|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Society fails to make its mind up
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The BBC reports the story of a woman who committed a stranger murder after not quite being sectioned under the Mental Health Act. This happened some six years after she killed her own mother.
My issue is this: one the one hand she has been found guilty of murder and sentenced to spend the rest of her life in jail. So apparently 'we', society, believe her to be culpable for her actions.
On the other hand, both police and health services are being criticised for failing to organise themselves to detain her under the mental health act, which would be done on the grounds that her mental state made her a risk to herself and/or others. And sectioning her would imply that her mental capacity and judgement was impaired.
It seems as if we want to have it both ways.
[ 04. March 2013, 19:42: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
I'm not exactly sure that we incarcerate people because we believe them to be responsible for their actions. Yes, that is the legal conceit, but I think in real terms the main reason we lock people up is because we don't feel safe with them not being locked up.
Perhaps the proper intervention would have avoided this unfortunate outcome, and you can say that the authorities bear some responsibility. But the way to address their responsibility is to review the procedures that are in place and modify them if necessary or fire the responsible authority if the procedures were ignored. The woman gets locked up because she's the one we're afraid of, not because no one else did anything wrong. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
[ 04. March 2013, 20:05: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
They could have chosen a hospital disposal if it were solely about protection.
Though I am inclined to believe this woman was responsible for her actions - I think the health issue may be a red herring. What annoys me, is the court trying to have it both ways. If they seriously think her mental health was the issue, then at least they should have found her guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility rather than murder.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
I have been puzzled at the outcome of this trial, and I hope that we are going to be told more about the Judge's reasoning in giving the sentence he has.
It does seem that there is disagreement as to the woman's diagnosis, and therefore her level of responsibility for her actions. I may be wide of the mark, but I am also picking up an implication that the Judge, and presumably the jury, believe that she was demanding attention, and that she committed murder because she didn't get the reaction she wanted rather than because she had no control.
Whatever the truth about her culpability, though, the fact remains that had the police reacted differently, the victim's life would have been saved. What was known about the woman's condition, behaviour and prior conviction should have caused them to ensure that she was not free to carry out her threat/warning as soon as she contacted them. The subsequent apparent conclusion that she was fully in control of her actions can have no effect on this.
[ 04. March 2013, 20:23: Message edited by: Drifting Star ]
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
If someone is dangerous, because they are dangerous - rather than due to mental illness - then should they be put into a hospital as a means of social control ?
How is that different than jailing someone in case they commit a crime ?
I suppose she could have been arrested for threatening behaviour - or something similar but it would have been a stretch.
(NB Under British law she would not necessarily been judged as having diminished responsibility for the killing just because she had a diagnosis of schizophrenia.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
It seems to me that it's a sad demonstration of a lack of the slightest understanding of people with mental health difficulties, who often ARE manipulative and attention-seeking as those are symptoms of their lack of 'normal' mental health ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
She recognised her own likelihood of harming someone, she knew that she was hearing 'voices' as she hadn't been taking her medication and that she must be restrained. She tried to do something about it.
This was an accident waiting to happen. The husband of the murdered woman could see that. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
If people with mental health problems were removed from prisons and transferred into treatment units, we wouldn't have to build any more prisons for a long time, if ever. All they're fit for is to keep people safe from those inside them, and 'open' prisons don't even do that. It's time to think it out again, I think. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drifting Star
Drifting against the wind
# 12799
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If someone is dangerous, because they are dangerous - rather than due to mental illness - then should they be put into a hospital as a means of social control ?
How is that different than jailing someone in case they commit a crime ?
I suppose she could have been arrested for threatening behaviour - or something similar but it would have been a stretch.
(NB Under British law she would not necessarily been judged as having diminished responsibility for the killing just because she had a diagnosis of schizophrenia.)
Absolutely not - but she had contacted the police 4 times to tell them she was about to commit murder. That surely justifies her being restrained somewhere - secure hospital I would have thought. If the police had simply stayed with her to prevent her from leaving A&E the murder would have been prevented, and some form of assessment could then have taken place (whether medical or criminal).
