National News Nottingham Stabbings

[Essexyellows]

There have been cases where there was 'no doubt' where subsequently it has been found the conviction is wrong.

This case was captured on CCTV, Police body cam, etc etc and he admitted his guilt. Just wondering where "doubt" comes into it?

And it is now off to the Attorney General to review if he should have been sentenced in the way he was or something more stringent applied.

 

[Scotchegg]

This case was captured on CCTV, Police body cam, etc etc and he admitted his guilt. Just wondering where "doubt" comes into it?

And it is now off to the Attorney General to review if he should have been sentenced in the way he was or something more stringent applied.

I've heard from those who think "more stringent" means spending the rest of his life in Prison. But that is neither stringent or purposeful.

The principle of our justice system is about rehabilitation, and that change is possible. Some disagree about whether people can actually change or not, and that is a valid argument but one that is often based on emotions rather than facts.

In this case, the guy has a severe mental illness. Being locked up won't fix that. Being treated might make him safer to himself and others, even if he is never safe enough to be released.

This is the most appropriate outcome in principle, however I do accept @Followtheox1 view that there needs to be some way to tighten this up legally to ensure that the absolutely highest levels of assessment are needed before this individual is ever considered for "release".

 

[MustardYellow]

I've heard from those who think "more stringent" means spending the rest of his life in Prison. But that is neither stringent or purposeful.

The principle of our justice system is about rehabilitation, and that change is possible. Some disagree about whether people can actually change or not, and that is a valid argument but one that is often based on emotions rather than facts.

In this case, the guy has a severe mental illness. Being locked up won't fix that. Being treated might make him safer to himself and others, even if he is never safe enough to be released.

This is the most appropriate outcome in principle, however I do accept @Followtheox1 view that there needs to be some way to tighten this up legally to ensure that the absolutely highest levels of assessment are needed before this individual is ever considered for "release".

This is the issue with the whole system. Decisions are made based on how people feel about an individual/event, rather than the long term outcomes of such decisions.

 

[Scotchegg]

And the views of the victims should definitely be taken into consideration in regards to sentencing. Restorative Justice is now used more frequently to give the victims more involvement in finding an appropriate outcome, and this can be very powerful at bringing peace to those harmed by crime as well as really challenging those responsible for that harm.

However, victims alone can't dictate sentencing and we need to have an independent judiciary even if they do make mistakes from time to time. That is why we have an appeals process.

 

[Followtheox1]

I've heard from those who think "more stringent" means spending the rest of his life in Prison. But that is neither stringent or purposeful.

The principle of our justice system is about rehabilitation, and that change is possible. Some disagree about whether people can actually change or not, and that is a valid argument but one that is often based on emotions rather than facts.

In this case, the guy has a severe mental illness. Being locked up won't fix that. Being treated might make him safer to himself and others, even if he is never safe enough to be released.

This is the most appropriate outcome in principle, however I do accept @Followtheox1 view that there needs to be some way to tighten this up legally to ensure that the absolutely highest levels of assessment are needed before this individual is ever considered for "release".

I don't necessarily feel restriction orders per se need to be tightened up, I was just stating the facts on what one actually is. Without going into to much detail, I have good cause to know (no I have not been on one) and am pretty knowledgeable on this area of law. In this case, obviously I don't know all the facts but hybrid orders (45 a) were brought in for this type of case so interesting to know why one wasn't used. The other thing for people to remember is that diminished responsibility doesn't mean no responsibility, it means what is says!

 

[unification]

It’s a joke, if you commit a crime just say your insane and you get off!

This is utter nonsense. I could only find some MoJ stats from 2012 that suggested that around 30 people a year have a successful insanity plea. There wasn't data for how many put it forward as a defence. And Valdo Calocane hasn't 'got off'. He will not be walking the streets any time soon. He will be held in a high-security hospital akin to prison and he will not be able to partake in civil liberties we take for granted. He will be there for a very long time.

This whole story is a desperately sad one. Three victims (and three injured) by one person. However, we all know crimes generally fall under the three point heading - means, motive and opportunity. He has the means and opportunity - what was his motive? This was not a killing based on someone snapping against the life dealt to them like Raoul Moat, someone groomed to do it by religious mania like Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale or a psychopath who did it for pleasure. His 'motive' was caused by hearing voices telling him to kill people caused by paranoid schizophrenia which was confirmed by four psychologists at the trial.

I fully understand the anger of the victim's families however it is misguided in my view to level it at the sentence. Fingers should and probably will be pointed at the police and health services for not diagnosing the severity of Calocane's mental illness early and offering treatment and/or arresting him before these events could have occurred. Also, one member of the victim's family described Calocane as a 'monster'. In an age where mental health is being discussed, understood and appreciated more than ever, is this helpful? His actions were terrible and fatal but are we now labelling anyone with mental health issues as fundamentally unstable?

