Author Topic: Tom Humphries  (Read 26623 times)

bennydorano

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #150 on: October 12, 2017, 08:06:28 AM »
Government, Medical & Legal professionals  & Society's opinion in general decides where the lines in the sand are. The real debate is who agrees with them.

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #151 on: October 12, 2017, 08:00:10 PM »
Government, Medical & Legal professionals  & Society's opinion in general decides where the lines in the sand are. The real debate is who agrees with them.

No. the "real" (?) debate is actually the rationale for deciding when, where and how the line in the sand is drawn

bennydorano

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #152 on: October 12, 2017, 10:01:59 PM »
Someone has to draw the line in the sand. The Government, Medical & Legal Professionals seems like a decent sort of place to start. Cant see lines in the sand by consensus working. The aforementioned institutions are the arbiters.

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #153 on: October 12, 2017, 11:31:17 PM »
Someone has to draw the line in the sand. The Government, Medical & Legal Professionals seems like a decent sort of place to start. Cant see lines in the sand by consensus working. The aforementioned institutions are the arbiters.

I dont really care who draws the line in the sand when  it comes to diminished responsibility so long as they have a criteria and rationale to back it up which I cant seem to find anywhere.
Im guessing tho that you have no idea what is by your diversion?

bennydorano

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4712
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #154 on: October 12, 2017, 11:47:07 PM »
I'm happy to let the professionals do their stuff. Search harder, I'm sure the info is out there somewhere if you're really that interested.

omaghjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2693
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #155 on: October 13, 2017, 04:00:01 AM »
I'm happy to let the professionals do their stuff. Search harder, I'm sure the info is out there somewhere if you're really that interested.

Thanks for your advice benny your input on this has been invaluable.
I think what I can take from your lesson is trust the experts and don't seek out their reasoning cos their probably "right".
In fact I must try that in my own job when some questions my opinion.

Sionnach

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #156 on: October 13, 2017, 07:56:20 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.

rosnarun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2890
  • Maigheo Abú
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #157 on: October 13, 2017, 04:30:36 PM »

1. Technically Humphries is not a paedophile but has been found guilty of engaging in sexual activity with a person younger than the age limit set by the state. 

2.
Quote
much easier to say cut the balls of the evil b**tards
leads to the type of action seen a number of years ago when a paediatric consultant was attacked because this brigade could not distinguish between a paediatrician and a paedophile.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

3. A survey of court reports would indicate that more paedophilic abuse is carried out by a relative of the victim and increases further when a person familiar to the victim is included than by strangers who groom children for this purpose.  However, paedophilic offences by strangers tend to be highlighted in the media.

4. It is important to distinguish between sexual orientation from Paraphilic Disorders (which include paedophilia) as defined by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , Fifth Edition, Edited by American Psychiatric Association http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.dsm19
as regards 3 the main reason would be the simple reason these are the easiest children to access. it takes a lot of preparation and cunning to groom some one as compared to abusing some one in their own home like wise social workers priests teachers coaches ETC.
and number 4 is these distinctions are political and liable to change. no funding would currently be made available to study Homosexuality V paedophilia that may turn up the wrong result. same goes for all the Various genders that are turning up week by week

You should note that the definition of paraphilic disorders comes from a world recognised medical reference and the same medical reference does provide information of sexual orientation and gender assignment.  You should use the search function at the site address listed above to read the medical references to homosexuality and gender assignment.  As a current medical reference you will find no political interference.

of course there is no reference, scientist could not let it be seen they produce anything that was not based on pure reason. but go back 50 or 100 years to similar publications and you'll find all sorts of things listed . such as similar but different condition of xenomelia(amputee identity disorder)
the change has been political.
scientist have been told the result is and their job is to back it up with theory
If you make yourself understood, you're always speaking well. Moliere

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #158 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: 1152
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #159 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: 2693
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #160 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: 1729
  • talk is cheap but it takes money to buy hot dogs..
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #161 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..."

armaghniac

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11557
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #162 on: October 24, 2017, 01:07:11 PM »
Two and a half year sentence.
if at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #163 on: October 24, 2017, 01:17:40 PM »
Two and a half year sentence.

Life sentence in the court of public opinion
If he had waited one more year would there have been a case ?

IT: "He faced a maximum sentence of five years for the sexual abuse and up to life for the grooming charges. "
« Last Edit: October 24, 2017, 01:29:23 PM by seafoid »
"you can try and intimidate us, but f**k youse, we're going to win an All-Ireland anyway"

seafoid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18721
    • View Profile
Re: Tom Humphries
« Reply #164 on: October 24, 2017, 01:39:52 PM »
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/tom-humphries-acclaimed-sports-writer-with-controversial-views-1.3267087

"But the bulk of his work focused on the GAA, his views of sporting perfection often expressed through the prism of hurling, football and its culture, its grass-roots credibility, the real people, the amateur ethos, the parish, the hinterland, the sense of history and belonging, the fabric.
“If there is a unit of Irish sport that feels itself securely tied to the soul of the nation, it is the GAA,” he wrote in Locker Room. "

I think this video captures it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwv2B4W9brk
"you can try and intimidate us, but f**k youse, we're going to win an All-Ireland anyway"