[ 04. March 2013, 20:44: Message edited by: Drifting Star ]
--------------------
The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Heraclitus
Posts: 3126 | From: A thin place. | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
They could have chosen a hospital disposal if it were solely about protection.
Except that they did that once before, and she was out in four years, and two years later killed someone else.
I don't see a difference between locking up a killer for life because he is evil, and we need to protect society from him, and locking up a killer for life because he is mentally ill and we need to protect society from him.
The two people need different treatment whilst locked up, and perhaps the mentally ill man needs to be confined in a hospital rather than a prison.
The idea that we can confine a person to a mental hospital for a couple of years, cure them and send them out with no more risk of a relapse than the average person is a gross overstatement of our knowledge of mental illness.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Society doesn't have a mind. Only individuals have minds.
Seems to me that most of us have only a vague idea of the various different sorts of mental illness, and might struggle to distinguish the dangerous nutters from the time-wasting nutters. So I'm not in any hurry to criticise the police.
nonetheless I hope there will be some sort of inter-disciplinary inquiry to find out how the police and the doctors and the social services can together do things better in future.
I'm not convinced that there's necessarily a contradiction between on the one hand saying that there were enough warning signs there that competent members of all three professions should have recognised a real threat and acted accordingly, and saying on the other hand that the killer should have been able to restrain her murderous impulses.
Diminished responsibility is not no responsibility, except in the sort of binary all-or-nothing logic that western culture needs to grow out of.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
They could have chosen a hospital disposal if it were solely about protection.
Though I am inclined to believe this woman was responsible for her actions - I think the health issue may be a red herring. What annoys me, is the court trying to have it both ways. If they seriously think her mental health was the issue, then at least they should have found her guilty of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility rather than murder.
They did that before and she was out in two years.
The poor woman is completely bonkers, to use a clinical psychiatric term, and a complete fucking menace. When she's banged up, she's forced to take her meds. When she's out on the street decapitation is her way of getting ahead. So she needs to be inside on a permanent basis. So the judge took the pragmatic route and announced that she was totally responsible for her actions and needed to be put away indefinitely as opposed to let loose on some subsequent occasion. (c.f. Messrs Sutcliffe and Nielsen).
The whole business of locking people up and throwing away the key, in the UK, is a bit convoluted and needs serious looking at. But a whole life tarriff is not unreasonable in this instance.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Part of the difficulty here is accurately predicting behavior -- something our current state-of-the-art mental health diagnosis and treatment is incapabale of doing (takes breath),
PLUS
A criminal justice system which takes action against people for what they are suspected of having already done, and not for what they might do, or are even likely to do.
After all, people sometimes confess to crimes they did not commit. People make threats they have no intention of acting upon (although, to be fair, it seems as though some threats really should prompt police intervention).
The problem is that we also have civil rights to protect us against being locked up for "mere" suspicions -- that's why arrested suspects can get out on bail while awaiting trial, after all.
Do we need a separate system for dealing with crimes committed by people whose mental illnesses can lead to dangerous actions?
Efforts to create one will lead promptly, and reasonably, to charges of discrimination.
What would have happened if she had called the local mental health center instead of the police?
Should she have been required, given her prior crime, to attend some kind of ongoing treatment?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A terrible case, since she realized she was in a dangerous state, but could not get help.
My memory is that 30 years ago, some judges hated 'mad' and preferred 'bad'. I think that happened with Sutcliffe, unless I am confusing that with someone else. I'm sure the judge didn't like the psychiatric stuff, and made some pronouncement that Sutcliffe was evil. So he went to prison, and eventually became psychotic, and ended up in Broadmoor.
I suppose this was some kind of moral point, that bad people should be punished, and being mad sort of let you off, which is bad.