As for the capital punishment argument put forward by Essex, if bumping off the mentally ill is what's being advocated, we could well see Godwin's Law make an appearance in this thread. State executions belong to the past. Three lives have been cut short. You think taking anyway someone's friend, son, sibling etc makes that in any way right?

 

[bashamwonderland]

This is utter nonsense. I could only find some MoJ stats from 2012 that suggested that around 30 people a year have a successful insanity plea. There wasn't data for how many put it forward as a defence. And Valdo Calocane hasn't 'got off'. He will not be walking the streets any time soon. He will be held in a high-security hospital akin to prison and he will not be able to partake in civil liberties we take for granted. He will be there for a very long time.

This whole story is a desperately sad one. Three victims (and three injured) by one person. However, we all know crimes generally fall under the three point heading - means, motive and opportunity. He has the means and opportunity - what was his motive? This was not a killing based on someone snapping against the life dealt to them like Raoul Moat, someone groomed to do it by religious mania like Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale or a psychopath who did it for pleasure. His 'motive' was caused by hearing voices telling him to kill people caused by paranoid schizophrenia which was confirmed by four psychologists at the trial.

I fully understand the anger of the victim's families however it is misguided in my view to level it at the sentence. Fingers should and probably will be pointed at the police and health services for not diagnosing the severity of Calocane's mental illness early and offering treatment and/or arresting him before these events could have occurred. Also, one member of the victim's family described Calocane as a 'monster'. In an age where mental health is being discussed, understood and appreciated more than ever, is this helpful? His actions were terrible and fatal but are we now labelling anyone with mental health issues as fundamentally unstable?

As for the capital punishment argument put forward by Essex, if bumping off the mentally ill is what's being advocated, we could well see Godwin's Law make an appearance in this thread. State executions belong to the past. Three lives have been cut short. You think taking anyway someone's friend, son, sibling etc makes that in any way right?

Yes, let's criticise a grieving family member for mental health "wrongspeak" when someone just carved up their loved one.

Maybe a bit of perspective is needed.

 

[holdsteady]

This is utter nonsense. I could only find some MoJ stats from 2012 that suggested that around 30 people a year have a successful insanity plea. There wasn't data for how many put it forward as a defence. And Valdo Calocane hasn't 'got off'. He will not be walking the streets any time soon. He will be held in a high-security hospital akin to prison and he will not be able to partake in civil liberties we take for granted. He will be there for a very long time.

This whole story is a desperately sad one. Three victims (and three injured) by one person. However, we all know crimes generally fall under the three point heading - means, motive and opportunity. He has the means and opportunity - what was his motive? This was not a killing based on someone snapping against the life dealt to them like Raoul Moat, someone groomed to do it by religious mania like Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale or a psychopath who did it for pleasure. His 'motive' was caused by hearing voices telling him to kill people caused by paranoid schizophrenia which was confirmed by four psychologists at the trial.

I fully understand the anger of the victim's families however it is misguided in my view to level it at the sentence. Fingers should and probably will be pointed at the police and health services for not diagnosing the severity of Calocane's mental illness early and offering treatment and/or arresting him before these events could have occurred. Also, one member of the victim's family described Calocane as a 'monster'. In an age where mental health is being discussed, understood and appreciated more than ever, is this helpful? His actions were terrible and fatal but are we now labelling anyone with mental health issues as fundamentally unstable?

As for the capital punishment argument put forward by Essex, if bumping off the mentally ill is what's being advocated, we could well see Godwin's Law make an appearance in this thread. State executions belong to the past. Three lives have been cut short. You think taking anyway someone's friend, son, sibling etc makes that in any way right?

You can't seriously have a problem with a member of a completely innocent murder victims family describing that murderer as a monster? To that person they are.

 

[holdsteady]

Yes, let's criticise a grieving family member for mental health "wrongspeak" when someone just carved up their loved one.

Maybe a bit of perspective is needed.

It certainly shows a complete lack of empathy.

 

[MustardYellow]

You can't seriously have a problem with a member of a completely innocent murder victims family describing that murderer as a monster? To that person they are.

Dehumanising people is often what those who commit crimes do to justify their actions.

It's always easier to minimise people to non-human beings rather than try to understand them as a human, with thoughts, feelings, experiences etc like the rest of us.

I understand it's a defence mechanism, but it isn't helpful and speaks to a lack of emotional control.

 

[holdsteady]

Dehumanising people is often what those who commit crimes do to justify their actions.

It's always easier to minimise people to non-human beings rather than try to understand them as a human, with thoughts, feelings, experiences etc like the rest of us.

