MLAR Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Surely this should be a medical decision not a political one? How is michael gove qualified to judge if someone is insane or not? It was the High Court that decided that he will never be released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quik Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 It was the High Court that decided that he will never be released. But according to the link Gove will decide if he should be in broadmoor or jail. That seems pretty odd as he has no qualification to decide if the guy is mad or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 I didn't say the risk had increased. I was asking if you thought a tarrif should be honored even if the prisoner is still considered a danger to public. If he hasn't tried to kill anyone whilst inside then I don't see how they think he is still a risk. It all comes down to how they reach the conclusion that he is still a danger to he public, if anything the Ripper is in danger from the public... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 If he hasn't tried to kill anyone whilst inside then I don't see how they think he is still a risk. It all comes down to how they reach the conclusion that he is still a danger to he public, if anything the Ripper is in danger from the public... Yes it does seem unfair that his sentence was increased, but maybe they looked at the reality of the situation. How could he possibly be released and his whereabouts not leaked? And when it comes to Peter Sutcliffe considerations of fair play are out the window. The public want punishment and who can blame them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 If he hasn't tried to kill anyone whilst inside then I don't see how they think he is still a risk. It all comes down to how they reach the conclusion that he is still a danger to he public, if anything the Ripper is in danger from the public... That's the measure you'd use, not trying to kill someone whilst inside? He specifically targeted and killed women, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Caught this on radio 2 this morning Couldn't believe it! Why? Which part seems so unbelieveable? It makes perfect sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 If he hasn't tried to kill anyone whilst inside then I don't see how they think he is still a risk. He was declared to be schizophrenic, claiming that God had told him to kill prostitutes. He possibly hasn't met many in Broadmoor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 But according to the link Gove will decide if he should be in broadmoor or jail. That seems pretty odd as he has no qualification to decide if the guy is mad or not. He doesn't have to be qualified..that's why we have Broadmoor and other relevant institutions.. ---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 09:33 ---------- But according to the link Gove will decide if he should be in broadmoor or jail. That seems pretty odd as he has no qualification to decide if the guy is mad or not. Effectively both the same. Both confine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 I heard this on the radio earlier with a friend of mine, which led to a discussion of an ethical question: if he was convicted on the grounds of diminished responsibility due to a mental health condition, if he is no longer deemed to have this condition does that conviction still hold from a legal standpoint? I've now read the article so I know more details about his conviction and incarceration (which answers the question, to me), but as a purely academic question it was interesting. As this is Sheffield Forum, I now feel the need to point out that I don't think he should be released, it's just a point of discussion... My understanding is that a person is found guilty of a crime but it's then up to the judge to decide whether the "disposal" should be down the criminal justice route (prison) or the psychiatric route (hospital). Different sections of the Mental Health Act allow for transfers between prison and hospital and vice versa without affecting the time to be served. The main difference is that if you are detained under section 37/41 of the Mental Health Act it is down to the Ministry of Justice if and when you are released and if you are released you can be detained back to hospital at any future point if the MOJ order it, no trial or anything. So a person stands more chance of release from a prison sentence than a 37/41 detention. ---------- Post added 02-12-2015 at 20:43 ---------- With paranoid schizophrenia, he's not cured, just his symptoms are managed well enough for him to be considered "well". I doubt he'll be considered low enough risk to be released into society to be treated there. Plus a high court judge recommended he should never be released... Plus many people, including psychiatrists, now believe that schizophrenia is a fictitious "illness" so any cure would be a fiction anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now