You may remember in the news a while back about a 7 year old killed in a park on mothers day, well today her killer has been found not guilty of murder, but manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

RIP little girl

Full news article below.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/18 ... wZ5UJFVphk

I don't think this thread will last long, Macca.

FactualFrank wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 2:18 pm

I don't think this thread will last long, Macca.

it doesn't fall under the band subjects does it, or do you mean before people spoil it?

Macca, I think, TBH, that people will send this thread downhill very quickly. RIP little one!

MACCA wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 2:20 pm

it doesn't fall under the band subjects does it, or do you mean before people spoil it?

Presumably you mean after people have read the entire linked article, including the final paragraph which consists of two lines only, almost as if it is an irrelevance...

RIP little one... i can only hope your parents find peace.

In a sense it doesn't make a lot of difference whether she is kept behind bars until she dies because she is a murderer, or she is kept behind bars until she dies because she is dangerously insane - all that matters is that she is kept behind bars. What worries me is that at some point she might be let out.

Thats the country we live in
Yanks wouldnt put up with it

Si-mc wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 2:42 pm

Thats the country we live in
Yanks wouldnt put up with it

Put up with what? Have you seen their crime stats?

Agree with dsr.

I can't imagine the pain her parents must be feeling. My heart really does go out to them as they are the people who are worthy of any thought whatsoever (and the little girl obviously R.I.P)

dsr wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 2:40 pm

In a sense it doesn't make a lot of difference whether she is kept behind bars until she dies because she is a murderer, or she is kept behind bars until she dies because she is dangerously insane - all that matters is that she is kept behind bars. What worries me is that at some point she might be let out.

At which point she should be sent back to Albania.

Albania wouldn't put up with it.

I don't know of anyone who has been diagnosed as clinically insane to be found guilty of murder. Once the prosecution saw the medical reports they dropped the murder charge, as there was virtually no chance of success. This is normal practice, but as already said, in practical terms it will make no difference

You take a child's life? You should lose yours. No caveats, no small print, no terms and conditions no excuses. End of.

RingoMcCartney wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 3:44 pm

You take a child's life? You should lose yours. No caveats, no small print, no terms and conditions no excuses. End of.

I will correct that for you. " If you take anybody's life you should lose yours "..

The mental health card makes it very convenient for it to be swept under the carpet. The defendant is detained at a secure hospital with a cloak of medical confidentiality. Same thing with the Marks and Spencer attacker the other day. Avoids the elephant in the room.

Swizzlestick wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 2:45 pm

Put up with what? Have you seen their crime stats?

Agree with dsr.

Death = Lifed off

On the basis that the prosecution withdrew the murder charge it appears that this is the correct decision. I would also suggest that a paranoid schizophrenic being detained for life in a mental health institute, as opposed to a prison, is in everyone's best interests.

The problem with the insanity claim and subsequent detainment at a secure hospital is that somewhere along the line a doctor will claim she is cured and she will be released as a "no longer a danger to the public" until she does it again and another family has to suffer

taffy wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:52 pm

The problem with the insanity claim and subsequent detainment at a secure hospital is that somewhere along the line a doctor will claim she is cured and she will be released as a "no longer a danger to the public" until she does it again and another family has to suffer

I see it as nothing more than a loophole.

taffy wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 8:52 pm

The problem with the insanity claim and subsequent detainment at a secure hospital is that somewhere along the line a doctor will claim she is cured and she will be released as a "no longer a danger to the public" until she does it again and another family has to suffer

The same applies to people sentenced to prison for murder.

The public need to decide on these issues so it’s fair, we’ve got a backward justice system quite frankly unfit for purpose & insults the intelligence of the tax payer.

Surely people try to play the insane card all the time and don’t get away with it. This is such a high profile case, clearly she must be insane otherwise she would have got life.


Extremely doubtful she will ever see freedom anyway.

Such an awful and emotive case. Horrible.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:33 pm

The public need to decide on these issues so it’s fair, we’ve got a backward justice system quite frankly unfit for purpose & insults the intelligence of the tax payer.

