News0 min ago
How handy is that ?
30 Answers
http://
she didnt cheat taxpayers she stole from them, and no doubt shes sorry......sorry she got caught
i'll bet she soon makes a "full recovery" though
she didnt cheat taxpayers she stole from them, and no doubt shes sorry......sorry she got caught
i'll bet she soon makes a "full recovery" though
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Whatever happened to 'If you cant do the time dont do the crime'
This judgement is a travesty. If she has a mental illnes then she should be jailed in a mental institute.
Or should we all go and rob the local Jewelers and claim we are depressed about the state of the country left to us be noo labour ?
This judgement is a travesty. If she has a mental illnes then she should be jailed in a mental institute.
Or should we all go and rob the local Jewelers and claim we are depressed about the state of the country left to us be noo labour ?
baz..
\\i'll bet she soon makes a "full recovery" though\\
I totally agree.
\\\\well of course anyone on AB who has all the advantage of having read about her on a computer screen is infinitely better placed to assess someone's mental health than a mere doctor who's actually met her. \\\
jno
My money would go on the opinion of the ABer....the medical profession has a poor history of psychiatric opinions and prognostications.
\\i'll bet she soon makes a "full recovery" though\\
I totally agree.
\\\\well of course anyone on AB who has all the advantage of having read about her on a computer screen is infinitely better placed to assess someone's mental health than a mere doctor who's actually met her. \\\
jno
My money would go on the opinion of the ABer....the medical profession has a poor history of psychiatric opinions and prognostications.
please do try it, youngmafbog, I shall be watching with interest.
Here's the legal position at the moment, from the Telegraph:
Moran may be subject to a supervision order, a hospital order or absolute discharge, where no further action is taken against her, the judge said.
"She is presently being treated by psychiatrists at home and that treatment will continue," he added.
Her barrister, Jim Sturman QC, argued for an absolute discharge, saying: "This is a woman who has had a genuine total collapse of her mental state."
The judge said his preferred option was a supervision order, adding that a hospital order could not be made because it required two doctors to say hospital treatment was needed and "we do not have those two doctors".
Here's the legal position at the moment, from the Telegraph:
Moran may be subject to a supervision order, a hospital order or absolute discharge, where no further action is taken against her, the judge said.
"She is presently being treated by psychiatrists at home and that treatment will continue," he added.
Her barrister, Jim Sturman QC, argued for an absolute discharge, saying: "This is a woman who has had a genuine total collapse of her mental state."
The judge said his preferred option was a supervision order, adding that a hospital order could not be made because it required two doctors to say hospital treatment was needed and "we do not have those two doctors".
The difficulty, jno, is I don't think the law was properly intended to be applied in this way. The fundamental idea is that a person who is mentally ill should not be found guilty if, at the time of the acts complained of, he did not know what he was doing, or, if he did know, he did not know that what she was doing was wrong. Now, this woman did the acts complained of, as the jury found, and must have known that she was acting dishonestly by the standards of ordinary people.
The question then arises whether a person, sane at the material time.is now so mentally ill (which includes depression) that they are incapable of giving instructions to their counsel during the trial or incapable of understanding the nature or conduct of the proceedings. Plainly, such should not be tried. But if they recover sufficiently, they should be. But the course taken effectively means that this woman will never be punished for her sane actions. (You'd be surprised if a mass murderer escaped on the grounds that he was ill at the time of the trial). It is notable that the judge didn't make a hospital order because there were not two doctors (one of whom must be qualified in psychiatric medicine) present. Whyever not?
That's why I think this was a good result for the defence and the defendant.
The question then arises whether a person, sane at the material time.is now so mentally ill (which includes depression) that they are incapable of giving instructions to their counsel during the trial or incapable of understanding the nature or conduct of the proceedings. Plainly, such should not be tried. But if they recover sufficiently, they should be. But the course taken effectively means that this woman will never be punished for her sane actions. (You'd be surprised if a mass murderer escaped on the grounds that he was ill at the time of the trial). It is notable that the judge didn't make a hospital order because there were not two doctors (one of whom must be qualified in psychiatric medicine) present. Whyever not?
That's why I think this was a good result for the defence and the defendant.
the defence was very good ( legal aid ? ).
So lets try this out, I am depressed, no very depressed, so I will go out and rob a bank, in court I get a doctor to say I am depressed, we then call all of you that are reading this as witnesses to my medical condition.
Do you think I will / should get away with the crime?
So lets try this out, I am depressed, no very depressed, so I will go out and rob a bank, in court I get a doctor to say I am depressed, we then call all of you that are reading this as witnesses to my medical condition.
Do you think I will / should get away with the crime?
as to your last question, FredPuli, I wondered that myself. More details may appear in later reports; the Telegraph's was all I could find.
As to why this pseudo-trial was held... don't know that either. Maybe it was thought more important in the public interest to get the facts out in the open than to wait, possibly forever, for the chance to punish her (and the possibility that she might then have been cleared anyway).
As to why this pseudo-trial was held... don't know that either. Maybe it was thought more important in the public interest to get the facts out in the open than to wait, possibly forever, for the chance to punish her (and the possibility that she might then have been cleared anyway).
Baza, this chap made a recovery that is nothing short of miraculous. Diagnosed with Alzheimers disease, which is incurable, on early release from prison he quickly found his wits again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Saunders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Saunders
'the system' just needs to sit and wait quietly - as long as no final decision on treatment/punishment has been made, you can pretty much guarantee that the poor dear will have to continue to (appear to?) suffer from her illness.
That will at least restrict her freedom of movement for a while.
If she makes the mistake of 'recovering' then presumably 'the system' can grind back into action and deal appropriately with her.
That will at least restrict her freedom of movement for a while.
If she makes the mistake of 'recovering' then presumably 'the system' can grind back into action and deal appropriately with her.
