Society & Culture1 min ago
Is It Our Judicious System That Is Mentally Ill?
7 Answers
http://
Why did this killer have knife and assault charges against a policeman dropped just days before this fatal stabbing.
Not only that but he also skipped bail on the previous matters when he was allowed to fly to Nigeria, returning in October instead of August as agreed. and he still wasn't prosecuted for that offence either.
Taking into account the subject of a previous thread, perhaps the Dutch authorities would be wise to issue warnings to their citizens regarding dangerous London.
Why did this killer have knife and assault charges against a policeman dropped just days before this fatal stabbing.
Not only that but he also skipped bail on the previous matters when he was allowed to fly to Nigeria, returning in October instead of August as agreed. and he still wasn't prosecuted for that offence either.
Taking into account the subject of a previous thread, perhaps the Dutch authorities would be wise to issue warnings to their citizens regarding dangerous London.
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
We do not know why the previous charge was dropped, so we cannot blame the judicial system, yet.
It seems obvious this man is mentally ill, so maybe he wasn't fit to stand trial, or there was a flaw in the prosecution. Charges can be dropped for many reasons, and until we know why, you cannot just blame that on the subsequent crime.
// At an earlier hearing now retired Judge Charles Wide QC demanded prosecutors find out why and said: 'I imagine a judge might be concerned about the discontinuance of three charges in the five days before this incident.'
'I've no idea of the circumstances, but I could see there may be some public concern about that.' //
The Mail report does not bother to tell us why the previous charge was dropped.
I would think that would be very easy to find out. I suspect if they told us the reason, then that would not support their narrative that he got off because of gullible Judges and because there is one law for us and a different one for ethnics.
It seems obvious this man is mentally ill, so maybe he wasn't fit to stand trial, or there was a flaw in the prosecution. Charges can be dropped for many reasons, and until we know why, you cannot just blame that on the subsequent crime.
// At an earlier hearing now retired Judge Charles Wide QC demanded prosecutors find out why and said: 'I imagine a judge might be concerned about the discontinuance of three charges in the five days before this incident.'
'I've no idea of the circumstances, but I could see there may be some public concern about that.' //
The Mail report does not bother to tell us why the previous charge was dropped.
I would think that would be very easy to find out. I suspect if they told us the reason, then that would not support their narrative that he got off because of gullible Judges and because there is one law for us and a different one for ethnics.
It is not clear from this report, that this is not a trial. That is scheduled for 31st October. This was a pre-trial hearing to enter his plea, which was 'guilty'. Presumably there will not be a full trial, and they will next go straight to sentencing. As it seems to be already accepted that this man is ill, then a secure hospital rather than prison would be the obvious sentence.
Correction. He pleaded Guilty to manslaught not murder, and that was accepted after consultation with the victims family.
// Nandap appeared at the Old Bailey via videolink from Broadmoor high-security hospital. He spoke only to confirm his name and enter his plea.
The heavily built defendant, who has a history of mental health problems, said he was not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
The prosecutor, Duncan Atkinson QC, accepted the plea, saying: “There has been extensive psychiatric consideration in this case and the consensus of opinion is clear, cogent and unanimous.
“In that clear and unanimous psychiatric opinion there was an abnormality of mental function at that time that diminished his responsibility.”
Atkinson said the decision not to pursue the murder charge was taken in communication with the victim’s family, who were not present for the hearing.
Julian Hendy, of the charity Hundredfamilies, said: “This is another deeply distressing case of an innocent man and young family destroyed by the violent actions of a seriously mentally ill offender.
“These cases are happening now far too often and we await with interest the results of the psychiatric investigations to see if there were opportunities that could have prevented this terrible tragedy.” //
Who was who introduced this wonderful "Care in the Community" Policy?
// Nandap appeared at the Old Bailey via videolink from Broadmoor high-security hospital. He spoke only to confirm his name and enter his plea.
The heavily built defendant, who has a history of mental health problems, said he was not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
The prosecutor, Duncan Atkinson QC, accepted the plea, saying: “There has been extensive psychiatric consideration in this case and the consensus of opinion is clear, cogent and unanimous.
“In that clear and unanimous psychiatric opinion there was an abnormality of mental function at that time that diminished his responsibility.”
Atkinson said the decision not to pursue the murder charge was taken in communication with the victim’s family, who were not present for the hearing.
Julian Hendy, of the charity Hundredfamilies, said: “This is another deeply distressing case of an innocent man and young family destroyed by the violent actions of a seriously mentally ill offender.
“These cases are happening now far too often and we await with interest the results of the psychiatric investigations to see if there were opportunities that could have prevented this terrible tragedy.” //
Who was who introduced this wonderful "Care in the Community" Policy?
^^ I would maintain that few people are 100% 'sane'. We all have some 'mental problems' from unnecessary anxiety/ worry and minor depression to really serious problems. If you start to legislate to separate the 'mentally ill' from the 'normal' you need to define at what stage a 'problem' becomes a cause for the person to be removed from normal society. Less than 100 years ago there were 10,000's of people in the large Mental Hospitals found all over the country, I do not think we were any safer for that.
1 to 7 of 7
Latest Posts
ChatterBank5 mins ago
As If The Cowards Of Hamas Have Not...
News6 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Employers To Move Jobs Abroad...who'd...
News16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.