks that are the real waste of time.

I thought the longer sentances 5 yrs plus you could actually address behaviour - its the sentances of a few weeks that are the real waste of time.

I dunno, I value my liberty, 5 days in prison would make me re-evaluate my actions...

toys - it's every poster's dream to be able to accuse another member of being a daily mail reader

it's our own godwin

I dunno, I value my liberty, 5 days in prison would make me re-evaluate my actions...

For example, a cold-blooded murderous person (Ie a Reggie Kray type) would be quite happy with five days inside for killing and dismembering a rival. He wouldn't be 'cured' in five days but after 40 years he may have had time to be rehabilitated enough to be allowed back into society.

But a family man banged up for five days because he refused to pay his council tax - well he would think twice before doing something like that again.

Apart from the actual daily mail readers, who like to make the "guardian reading liberal" accusation.

I think I accused myself when I said this

I guess I must be a liberal yoghurt weaver because I think:

MF yes I understand the difference, more importantly my statement was pretty trite as if you are locked up for 5 years, deciding after 5 days that you get it now and promise not to do it again won't actually make any difference..

Being locked up and rehabilitation will vary severely depending on who you are, lifestyle circumstances and the offence you are in prison for. Drug addicts shoplifting proflically, they need punishing but prison won't deter them, they can get drugs inside and if they are homeless they also get food and board for their sentence.. perfect. however I don't know what other sentencing would work in that situation? Kid that gets bullied by mates to drive car drunk, may be able to rehabilitate depending on home life, personality etc? But do they need prison as an initial deterrent and punishment?
Yet bloke in link I posted earlier doesn't need rehabilitating, he isn't a threat to society he has accomplished his task of killing his Mother he has no-one else to murder! It's a weird thing rehabilitation and a very debtable subject.

Do you ride your motorbike at 152mph should you go to prison for 2 weeks? What will that achieve? Make themm do XX months work with severely disabled victims of motor accidents or something like that?

So basically she 'proved' she was insane in the membrane by trying to kill herself so was of diminished responsibility?

where's yossarian when you need him?