I think it depends, andy-hughes.
If diminished responsibility (allegedly) occurred only at the time of the incident, then I see that as a cop-out. Let’s say 2 people have a row, row becomes heated, person 1 lashes out and caves person 2’s head in with whatever was handy, and claims diminished responsibility.
That to me is a cop-out. an excuse.
Anyone with a genuine mental illness, who commits an atrocity should still be treated the same as someone without.
If they were able to plan and carry out a crime, and try and evade capture, then I see no difference.
If they took a knife out with them, had ‘an episode’ and attacked someone, then why were they carrying a knife in the first place?
Psychiatry is not an exact science, and mistakes have been made in the past with people walking the streets who really shouldn’t be.
One psychiatrist could say someone has a "problem" but another could say there is nothing wrong.
I guess it comes down to who is on the jury and who is the judge during your trial, and how sympathetic they would be.
I think my sympathies would lie with the victim and their families.
We often hear the phrase “He was suffering from mental illness”
I think the victims and their families suffer more.