National News Nottingham Stabbings

In order to convict on a murder charge you must prove that the individually knowingly carried out the attack with the intent to take life. Whilst this appears to be clear to us looking in, it could be argued that his mental health issues meant that he wasn't of sound mind and therefore not responsible for his actions. Manslaughter has a lower threshold of intent needed to convict, and this is why it can often be used to guarantee a conviction. Sadly that doesn't take away from the fact that 3 innocent people lost their lives and this could have been so much worse, but this will be reflected in his sentencing.

He will get a life sentence with a minimum term of 30+ years as an absolute minimum, it's equally likely that he will get a whole life sentence meaning that he is never released. These are very rare and of the 90,000 in prisons, all bar around 100 will be released at some point. Or he may be sectioned, but this is far from being the cushy option that some would imagine. Secure hospitals and long term lifer prisons are run under a very similar model, and have equal security measures.
 
Essexyellows said:
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?
Click to expand...
If by we you mean the government I think a more pertinent question is why have we let him out on the streets in the first place? It's this the first manifestation of his mental illness or is this the consequence of care in the community?
 
Scotchegg said:
In order to convict on a murder charge you must prove that the individually knowingly carried out the attack with the intent to take life. Whilst this appears to be clear to us looking in, it could be argued that his mental health issues meant that he wasn't of sound mind and therefore not responsible for his actions. Manslaughter has a lower threshold of intent needed to convict, and this is why it can often be used to guarantee a conviction. Sadly that doesn't take away from the fact that 3 innocent people lost their lives and this could have been so much worse, but this will be reflected in his sentencing.

He will get a life sentence with a minimum term of 30+ years as an absolute minimum, it's equally likely that he will get a whole life sentence meaning that he is never released. These are very rare and of the 90,000 in prisons, all bar around 100 will be released at some point. Or he may be sectioned, but this is far from being the cushy option that some would imagine. Secure hospitals and long term lifer prisons are run under a very similar model, and have equal security measures.
Click to expand...
Cheers, I appreciate the explanation.

Im sure you will forgive me if I say I think it sucks. I think its been mentioned elsewhere, who of sound mind would set out to kill people?
 
Scotchegg said:
In order to convict on a murder charge you must prove that the individually knowingly carried out the attack with the intent to take life. Whilst this appears to be clear to us looking in, it could be argued that his mental health issues meant that he wasn't of sound mind and therefore not responsible for his actions. Manslaughter has a lower threshold of intent needed to convict, and this is why it can often be used to guarantee a conviction. Sadly that doesn't take away from the fact that 3 innocent people lost their lives and this could have been so much worse, but this will be reflected in his sentencing.

He will get a life sentence with a minimum term of 30+ years as an absolute minimum, it's equally likely that he will get a whole life sentence meaning that he is never released. These are very rare and of the 90,000 in prisons, all bar around 100 will be released at some point. Or he may be sectioned, but this is far from being the cushy option that some would imagine. Secure hospitals and long term lifer prisons are run under a very similar model, and have equal security measures.
Click to expand...
He did not get a life sentence. It's a restriction order. It is completely different. The way the secure hospital system works is very different to prisons.
 
Sharp Edges said:
Cheers, I appreciate the explanation.

Im sure you will forgive me if I say I think it sucks. I think its been mentioned elsewhere, who of sound mind would set out to kill people?
Click to expand...

Mental health is a hugely complex issue, and there are always those who accuse anyone of discussing it as making excuses - and that isn't what I'm here to do. Prisons are full of people with serious mental health issues, many of whom are convicted of murder where intent to kill was clearly established. However, it is a minefield to argue that someone was disturb enough to kill, but still aware of the consequences of doing so. I haven't looked at this specific case in detail, however, I suspect that we're looking at an individual where the issues were so severe that a conviction maybe unsafe.

I have just seen that the perpetrator has been sentenced to detention in a high security hospital "probably" for life, and I can understand how this may sound weak for those involved. But the outcome remains the same. He will spend decades locked away and may never be released.
 
Scotchegg said:
Mental health is a hugely complex issue, and there are always those who accuse anyone of discussing it as making excuses - and that isn't what I'm here to do. Prisons are full of people with serious mental health issues, many of whom are convicted of murder where intent to kill was clearly established. However, it is a minefield to argue that someone was disturb enough to kill, but still aware of the consequences of doing so. I haven't looked at this specific case in detail, however, I suspect that we're looking at an individual where the issues were so severe that a conviction maybe unsafe.

I have just seen that the perpetrator has been sentenced to detention in a high security hospital "probably" for life, and I can understand how this may sound weak for those involved. But the outcome remains the same. He will spend decades locked away and may never be released.
Click to expand...
Probably for life means nothing in law of course!
 
Sharp Edges said:
Cheers, I appreciate the explanation.

Im sure you will forgive me if I say I think it sucks. I think its been mentioned elsewhere, who of sound mind would set out to kill people?
Click to expand...
Crime is incredibly complex, in ways most normal people won't (or just don't want) to understand. This is obviously a unique case in the sense of there being a number of mental illnesses at play, but no crime happens for no reason. It's usually a series of events over a long period of time that ultimately lead to the crimes we see in the news.
 
Scotchegg said:
No, but in practice he will be locked away from as long, if not longer than a prison sentence could have provided under these circumstances.
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever done what he did or similar and been released from a prison sentence or secure unit?
 
Whingit said:
Because we're not disgusting murderous scumbags and we have some standards.
Click to expand...

MustardYellow said:
Saying we should kill people who do wrong is never the ethical standpoint people think it is.
Click to expand...