I think things have moved on a bit today, but there is still a lot of confusion about how to deal with such people. And it is confusing, since many psychotic people do not kill, and are OK with meds.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think things have moved on a bit today, but there is still a lot of confusion about how to deal with such people. And it is confusing, since many psychotic people do not kill, and are OK with meds.
Yes, but if people say they believe they are in meltdown and likely to kill and ask to be locked up, then they should be.
What did the police think - that she was after free board and lodgings?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I believe one of the points of investigation is why the police didn't check her background when she demanded their attention and threatened violence. There seems to be an assumption here that if they had they would've taken her more seriously and possibly prevented her second crime.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
It's worth looking at the Judge's sentencing remarks in full. He concludes that on the basis of the evidence before him Nicola Edgington was suffering from some sort of mental problem, but it was not such as to make her less culpable for her actions. (This must presumably have been the jury's view or the defence of diminished responsibility due to schizophrenia would have led to conviction on a lesser charge.)
According to this report quote:
The prosecution told the court Edgington had a borderline personality disorder and her actions were deliberate, while the defence argued she was mentally ill with schizophrenia and her responsibility was diminished.
Of course it is possible that the jury didn't think her guilty of murder, but were worried that if convicted of a lesser charge she might be released and do it again, but there was certainly evidence on which they could find that her mental state did not diminish her criminal responsibility for her actions.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The judge's comments there sound rather similar to the views expressed about Sutcliffe, that he was a bit weird, but responsible. Of course, the popular media also tend to steam in here, and they love their 'evil killer' headlines. I think most psychiatrists thought Sutcliffe was stark raving mad, and thought him being sent to prison was itself bonkers, as it proved. I wonder if there is still some suspicion of the trick-cyclist? Men in white coats who get evil bastards off? Hang the evil scum! Bad not mad.
But again, it may have been a way of ensuring she got a long sentence - it will be interesting to see how they deal with her now. Loads of meds I guess.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Not really a subject for comedy, but this Sun story shows the truly bizarre attitude of the popular media to madness and evil. The headline is truly bizarre: 'Do Ripper's trousers prove he was bad not mad?', but it shows how the bad/mad duality still continues to obsess the tabloids. But then probably most people are confused about this, that is, the relationship between disturbed mental states and responsibility.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/156605/Do-Rippers-trousers-prove-he-was-bad-not-mad.html
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
According to the BBC
quote:
[Nicola Edgington] was conditionally discharged in September 2009 and moved into a flat in Greenwich where she was being monitored by a consultant psychiatrist, a social supervisor and a community psychiatric nurse.
so, am I naive in thinking that somebody should have realised that she was not taking her meds? She did apparently ring her team during that day as well but I am not aware of any statement from the company responsible for managing her care to say that they are holding an inquiry into whether there are things they could have done differently.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, a death would automatically trigger a serious untoward incident review, and probably an external serious case review where a homicide has occurred. (And probably a fair few unannounced CQC inspections for that matter.) But they will have been somewhat limited in what they can say to avoid prejudicing the trial or breaching confidentiality.
There is also national review of every single suicide and homicide by people in receipt of mental health services - that is a rolling process.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
The prosecution told the court Edgington had a borderline personality disorder and her actions were deliberate, while the defence argued she was mentally ill with schizophrenia and her responsibility was diminished.
Huh? I'm pretty sure that BPD doesn't lead people to kill strangers. Get jealous and possessive, panic, self harm - yes. Kill strangers? No. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Although I suppose they were using "BPD" as shorthand for "evil manipulative whiney scumbag liar" which unfortunately happens a lot.
(I don't have BPD but I do know a little bit about it at least. I really feel for people with this diagnosis - the repurcussions of the diagnosis seem to be almost worse than the condition itself.)
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
claret10
Ship's Paranoid Android
# 16341
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Should she have been required, given her prior crime, to attend some kind of ongoing treatment?
