Why Are Labour Trying To Shield The...
News5 mins ago
Only Took...
104 Answers
http://
them 30 odd years to suss him out...pretty good going...
them 30 odd years to suss him out...pretty good going...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. 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.
-- answer removed --
Insane people do evil things.
If a gangster killed 13 people I would doubt an insanity plea. When you play the role of a loving husband and you prey your victims, nearly get caught on more than one occasions, and continue, not right in the head...!
The majority of human beings do not get pleasure from murdering other human beings.
If a gangster killed 13 people I would doubt an insanity plea. When you play the role of a loving husband and you prey your victims, nearly get caught on more than one occasions, and continue, not right in the head...!
The majority of human beings do not get pleasure from murdering other human beings.
Andy, I'm a bit confused as to your stance here. At 13:27 you wrote:
'In fact, diagnosing severe mental illness is extremely difficult, and I would suggest it is beyond anyone to fake it in a manner that would be believed by the medical personal who have diagnosed and treated Broadmooor patients.'
Yet, later posts suggest via your claim that a person doesn't have to have psychological issues to murder, you don't think Sutcliffe has such issues. Or have I misunderstood?
'In fact, diagnosing severe mental illness is extremely difficult, and I would suggest it is beyond anyone to fake it in a manner that would be believed by the medical personal who have diagnosed and treated Broadmooor patients.'
Yet, later posts suggest via your claim that a person doesn't have to have psychological issues to murder, you don't think Sutcliffe has such issues. Or have I misunderstood?
Zacs - //Andy, I'm a bit confused as to your stance here. At 13:27 you wrote:
'In fact, diagnosing severe mental illness is extremely difficult, and I would suggest it is beyond anyone to fake it in a manner that would be believed by the medical personal who have diagnosed and treated Broadmooor patients.'
Yet, later posts suggest via your claim that a person doesn't have to have psychological issues to murder, you don't think Sutcliffe has such issues. Or have I misunderstood? //
As I understand it, Sutcliffe's plea of insanity was tested and rejected at the time of his trial, but after three years in prison, he was judged to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, and transferred to Broadmoor Hospital.
So it may be that he was suffering from mental illness at the time of his crimes, and it was not picked up - it may be that he developed the illness while in prison - all of this is obviously speculation.
So the short answer (!) to your question, do I believe Sutcliffe had mental issues at the time of his crimes and conviction - yes I do - but as I said, I don't believe that they are a necessary ingredient in a murder scenario.
'In fact, diagnosing severe mental illness is extremely difficult, and I would suggest it is beyond anyone to fake it in a manner that would be believed by the medical personal who have diagnosed and treated Broadmooor patients.'
Yet, later posts suggest via your claim that a person doesn't have to have psychological issues to murder, you don't think Sutcliffe has such issues. Or have I misunderstood? //
As I understand it, Sutcliffe's plea of insanity was tested and rejected at the time of his trial, but after three years in prison, he was judged to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, and transferred to Broadmoor Hospital.
So it may be that he was suffering from mental illness at the time of his crimes, and it was not picked up - it may be that he developed the illness while in prison - all of this is obviously speculation.
So the short answer (!) to your question, do I believe Sutcliffe had mental issues at the time of his crimes and conviction - yes I do - but as I said, I don't believe that they are a necessary ingredient in a murder scenario.
Naomi - //I believe they're an essential ingredient in a serial killer scenario. //
An interesting point.
I can understand that killing one person can be done entirely on the spur of the moment, but being a serial killer infers some planning and forethought.
However, this is food for thought - from Wikipedia -
Although psychological gratification is the usual motive for serial killing, and most serial killings involve sexual contact with the victim,[6] the FBI states that the motives of serial killers can include anger, thrill, financial gain, and attention seeking.[5] The murders may be attempted or completed in a similar fashion and the victims may have something in common: race, appearance, sex, or age group, for example.[7]
An interesting point.
I can understand that killing one person can be done entirely on the spur of the moment, but being a serial killer infers some planning and forethought.
However, this is food for thought - from Wikipedia -
Although psychological gratification is the usual motive for serial killing, and most serial killings involve sexual contact with the victim,[6] the FBI states that the motives of serial killers can include anger, thrill, financial gain, and attention seeking.[5] The murders may be attempted or completed in a similar fashion and the victims may have something in common: race, appearance, sex, or age group, for example.[7]
To do what he did one would have to be mentally ill. "Normal" folk don't do that. If the claim is that he was mentally ill at the time but not now, then they have no justification for continuing to hold him. IMO they are wrong, one should not risk the idea that one can ever be cured of this sort of behaviour. I don't know how one could measure that sort of thing for sure.
Old_Geezer - //To do what he did one would have to be mentally ill. "Normal" folk don't do that. //
That appears to be a logical approach, but I believe it is flawed.
People who are not suffering from mental illness are still capable of doing the most appalling things. Of course it is not 'normal' behaviour in the accepted sense of the term - that the majority of people would not act in this way - but that still does not require any aspect of mental illness in order for the behaviour to be present.
Take the Nazi death camps as an example - there is no way that anyone could say that gassing millions of people is in any way 'normal', but it was done by people acting in a way they believed to be right, bot because they were suffering from any mental illness.
//If the claim is that he was mentally ill at the time but not now, then they have no justification for continuing to hold him. IMO they are wrong, one should not risk the idea that one can ever be cured of this sort of behaviour. I don't know how one could measure that sort of thing for sure. //
The situation currently does not state that Sutcliffe is not longer mentally ill - nor in fact that he was at the time of his crimes, but that is a side issue.
The psychiatrists at Broadmoor have concluded that Sutcliffe's condition is now sufficiently controlled by medication, that h no longer requires the specialist medical treatment that Broadmoor provides, and can now be returned to the standard prison population.
That does not infer that he is 'cured'. Sutcliffe still remains on a 'life term' for his crimes, he will die incarcerated, the only moot point is whether that will be in a secure facility like Broadmoor, or a standard prison.
'Cure' and 'release' are not options being considered.
That appears to be a logical approach, but I believe it is flawed.
People who are not suffering from mental illness are still capable of doing the most appalling things. Of course it is not 'normal' behaviour in the accepted sense of the term - that the majority of people would not act in this way - but that still does not require any aspect of mental illness in order for the behaviour to be present.
Take the Nazi death camps as an example - there is no way that anyone could say that gassing millions of people is in any way 'normal', but it was done by people acting in a way they believed to be right, bot because they were suffering from any mental illness.
//If the claim is that he was mentally ill at the time but not now, then they have no justification for continuing to hold him. IMO they are wrong, one should not risk the idea that one can ever be cured of this sort of behaviour. I don't know how one could measure that sort of thing for sure. //
The situation currently does not state that Sutcliffe is not longer mentally ill - nor in fact that he was at the time of his crimes, but that is a side issue.
The psychiatrists at Broadmoor have concluded that Sutcliffe's condition is now sufficiently controlled by medication, that h no longer requires the specialist medical treatment that Broadmoor provides, and can now be returned to the standard prison population.
That does not infer that he is 'cured'. Sutcliffe still remains on a 'life term' for his crimes, he will die incarcerated, the only moot point is whether that will be in a secure facility like Broadmoor, or a standard prison.
'Cure' and 'release' are not options being considered.