In cases such as this where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt, a high degree of pre-meditation, committing multiple murders and attempting more then tell me where ethics and standards come into it?

I`m not talking about following the American route of executing people where there is any doubt, or for a single murder, we have prison for them.

There is no punishment in his sentence, there is no justice for the families.

Justify why, in exceptional cases, there should not be exceptional punishment?
 
Essexyellows said:
In cases such as this where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt, a high degree of pre-meditation, committing multiple murders and attempting more then tell me where ethics and standards come into it?

I`m not talking about following the American route of executing people where there is any doubt, or for a single murder, we have prison for them.

There is no punishment in his sentence, there is no justice for the families.

Justify why, in exceptional cases, there should not be exceptional punishment?
Click to expand...
I just don't think that more murder is the answer to murder. Life and the world isn't fair. Sometimes justice will not be done and upholding the rule of law is more important than a bloodthirsty eye for an eye crusade for vengeance, which won't bring the deceased back or make their families sleep in peace at night anyway.
I believe the prosecution should have gone for the murder conviction rather than the easy manslaughter option they could have fallen back on if it didn't work out anyway, although a conservative might argue that the option they took saved a fortune on a trial and was the most efficient use of taxpayer's money. Murdering people to save money is another argument conservatives might have but will struggle to gain support for within a civilised society.
 
According to the legal expert on the radio, because he has been sent to a secure hospital if he is ever deemed 'cured' then he *has* to be released immediately. The judge could have apparently given a 'hybrid' sentence by which he would have been sent to a secure hospital and then if cured would have to spend a certain amount of time in prison afterwards.

It's a difficult one to get right and an easy one to pontificate about. If he was very mentally ill when he committed those horrible crimes then he is (at least to some degree) possibly not responsible for his actions. But being mentally ill is not an absolute, it is a continuum and I'm not sure that except in extreme cases it absolves a person of responsibility for their actions. I don't know if this is one of those cases.

I suppose personally I am quite torn. On one hand, someone who does something so horrible should be locked up and the key thrown away - on the other hand punishing someone for life for being ill seems pretty unfair and rather Victorian. I suspect that he will actually be confined for a very long time, but the lack of certainty won't help the victim's families.
 
ZeroTheHero said:
According to the legal expert on the radio, because he has been sent to a secure hospital if he is ever deemed 'cured' then he *has* to be released immediately. The judge could have apparently given a 'hybrid' sentence by which he would have been sent to a secure hospital and then if cured would have to spend a certain amount of time in prison afterwards.

It's a difficult one to get right and an easy one to pontificate about. If he was very mentally ill when he committed those horrible crimes then he is (at least to some degree) possibly not responsible for his actions. But being mentally ill is not an absolute, it is a continuum and I'm not sure that except in extreme cases it absolves a person of responsibility for their actions. I don't know if this is one of those cases.

I suppose personally I am quite torn. On one hand, someone who does something so horrible should be locked up and the key thrown away - on the other hand punishing someone for life for being ill seems pretty unfair and rather Victorian. I suspect that he will actually be confined for a very long time, but the lack of certainty won't help the victim's families.
Click to expand...
Yes, Hybrid order waa brought in for that very reason. Cured isn't the right term but essentially they would no longer have to meet the criteria for hospital admission which is very different to the criminal justice system and parole.
 
Essexyellows said:
In cases such as this where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt, a high degree of pre-meditation, committing multiple murders and attempting more then tell me where ethics and standards come into it?

I`m not talking about following the American route of executing people where there is any doubt, or for a single murder, we have prison for them.

There is no punishment in his sentence, there is no justice for the families.

Justify why, in exceptional cases, there should not be exceptional punishment?
Click to expand...
I agree with your points and even though I knew Ian so have an emotional involvement I'm not sure I'm in favour of the death penalty. I know people that were closer to him than I was and they want to see him thrown to lions and torn to bits, I certainly wouldn't be upset if Calocane lost his life for what he did but the problem I have is where is the line between no doubt and some doubt and who decides?

Despite the explanations by Scotch and others which I appreciate I've never considered this would be anything else but murder, and that is eating me , how his family must feel I have no idea.

Are we now entering an era where the accused has to be found guilty of the crime and of being sound mind or is it down to the accused to prove they have mental health issues they were unable to control. Or is pot luck how good your lawyer is?

f**k it, my head hurts I need a beer. Stay safe all
 
ZeroTheHero said:
According to the legal expert on the radio, because he has been sent to a secure hospital if he is ever deemed 'cured' then he *has* to be released immediately. The judge could have apparently given a 'hybrid' sentence by which he would have been sent to a secure hospital and then if cured would have to spend a certain amount of time in prison afterwards.

It's a difficult one to get right and an easy one to pontificate about. If he was very mentally ill when he committed those horrible crimes then he is (at least to some degree) possibly not responsible for his actions. But being mentally ill is not an absolute, it is a continuum and I'm not sure that except in extreme cases it absolves a person of responsibility for their actions. I don't know if this is one of those cases.

I suppose personally I am quite torn. On one hand, someone who does something so horrible should be locked up and the key thrown away - on the other hand punishing someone for life for being ill seems pretty unfair and rather Victorian. I suspect that he will actually be confined for a very long time, but the lack of certainty won't help the victim's families.
Click to expand...
I probably wish I hadnt read this. I know people that have been cured of cancer, it hasnt stopped them having cancer again. If someone somewhere decides Calocane is fit enough to be released, whats stopping him becoming ill again?

Jeez i need two beers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Northstandboy
Sport Nottingham Ice Hockey: Adam Johnson Death
Replies
13
Views
1K
Orkney Islands Yellow
Orkney Islands Yellow
Back
Top Bottom