That would happen in an ideal world, but particularly if you are unfortunately given the label BPD, the support isn't there. If you can actually convince someone that treatment/support will benefit you, you just join the already very long waiting list. Where I live to receive any longer term treatment the waiting list is about 2 years, when you eventually get to the bottom of the list, treatment is time limited. The length of treatment is getting shorter and places fewer. IMHO where I live the policy appears to be only treat those you think the process will have most impact on, ie you can say your program works. Which basically means those who have relatively simple diagnosis or fewer issues. I may be wrong but that's how it appears to me.
I wish it worked in a way that was actually supportive. That if you managed to find the motivation to ask for help and admit you need it, that the help was there. However unless you are rich enough to be able to pay... ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Just when you think life can't possibly get any worse it suddenly does
Posts: 137 | From: Somewhere, nowhere, anywhere | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
I'm sure Edgington will in fact serve her sentence in Broadmoor, which is a hospital for 'criminal lunatics'.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by claret10:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Should she have been required, given her prior crime, to attend some kind of ongoing treatment?
That would happen in an ideal world, but particularly if you are unfortunately given the label BPD, the support isn't there. If you can actually convince someone that treatment/support will benefit you, you just join the already very long waiting list. Where I live to receive any longer term treatment the waiting list is about 2 years, when you eventually get to the bottom of the list, treatment is time limited. The length of treatment is getting shorter and places fewer. IMHO where I live the policy appears to be only treat those you think the process will have most impact on, ie you can say your program works. Which basically means those who have relatively simple diagnosis or fewer issues. I may be wrong but that's how it appears to me.
I wish it worked in a way that was actually supportive. That if you managed to find the motivation to ask for help and admit you need it, that the help was there. However unless you are rich enough to be able to pay...
According to media reports she had a CPN, a social worker and a psychiatrist. So I think in this case, that is not the issue.
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
The prosecution told the court Edgington had a borderline personality disorder and her actions were deliberate, while the defence argued she was mentally ill with schizophrenia and her responsibility was diminished.
Huh? I'm pretty sure that BPD doesn't lead people to kill strangers. Get jealous and possessive, panic, self harm - yes. Kill strangers? No. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Although I suppose they were using "BPD" as shorthand for "evil manipulative whiney scumbag liar" which unfortunately happens a lot.
(I don't have BPD but I do know a little bit about it at least. I really feel for people with this diagnosis - the repercussions of the diagnosis seem to be almost worse than the condition itself.)
I suspect you are right for the majority of cases, and I share your feelings for people who have to live with this condition, both the sufferers and those who live with them.
However, I have been close to a case where the anger and rage stage was turned outwards and the person was threatening to murder her own children. Fortunately the situation was resolved by the timely intervention of the police. The testimony of the health professionals was that all such ideations - which are more usually suicidal - needed to be taken very seriously indeed in cases of diagnosed BPD. The court has prohibited her from seeing her own children except on a pre-arranged basis, with a competent third party always in attendance.
I don't know - I have seen stats. that said that 80% of people diagnosed with BPD also have some other diagnosed psychiatric disorder. It's quite possible that the defendant was suffering from a cluster of problems, and the discussion about schizophrenia vs. BPD was a technical matter in order to examine the issue of what dominated her state of mind, in order to come to a logical decision on culpability. You would need to study the detailed court transcripts to follow that one, but not having done that, I rather doubt it was just an either/or sort of discussion.
[ 07. March 2013, 12:58: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I'm inclined to go with Doublethink: I found this case disturbing and concerning on a number of levels, not least the outcome of the trial. I have questions as to whether this woman should have come into the criminal justice system at all as opposed to being indefinitely securely detained under the mental health legislation.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Though there are issues historically about the use of indefinite secure detention in cases where it was clearly not appropriate, and where the matter should have been arbitrated in court. In this case the decision was that notwithstanding her mental health issues, her behaviour was in fact criminally culpable. If that finding is true then, IMHO, it was rigt for this matter to come to court and for her to be sentenced. It's a real pity, though, that she may still not receive effective treatment for her mental health issues.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