If that happened, emotions would rule and apparently it shouldn't.

And we'd be going back to the mid-1800s. I think we've moved on a bit from that. Just don't ever let them out so they can't do it again, regardless of how well they do in the hospital.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:33 pm

The public need to decide on these issues so it’s fair, we’ve got a backward justice system quite frankly unfit for purpose & insults the intelligence of the tax payer.

And you’re a Dr now? Why should anyone trust your judgment or opinion? You know nothing about this case or the defendant other than the gossip you read in the paper yet you feel fit to cast judgment

Sadly, it's legally the correct decision.

There does however need to be a review of the immigration service, and anyone else connected to her case, as to why a paranoid schizophrenic asylum seeker was free to wander the streets.

Lessons need to be learnt from this so it doesn't happen again.

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:48 pm

And you’re a Dr now? Why should anyone trust your judgment or opinion? You know nothing about this case or the defendant other than the gossip you read in the paper yet you feel fit to cast judgment

He's offering his opinion.

FactualFrank wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:44 pm

If that happened, emotions would rule and apparently it shouldn't.

And we'd be going back to the mid-1800s. I think we've moved on a bit from that. Just don't ever let them out so they can't do it again, regardless of how well they do in the hospital.

I understand where you are coming from but the system is designed to be exploited, all they will do is transfer the criminal well you can’t really call them that once you enter an hospital in admission you become a patient & there’s a duty of care, you’ll be given massive doses of benzodiazepines so there’s no trouble, zombies don’t create you are too monged out do anything, there will be day rooms where they watch TV or just sleep in there rooms. The justice system is antiquated & I feel the public need to decide whether selected broadly to canvass input or on a nationwide scale for really serious offences.

gtclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 3:26 pm

. Once the prosecution saw the medical reports they dropped the murder charge, as there was virtually no chance of success. This is normal practice, but as already said, in practical terms it will make no difference

The only bit I question is why it gets this far when the prosecution will have been served the reports priory to the court case. I understand they may want to hear the evidence from the experts but there does not seem to opposing medical opinion.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 9:53 pm

I understand where you are coming from but the system is designed to be exploited, all they will do is transfer the criminal well you can’t really call them that once you enter an hospital in admission you become a patient & there’s a duty of care, you’ll be given massive doses of benzodiazepines so there’s no trouble, zombies don’t create you are too monged out do anything, there will be day rooms where they watch TV or just sleep in there rooms. The justice system is antiquated & I feel the public need to decide whether selected broadly to canvass input or on a nationwide scale for really serious offences.

Stop banging that tired old drum.

The public aren't informed enough to make such decisions as to what is the right punishment etc.

We have Jury service to allow public to decide if someone is guilty or not, that's all it needs to be.

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:49 pm

Stop banging that tired old drum.

The public aren't informed enough to make such decisions as to what is the right punishment etc.

We have Jury service to allow public to decide if someone is guilty or not, that's all it needs to be.

We’ll agree to disagree on this 1, it’s clear we are both entrenched in our opinions, I’m not arguing about it we’ve already gone around the houses with it before, I don’t want the thread to get locked, other posters may want to contribute,

It's a sensitive subject and think both GodIsADeeJay81 and Jakubclaret make good points.

But Covid-19 has proven we cannot rely on the public - the average human being in this country is thick as ****. That's the bottom line.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:20 pm

We’ll agree to disagree on this 1, it’s clear we are both entrenched in our opinions, I’m not arguing about it we’ve already gone around the houses with it before, I don’t want the thread to get locked, other posters may want to contribute,

Fair comments and I'll go along with you on this one.

https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/18919242.amp/

Killer 'laughed at Emily Jones' lookalike on TV' - court told

THE killer of seven-year-old Emily Jones “started laughing hysterically” when she saw a girl who looked like her victim on TV, a court heard.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:20 pm

We’ll agree to disagree on this 1, it’s clear we are both entrenched in our opinions, I’m not arguing about it we’ve already gone around the houses with it before, I don’t want the thread to get locked, other posters may want to contribute,

I don’t agree that the public should have a say on individual crimes Jakobclaret, for reasons so eloquently described by FF , albeit see where you’re coming from. I do however think that the public should have much greater say on the tariffs allocated to crimes and the minimum/maximum sentences.

