National News Nottingham Stabbings

[holdsteady]

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 emotions.

You haven't had a family member murdered in a brutal fashion? You have criticised someone who has been through that extreme trauma and all it entails for describing that murderer as a monster, how are yours and their experiences in anyway comparable?

 

[bashamwonderland]

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.

So that's probably a valid criticism of their lawyers, who will have helped to draft the statement. However, even if the lawyers did raise the point (which would have been a pretty bold move) at the time, and the family members were like "f**k off mate I'll call him what I want, he murdered my child", then I find it mad that you could call them out for using a word which is at worst "problematic", and at best entirely fitting to describe a multiple murderer.

It just feels like an argument about semantics, when you're talking about a parent whose situation you cannot possibly fathom, is a bit "LinkedIn" (by which I mean it lacks any form of empathy or human understanding).

 

[holdsteady]

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.

If that's what they feel should they not be able to use that word? Should they lie?

Its not the role of the grieving family to help, I think they have been through and are going through enough that we can take that off their shoulders.

 

[QR]

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.

I think you're skating on thin over with this one. Right now, in the heat of the trial, he is a monster to the victims families and may be so forever. I think this is slightly different to having a backwards, outdated view of metal health.

 

[Scotchegg]

You haven't had a family member murdered in a brutal fashion? You have criticised someone who has been through that extreme trauma and all it entails for describing that murderer as a monster, how are yours and their experiences in anyway comparable?

To this family, this man is of course a monster and evil and should never taste freedom again. I would forgive anyone talking in these terms whilst they are still grieving for their loved ones and have been dragged through a public court hearing.

However, it isn't helpful for the wider society to see killers as monsters whether they have mental illnesses or not. Sadly, some very ordinary people commit some very horrible offences and thar is far more worrying than seeing people as inherently good or bad.

 

[MustardYellow]

I think you're skating on thin over with this one. Right now, in the heat of the trial, he is a monster to the victims families and may be so forever. I think this is slightly different to having a backwards, outdated view of metal health.

Monsters aren't real. Whether people like it or not, he's a human being. As I've said, dehumanising people may well be a coping mechanism but it isn't a healthy one.

I'm not blaming them for being angry, sad, and all the other emotions that come with something like this, but expressing these emotions in such way is just not helpful to anyone - least of all them.

 

[holdsteady]

Monsters aren't real. Whether people like it or not, he's a human being. As I've said, dehumanising people may well be a coping mechanism but it isn't a healthy one.

I'm not blaming them for being angry, sad, and all the other emotions that come with something like this, but expressing these emotions in such way is just not helpful to anyone - least of all them.

I think you lack the emotional range to critique the way anyone else deals with extreme trauma.

 

[Essexyellows]

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

No!

Just those who, in a pre-meditated way, go on to commit multiple murders, multiple attempted murders, have no hope of being rehabilitated and there is 100% no doubt of guilt.

As an example a paranoid schizophrenic who commits a "one off murder" on the spur of the moment would follow the secure hospital/prison route.

However, in exceptional cases exceptional punishments are called for.

I could write a list of people who should have received such a sentence - some of whom are already named in this thread.

 

[Essexyellows]

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

He has no value to society.

 

[Sharp Edges]

I would beg to differ on that point.

The victim impact statements, the readings on the Court steps etc the families do not feel that justice has been fair to them nor will they have any peace from the hospital order sentence.

And they have to live with the thought that, if approved by a first tier tribunal, he could be released back into society.

Exceptional crimes call for exceptional sentences/solutions.

Agreed. I can only speculate how I would feel as a family member but I think I would feel some sort of closure with a guilty of murder verdict. I think manslaughter would feel like a huge kick in the stomach.

Having read the family statements that is how they are viewing it.

 

[Sharp Edges]

No one can just say that they're insane, and no one has got off with this.

Hmmmm, thats your opinion, mine is he has got away with murder.

 

[MustardYellow]

I think you lack the emotional range to critique the way anyone else deals with extreme trauma.

Again, you're suggesting I don't have 'emotional range' because I'm not running around dehumanising people and calling for their suffering.

It's telling the only emotions you accept are negative ones.

 

[holdsteady]

Again, you're suggesting I don't have 'emotional range' because I'm not running around dehumanising people and calling for their suffering.

It's telling the only emotions you accept are negative ones.

You want me to be positive about a man who murdered 3 people?

I am able to empathise/sympathise with the families of murder victims, something you seem completely unable to do. That doesn't mean that I can't feel positive emotions does it? Its just hard to find any in this situation, I certainly wouldn't find it as easy as you to criticise the reaction of people in extreme grief.

 

[MustardYellow]

You want me to be positive about a man who murdered 3 people?

I am able to empathise/sympathise with the families of murder victims, something you seem completely unable to do. That doesn't mean that I can't feel positive emotions does it? Its just hard to find any in this situation, I certainly wouldn't find it as easy as you to criticise the reaction of people in extreme grief.

Why do you see things so binary, as either positive or negative? Negative emotions can be used in positive ways.

Of course I sympathise with them, I've never said otherwise.

I think the conversation here is outcomes vs emotion/sentiment - we clearly choose to put weight on the different sides of that.

 

[Sharp Edges]

No. It should be about long term outcomes. This case is unique due to the mental illness element, but in most normal cases the only consideration should be what's most likely to improve long term outcomes as a whole for society.

Who decides what is "normal"?

Ive already said Im not a supporter of the death penalty but im struggling to see how this individual being alive improves outcomes for anyone in society long term or short term. Am I missing something.

 

[MustardYellow]

Who decides what is "normal"?

Ive already said Im not a supporter of the death penalty but im struggling to see how this individual being alive improves outcomes for anyone in society long term or short term. Am I missing something.

Keeping him alive is a positive for society because it doesn't take us the final step to becoming total barbarians.

Just yesterday the US executed a man using a new method which had him convulsing and gasping for air for 25 minutes, all this after failing to kill him in a previous botched execution.

Anyone who wants that for this country is a lunatic and needs help.

 

[Sharp Edges]

I think you're skating on thin over with this one. Right now, in the heat of the trial, he is a monster to the victims families and may be so forever. I think this is slightly different to having a backwards, outdated view of metal health.

Quite possibly the first comment you have posted in this area of the forum I have ever agreed with!

 

[unification]

He has no value to society.

I could say the same about Boris Johnson ...

Seriously, is this how you value human life? It should not be the state's decision to take someone's life away regardless of their societal 'worth' (which is a subjective value judgment anyway and an everchanging one as life moves on).

Why not extend that to prisoners, the severely disabled and care home residents? What do they offer anyone? Get them gone.

 

[unification]

Hmmmm, thats your opinion, mine is he has got away with murder.

Three (later four) psychologists all agreed that 'that Calocane was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the attacks, and this resulted in an abnormality of mental functioning, which contributed to him committing the offences, and also impaired his ability to exercise self-control.' [quoted from the BBC story below]
I value their opinions of this rather than the blanket 'murder' tag.

This provides a summary of the history of mental health issues that led to the fateful day: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-68080872

 

[Common Villager]

Couple of caveats before posing this question:

- I am 100%, unequivocally opposed to the death penalty in any circumstance
- I don't dispute the validity of mental health conditions nor support the assertion they can easily be 'faked'

Here's my question: isn't anyone who commits a heinous crime such as murder 'not of sound mind'? Whether or not it's a voice in their head, 'something' is telling them to commit the act.