Should The Mentally Ill Be Punished For Their Crimes?

I am a firm believer that adults who commit serious crimes (murder, rape, child abuse etc) should be treated equally, regardless of their mental state or mental age.

Being mental or a bit slow doesn't change the fact they are just as likely to repeat offend as a sane person. We should be thinking about the victims and future victims when sentences are dished out, not the fact Johnny has the mental age of a 15 year old.

Harsh? Probably, but the public should not be put at risk just because society is scared to come down hard on the mentally challenged.

Yes they should, or even better just give them a lethal injection.

Not quite on topic but i never understood why that woman, who killed her mentally ill daughter and herself got so much sympathy.

she was a murderer.

If the medical board deem that someone is a complete cabbage then they should be classed as criminally insane and sent to Rampton or some other high security mental hospital.

I sometimes think the doctors are fooled by some of these nasty murderers who con them into believing they are nutters. Sutcliffe and his messages from God asking him to murder prostitutes was a complete crock of shit. Robert Napper is another piece of garbage wrapped in human skin who should be in a prison rather than a mental hospital.

They should be locked up, whether it be Rampton or Strangeways.

The public should be protected from all violent nutters,no matter the cost.

For god's sake, how can anyone post an article like that and claim to have a PhD in the same week?

Why stop with the mentally ill, Natasha? Why not punish people who are just plain ill. If someone with cancer can't cross the road before the lights change, give them a fixed penalty notice.

largehat wrote:For god's sake, how can anyone post an article like that and claim to have a PhD in the same week?

Why stop with the mentally ill, Natasha? Why not punish people who are just plain ill. If someone with cancer can't cross the road before the lights change, give them a fixed penalty notice.

So if a mentally ill person rapes and kills a child they should get a shorter sentence than a "sane" person who commits the same crime?

There is too much emphasis put on rehabilitation, and all too often these ill people strike again - either because they stopped taking their meds or they are simply crazy to the core.

It's tight, but it's about time these people were locked away for good. I'm sick of reading about innocent people being killed because some doctor thought someone was cured.

Natasha Whittam wrote:
So if a mentally ill person rapes and kills a child they should get a shorter sentence than a "sane" person who commits the same crime?

Oh, I see you have now rolled murder, rape and child abuse together into one incredibly emotive and rare crime. That's not what your OP said. Anyway, in answer to your question, it would very much depend on the mental illness in question and the circumstances of the crime. Mental illness is not one condition. I would also suggest the kind of person who would rape and murder a child would have to have an incredibly strong case to successfully convince a Court that their responsibility was so diminished that they considered their actions mitigated. One thing I do know is that the groundswell of public opinion as demonstrated in the gutter press and internet lynch mobs on Facebook should be completely ignored.

There are a number of recent cases where a mentally ill person has been subject to vile abuse with gangs of youths hanging around their house every night, throwing things at them and tormenting them for 'kicks'. On one occasion I can think of, the mentally ill person has snapped and attacked one of their tormentors and killed them.

If somebody is seriously mentally ill, and it can be proven that they were not responsible for their actions, and they were severely provoked, then they should definitely receive a shorter sentence.

I suppose you'd lock them up and throw away the key, because that's entirely consistent with your fascist views.

largehat wrote:If somebody is seriously mentally ill, and it can be proven that they were not responsible for their actions, and they were severely provoked, then they should definitely receive a shorter sentence.

I suppose you'd lock them up and throw away the key, because that's entirely consistent with your fascist views.

I would give them exactly the same sentence as a "sane" person who committed a similar crime.

The law should simply look at the crime and give sentence accordingly, not give out reduced sentences because someone happens to be slow or ill.

Let me ask you this...if someone killed a loved one would you feel any less hate towards them if you found them to be slow or mentally ill?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote:If somebody is seriously mentally ill, and it can be proven that they were not responsible for their actions, and they were severely provoked, then they should definitely receive a shorter sentence.

I suppose you'd lock them up and throw away the key, because that's entirely consistent with your fascist views.

I would give them exactly the same sentence as a "sane" person who committed a similar crime.

The law should simply look at the crime and give sentence accordingly, not give out reduced sentences because someone happens to be slow or ill.

Let me ask you this...if someone killed a loved one would you feel any less hate towards them if you found them to be slow or mentally ill?

It depends on the circumstances and the mental illness. You can't paint this issue with broad strokes. You're dealing in absolutes and that's my issue. A huge proportion of the people you know will have suffered from or will suffer from a mental illness at some stage in their lives. Your use of the term "slow" betrays your utter ignorance.