In my opinion we are far too soft in this country and need to be prepared to throw away the key much more often. I also think prisoners should work in prison to contribute part of what it’s costing to keep them there.

I probably have more faith that the killer will stay locked up in hospital as opposed to being convicted of murder and sent to prison. The courts, prison service and wider criminal justice system are on its knees.

But anyway, a truly horrendous incident and my thoughts go to the little girl and her family. I don’t know how you could witness your child being killed and continue to face each day with the pain.

RIP

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:04 am

I don’t agree that the public should have a say on individual crimes Jakobclaret, for reasons so eloquently described by FF , albeit see where you’re coming from. I do however think that the public should have much greater say on the tariffs allocated to crimes and the minimum/maximum sentences.

In my opinion we are far too soft in this country and need to be prepared to throw away the key much more often. I also think prisoners should work in prison to contribute part of what it’s costing to keep them there.

Fair enough I wasn’t asking or expecting you to agree, I’ve stated my reasons extensively before & I can also see your counter argument despite disagreeing, regarding working in prisons they do it’s part of rehabilitation you can actually learn a skill inside to help you once released, in some ways & in some circumstances you are actually better off in prison if you don’t mind losing your liberty on a temporary basis. It’s warm & dry & 3 square meals & you learn a skill all FOC what’s not to like.

Oh look, another "Prison's a cushy number", "String 'em up!", "No, we're civilised, just lock them up for good, life means life" thread...

Always guaranteed whatever the situation to be reassured by eddies insightful input into the matter

I taught courses in a prison for a while and a couple of points come to mind:

1. I was told that statistics showed that those prisoners who entered the educational programme at that level were far less likely to reoffend after release.

2. Prison isn't nice or cushy, it's horrible. Every time I got out and drove away in my car, I just felt an enormous sense of relief over the freedom I had to do anything I fancied or go anywhere I wanted. Deprivation of freedom is a heavy punishment.

Erasmus wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 1:00 pm

I taught courses in a prison for a while and a couple of points come to mind:

1. I was told that statistics showed that those prisoners who entered the educational programme at that level were far less likely to reoffend after release.

2. Prison isn't nice or cushy, it's horrible. Every time I got out and drove away in my car, I just felt an enormous sense of relief over the freedom I had to do anything I fancied or go anywhere I wanted. Deprivation of freedom is a heavy punishment.

“Prison isn't nice or cushy, it's horrible” it is for non inmates like yourself, try living rough on the streets & then being guaranteed warmth & security & food in your belly prison then becomes paradise.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:59 pm

Always guaranteed whatever the situation to be reassured by eddies insightful input into the matter

My point is clearly beyond you but yes, you're right, my reponses can be guaranteed to have a lot more insight than your simplistic guff.
For example..

"try living rough on the streets & then being guaranteed warmth & security & food in your belly prison then becomes paradise."

And how do you know this ?

If, of course, this bs were true, we'd not have any homeless folk living er, rough on the streets, would we ? Ffs.

‘Deprivation of freedom’ isn’t a ‘heavy punishment’ for cold bloodied murder of someone let alone a child. I suspect most of the advocates of therapy and more lenient punishments wouldn’t feel the same if the victims were their own family.

evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 1:49 pm

My point is clearly beyond you but yes, you're right, my reponses can be guaranteed to have a lot more insight than your simplistic guff.
For example..

"try living rough on the streets & then being guaranteed warmth & security & food in your belly prison then becomes paradise."

And how do you know this ?

If, of course, this bs were true, we'd not have any homeless folk living er, rough on the streets, would we ? Ffs.

The court are reluctant to lock them, you have to repeat repeat repeat offend seriously before custodial sentences are considered, plenty try believe me but are unsuccessful, the prisons are overcrowded as a consequence custodial sentences are only considered for serious offences & repeat offending, some even turn up at court with there belongings willing the judge but end up disappointed.

