Author Topic: Tom Humphries  (Read 18314 times)

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18187
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #165 on: October 13, 2017, 04:34:39 PM »
What sort of sentence are people expecting ?
"you can try and intimidate us, but f**k youse, we're going to win an All-Ireland anyway"

longballin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #166 on: October 13, 2017, 04:52:01 PM »
What sort of sentence are people expecting ?

Is it half remission in the South?

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2640
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #167 on: October 14, 2017, 06:59:47 AM »
I've often wondered about when a psychiatric disorder turns into diminished responsibility for someone who has committed a crime.

I looked it up and couldnt find anything concrete on it. Whats the difference between a sociopath and schizophrenic for example? Or more to the point why is one considered to have diminished responsibility and the other not if they both have mental disorders?

If you're trying to look it up, the legal defence of "insanity" is originally based on the M'Naghten rules.  These are named after one Daniel M'Naghten, who tried to assassinate the British PM, Robert Peel, back in the 1840s, and ended up shooting Peel's secretary instead.  He was found not guilty by reason of insanity, which caused major controversy, and the M'Naghten rules were formulated to provide clear criteria in any future such cases.  They state that

"to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong".

So in your example, the small minority of people with schizophrenia who commit a crime while in an acute psychotic episode may have acted because they have lost touch with reality to such an extent that they believe all sorts of paranoid delusions, and don't really know "the nature and quality of the act" or that it's "wrong". They aren't "just" influenced by previous experiences or unusual urges, their mental state is such that they have actually completely lost touch with the reality of the situation and don't fully understand what they are doing.  If that's found to be the case, there may be a defence in court.  On the other hand, a "sociopath" or "psychopath" (which BTW are not actually disorders listed in the standard psychiatric classifications) knows perfectly well what they are doing and that it is wrong.  They just don't care. 

It's not always that simple of course, and there are unavoidable grey areas and controversies.

Thanks for the answer Sionnach, not sure if I'll get another post out of ye tho ;).

Anyway Can't diminished responsibility part of a defence as well as just plain old insanity? Correct me if I'm wrong by all means and I know that the definitions vary widely under legal systems.

And why can't conduct or personality disorders (instead of socio/psychopaths, wasnt aware that they are populist terms, sorry) claim that? If they are mentally wired to not care what they are doing (wether they know its wrong or not) that still forms part of a mental incapacity to adhere to the law unlike the "standard" populace, so it stands to reason that they would have diminished responsibility or insanity?



Gold

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1708
  • talk is cheap but it takes money to buy hot dogs..
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #168 on: October 14, 2017, 09:58:21 AM »
What sort of sentence are people expecting ?

Is it half remission in the South?

3 quarters but 2 thirds for good behaviour (ie sex offenders)
"Cheeky Charlie McKenna..."