If someone with a sound mind wilfully killed someone I love, I'd want them dead. I am the kind of person who bears grudges though - it's one of my character flaws.

I'm not suitable to be a law lord or a judge or the home secretary, and I am happy to trust people in these positions to keep the appropriate checks and balances in place and ensure the law is not retributive and allows everyone the right to a fair trial. If there's some genuine reason which excuses a person's actions, be it mental illness or other mitigation, we live in a society where that person has a right to defend themselves and be judged by a jury of their peers.

It's exactly your question and more generally your fatuous original post which makes me glad I don't live in a state where victims have any influence on the punishment for crimes. And as I mentioned earlier, people like you with a lynch mob mentality are restricted to airing their views in the gutter press and in the lynch mob groups on Facebook.

Why let the lunatics run the asylum?

Your views belong in the 18th century, when people were ignorant about mental illness and didn't know any better. Thankfully, society has moved on.

largehat wrote:

It depends on the circumstances and the mental illness. You can't paint this issue with broad strokes. You're dealing in absolutes and that's my issue. A huge proportion of the people you know will have suffered from or will suffer from a mental illness at some stage in their lives. Your use of the term "slow" betrays your utter ignorance.

If someone with a sound mind wilfully killed someone I love, I'd want them dead. I am the kind of person who bears grudges though - it's one of my character flaws.

I'm not suitable to be a law lord or a judge or the home secretary, and I am happy to trust people in these positions to keep the appropriate checks and balances in place and ensure the law is not retributive and allows everyone the right to a fair trial. If there's some genuine reason which excuses a person's actions, be it mental illness or other mitigation, we live in a society where that person has a right to defend themselves and be judged by a jury of their peers.

It's exactly your question and more generally your fatuous original post which makes me glad I don't live in a state where victims have any influence on the punishment for crimes. And as I mentioned earlier, people like you with a lynch mob mentality are restricted to airing their views in the gutter press and in the lynch mob groups on Facebook.

Why let the lunatics run the asylum?

Your views belong in the 18th century, when people were ignorant about mental illness and didn't know any better. Thankfully, society has moved on.

You seem to have a need to feel superior, and the only way for you to do it is accuse me of something I didn't say.

This is not a mental illness bashing thread, I think mental illness is under-funded and the people who have to deal with it shunned by society. But this thread is about the law and the fact we have gone down the road of giving lenient sentences to people with mental illness or who are mentally slow.

The law is not supposed to let this happen, a murder is a murder regardless of your colour, religion, sex or mental state - we should not be saying having a mental illness is an excuse to murder someone in cold blood.

I'm with the Hat on this. Basically if someone is ill and doesn't understand what they're doing then intent can't be proven. They need to be treated - despite the fact that the institutional mental health system is very flawed. And which is the greater sentence? If someone is sectioned under the Mental Health Act they can be detained for an indeterminate period - perhaps for ever. I would therefore not recommend pleading mental incapacity for a speeding ticket as there are many cases of folk being locked away for years for crimes that would normally carry a pittance of a sentence (and they'd probably only serve half of that anyway)
Society can't blame mentally ill people for being mentally ill - it's not their fault.

wanderlust wrote:
Society can't blame mentally ill people for being mentally ill - it's not their fault.

I agree, but that doesn't mean I'm going to feel any less anger towards them if they killed someone I loved. And them having a mental illness makes them more likely to repeat the offence given half a chance.

The protection of people going about their everyday lives is more important than giving mentally ill people leniency.

Natasha Whittam wrote:
You seem to have a need to feel superior, and the only way for you to do it is accuse me of something I didn't say.

This is not a mental illness bashing thread, I think mental illness is under-funded and the people who have to deal with it shunned by society. But this thread is about the law and the fact we have gone down the road of giving lenient sentences to people with mental illness or who are mentally slow.

The law is not supposed to let this happen, a murder is a murder regardless of your colour, religion, sex or mental state - we should not be saying having a mental illness is an excuse to murder someone in cold blood.

What have I accused you of saying that you didn't say?

I don't have any need to feel superior. I just think your views on this subject are draconian, ignorant, backward and extremely right wing.

I would agree that this is "not a mental illness bashing thread", it didn't start out that way, but then you demonstrated ignorance about mental illness by using the word "slow" and by implying people use it as an excuse for their actions.