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:13 pm

The court are reluctant to lock them, you have to repeat repeat repeat offend seriously before custodial sentences are considered, plenty try believe me but are unsuccessful, the prisons are overcrowded as a consequence custodial sentences are only considered for serious offences & repeat offending, some even turn up at court with there belongings willing the judge but end up disappointed.

Is that your view again or is it actually based on any kind of statistics or evidence ?

Just to be clear - you are saying that plenty of homeless people try and get into prison by committing crimes and they turn up at court “with their belongings” expecting to go to prison but are turned down ?

I’ve had a number of dealings with our local magistrates courts in Burnley where as you know we also have quite a big homeless problem. I’ve never seen what you are professing to be a common experience on one single occasion.

But of course our sentencing systems and guidelines for this country do not mean you go to prison for every single offence or crime....I don’t think there is a country in the world that do.

evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:37 pm

... life means life ...

Not to be controversial, but I hopewe can agree that people who kill children at random can't be allowed out - life must mean life. Not necessarily uncomfortable life, that's a different argument. But they can't be allowed out to risk doing it again.

And that's just one of the opinions likely to come up on a thread like this. The point Jakub isn't bright enough to appreciate is that an emotive subject such as this has been examined, in many forms, many times before on here with the same responses guaranteed to be churned out so he tries to have a go at me.
Clearly, his claim regarding the homeless queueing up outside our courts to be sent to jail is just plain barmy. Funny but barmy.

TVC15 wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:38 pm

Is that your view again or is it actually based on any kind of statistics or evidence ?

Just to be clear - you are saying that plenty of homeless people try and get into prison by committing crimes and they turn up at court “with their belongings” expecting to go to prison but are turned down ?

I’ve had a number of dealings with our local magistrates courts in Burnley where as you know we also have quite a big homeless problem. I’ve never seen what you are professing to be a common experience on one single occasion.

But of course our sentencing systems and guidelines for this country do not mean you go to prison for every single offence or crime....I don’t think there is a country in the world that do.

Please see attached.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 1.html?amp

Jakubclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 07, 2020 6:13 pm

Please see attached.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 1.html?amp

That article simply tells the story of those homeless who are re-offending and getting sent back to prison.
Hardly breaking news that some people who are homeless end up in prison...it’s actually a lot more likely to be the other way round in most cases. A number of people who have committed crimes serious enough for a prison sentence end up homeless. Again hardly breaking news given the impact going in prison has on your ability to gain employment, income, benefits, on the housing list etc

Feel free to post an article about what you said though - homeless people turning up at court with their belongings and being turned down to go to prison when sentenced for their crimes.

I always find it disappointing that these threads concentrate on aspects which might be classified as revenge against the perpetrator, (and to be fair to some degree a desire to prevent repeat offending).

Surely when discussing sentencing we should also be considering deterrence. By this I mean the deterrent effect on someone who has not yet offended of knowing the possible result of their actions. Now when I was a teenager and frankly very immature I was absolutely 100% sure that the death penalty was the right answer for murder because "Obviously" nobody would commit a murder if they knew that they might pay with their life. Having actually seen evidence from around the world I have a different view now.

In this particular case however it does seem pretty well established that the perpetrator is mentally ill - hence the dropping of the murder charge. I'm not entirely sure why people are arguing at any length because it seems to me that all concerned (perpetrator, victim and victim's family) are losers, and that barring 20/20 foresight it might have been difficult if not impossible to prevent this happening. We can stop it happening again with the same perpetrator by keeping her locked away but how do we stop a similar case happening at some unspecified time by some unspecified person against some other unspecified person? When we are dealing with mentally ill people we are looking at irrational acts.

At this point I should declare an interest....I have a son who is severly autistic and capable of inflicting quite a nasty injury. He is looked after by some very dedicated carers.

Thanks for that, keith ; informative, well-reasoned and thought-provoking.