I understand it's a defence mechanism, but it isn't helpful and speaks to a lack of emotional control.

f**k off, that poor person has lost a family member in the most brutal way and you are criticising them for call him a monster on the day they had to go through the ordeal of his trial. Complete lack of sympathy for the true victims, we are not all emotionless robots.

 

[MustardYellow]

f**k off, that poor person has lost a family member in the most brutal way and you are criticising them for call him a monster on the day they had to go through the ordeal of his trial. Complete lack of sympathy for the true victims, we are not all emotionless robots.

Who said I don't sympathise, and who said we're emotionless robots?

Feeling emotion is fine - expressing them by dehumanising people is not. As I say, we all feel emotion but the test of emotional control and intelligence is how you express those emotions. Isn't reacting to your emotions in negative ways something we as a society want to avoid? Ironically, that's how a lot of crimes occur in the first place.

 

[Mojofilter]

So nothing to do with the victims and their families then?

Yes, that's the point I'm making.

 

[holdsteady]

Who said I don't sympathise, and who said we're emotionless robots?

Feeling emotion is fine - expressing them by dehumanising people is not. As I say, we all feel emotion but the test of emotional control and intelligence is how you express those emotions. Isn't reacting to your emotions in negative ways something we as a society want to avoid? Ironically, that's how a lot of crimes occur in the first place.

You come across as an emotionless robot when you criticise a member of the family of brutally murdered innocent victim for calling that murderer a monster, if you can't see why that is then I can't help you.

 

[Mojofilter]

Dehumanising people is often what those who commit crimes do to justify their actions.

It's always easier to minimise people to non-human beings rather than try to understand them as a human, with thoughts, feelings, experiences etc like the rest of us.

I understand it's a defence mechanism, but it isn't helpful and speaks to a lack of emotional control.

The good thing about your defences, is they defend you when you need it. Until it becomes a problem for her, she can keep her defences all she wants.

All I'm saying is that her dehumanised view of the killer shouldnt be part of the sentencing process

 

[Essexyellows]

I've heard from those who think "more stringent" means spending the rest of his life in Prison. But that is neither stringent or purposeful.

The principle of our justice system is about rehabilitation, and that change is possible. Some disagree about whether people can actually change or not, and that is a valid argument but one that is often based on emotions rather than facts.

In this case, the guy has a severe mental illness. Being locked up won't fix that. Being treated might make him safer to himself and others, even if he is never safe enough to be released.

This is the most appropriate outcome in principle, however I do accept @Followtheox1 view that there needs to be some way to tighten this up legally to ensure that the absolutely highest levels of assessment are needed before this individual is ever considered for "release".

Good argument against keeping him alive for the rest of his natural.

The sentence serves no purpose and he won`t be rehabilitated........

 

[Scotchegg]

Good argument against keeping him alive for the rest of his natural.

The sentence serves no purpose and he won`t be rehabilitated........

Do you endorse the death penalty for all those with severe mental illnesses?

 

[MustardYellow]

You come across as an emotionless robot when you criticise a member of the family of brutally murdered innocent victim for calling that murderer a monster, if you can't see why that is then I can't help you.

If me being able to control my emotions in a healthy way makes me seem like an 'emotional robot' to you, then unfortunately I think it's a testament to where we are as a society.

A society in which the person who isn't calling for someone dehumanised or killed is deemed in the wrong is a society that is broken and governed by nothing but their negative feelings towards one another.

 

[unification]

Yes, let's criticise a grieving family member for mental health "wrongspeak" when someone just carved up their loved one.

Maybe a bit of perspective is needed.

You can't seriously have a problem with a member of a completely innocent murder victims family describing that murderer as a monster? To that person they are.

It was in a prepared statement, read out to the assembled press. It does not take away their pain, anger or grief, but to me it is a far from helpful word to use. 'Killer' would have had the same impact based on fact without the dehumanising aspect that mojofilter points out.

I just fear that labelling people with severe mental health concerns as 'monsters', even killers such as Valdo Calocane, is not helpful. It lumps them in with the likes of Nilsson, Brady and Hindley, West and John Christie and doesn't differentiate between twisted individuals who commit crimes in the full knowledge of what they are doing and the the sick pleasure/desire of doing it against those who don't have the mental capacity to understand what they are doing or the severity of what occurred.

A question of semantics perhaps.

 

[unification]

Should have got a suspended sentence.
View attachment 17578

Very unlikely to ever be released, very likely has no mental concept of what he did or what detention is.

The "bed cost" of a secure unit is circa £600+ a day............ which will rise exponentially for the rest of his life.

Remind me why we should keep him alive?

The phrase 'knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing' has never felt so glib.