You seem confused about the legal process too. A judge does not say, "this person was mentally ill so we'll give them 4 years instead of 8" or whatever. The extent to which the accused is culpable for their actions is examined. If someone didn't understand or know that what they were doing was wrong, what does it achieve to give them the exact same sentence and punishment to a cold blooded killer? It achieves nothing. As I have said, the purpose of the penal system is to punish and/or rehabilitate, not to seek retribution.

largehat wrote:What have I accused you of saying that you didn't say?

I don't have any need to feel superior. I just think your views on this subject are draconian, ignorant, backward and extremely right wing.

I would agree that this is "not a mental illness bashing thread", it didn't start out that way, but then you demonstrated ignorance about mental illness by using the word "slow" and by implying people use it as an excuse for their actions.

You seem confused about the legal process too. A judge does not say, "this person was mentally ill so we'll give them 4 years instead of 8" or whatever. The extent to which the accused is culpable for their actions is examined. If someone didn't understand or know that what they were doing was wrong, what does it achieve to give them the exact same sentence and punishment to a cold blooded killer? It achieves nothing. As I have said, the purpose of the penal system is to punish and/or rehabilitate, not to seek retribution.

Firstly, a judge might not come out and say it but research shows that mentally ill people get substantially less prison time than people who are deemed to be sane. People get off using the "by reason of insanity" plea all the time.

Secondly, don't try and make me feel bad by calling me ignorant, unlike you I didn't go to PC school and a spade is a spade where I come from. Calling someone "slow" is a fact, just like calling a homosexual "gay".

For the last time, someone who commits murder, rape or child abuse should be locked up for good - there should NEVER be an excuse. Unfortunately the world is full of do-gooders like yourself who would rather risk setting a kiddie fiddler free than abuse his/her "human rights".

Natasha Whittam wrote:
Firstly, a judge might not come out and say it but research shows that mentally ill people get substantially less prison time than people who are deemed to be sane. People get off using the "by reason of insanity" plea all the time.

Secondly, don't try and make me feel bad by calling me ignorant, unlike you I didn't go to PC school and a spade is a spade where I come from. Calling someone "slow" is a fact, just like calling a homosexual "gay".

For the last time, someone who commits murder, rape or child abuse should be locked up for good - there should NEVER be an excuse. Unfortunately the world is full of do-gooders like yourself who would rather risk setting a kiddie fiddler free than abuse his/her "human rights".

Seeing as you haven't answered my question, I assume you are backing down from accusing me of criticising you for things you didn't say.

Of COURSE people who are mentally ill get shorter sentences, this is what we have been discussing and the whole point of your post!!! No judge needs to "come out and say it".

Since the late 1990s, anyone with racist, homophobic or any other prejudiced opinions, when criticised, comes out with the stock counter argument that the person criticising them is "part of the PC brigade" or that a given situation is "political correctness gone mad". It doesn't wash with me, or anyone else with a brain, to see through that. I am not politically correct. I do not espouse politically correct opinions as a matter of course. Did you read my comments last week about gay marriage? Did you not read my above post where I said personally I'd want someone who wilfully killed one of my loves ones dead? It was in answer to a direct question you asked me, so surely you read that. How is that political correctness? You've totally lost the plot in this discussion.

So we're back to square one.

So long as you insist on isolating yourself from the realities of the human condition in the twenty first century, you should restrict yourself to posting about football and trivialities such as whether fat people should work in gyms.

largehat wrote: Since the late 1990s, anyone with racist, homophobic or any other prejudiced opinions, when criticised, comes out with the stock counter argument that the person criticising them is "part of the PC brigade" or that a given situation is "political correctness gone mad".

Oh right, so now I'm racist and homophobic? Brilliant comeback.

Please oh wise one, how should I refer to those people that don't quite have the IQ they should?

largehat wrote:


Since the late 1990s, anyone with racist, homophobic or any other prejudiced opinions, when criticised, comes out with the stock counter argument that the person criticising them is "part of the PC brigade" or that a given situation is "political correctness gone mad".

Utter bullshit mate. I've read nothing in this thread that offends me and, believe me, I know more than most on this subject.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

largehat wrote: Since the late 1990s, anyone with racist, homophobic or any other prejudiced opinions, when criticised, comes out with the stock counter argument that the person criticising them is "part of the PC brigade" or that a given situation is "political correctness gone mad".

Oh right, so now I'm racist and homophobic? Brilliant comeback.

Please oh wise one, how should I refer to those people that don't quite have the IQ they should?

You're deliberately misunderstanding my posts now to score points = natural end of discussion.