ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 5th April 2019, 07:23 PM   #1841
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,606
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
That is the very basis of mental health defenses. And what are they for if not major crimes.

It's kind of like saying " they can find him innocent but he better get thrown in jail".
This is not a defence strategy to set up an insanity plea.

This was ordered by the judge in order to determine that he is currently capable to communicate with his legal representative and participate meaningfully in the court proceedings.

This has nothing to do with his alleged mental state at the time of the shootings.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 01:13 AM   #1842
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,380
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
In a case where a bloke has videotaped and identified himself shooting people I don't see the need for the right to plead not guilty.
Are you suggesting no trial? Because if the only outcome of a trial is the defendant pleading guilty or no contest, there's no point to having a trial. Just bring him into court for sentencing and be done with it.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 01:19 AM   #1843
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25,507
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
Are you suggesting no trial?
Sure, as long as he's pronounced fit to plead. I see no point whatsoever. There isn't any need to prove doubt, because he gleefully proved his guilt himself during the massacre. Whatever trial takes place will be a farce.

I know the law doesn't work like that, but it has been said a time or two that the law is an ass.

Bring him court, sentence him to life without parole, send an invoice to Scott Morrison for the first 10 years.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 01:20 AM   #1844
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,841
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Not that I've noticed, no.
The question was whether or not he was right that you wouldn't be okay with giving up the right to travel. Or rather, that the reason you wouldn't be okay with giving up that right is that you tend to travel frequently.

No is an odd answer to that question.

But I guess jokes are more important than having a constructive conversation.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 02:44 AM   #1845
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,395
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
There was no rumour about representing himself. He fired his lawyer and said he would represent himself.

Then he realised he wasn't going to be able to speak, so has got himself a lawyer. No doubt these guys are being paid by legal aid, and they are not at the cheap end of the scale.

And I presume you have evidence for this insider tit bit you are just about to post?
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 02:46 AM   #1846
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,395
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Sure, as long as he's pronounced fit to plead. I see no point whatsoever. There isn't any need to prove doubt, because he gleefully proved his guilt himself during the massacre. Whatever trial takes place will be a farce.

I know the law doesn't work like that, but it has been said a time or two that the law is an ass.

Bring him court, sentence him to life without parole, send an invoice to Scott Morrison for the first 10 years.
Yeehah!!

Bring me me hang'n noose!

Get a blimmin grip
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 02:06 PM   #1847
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,380
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Sure, as long as he's pronounced fit to plead. I see no point whatsoever. There isn't any need to prove doubt, because he gleefully proved his guilt himself during the massacre. Whatever trial takes place will be a farce.
What would happen if he is not pronounced fit to plead?
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 02:25 PM   #1848
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25,507
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
And I presume you have evidence for this insider tit bit you are just about to post?
Insider?

It's common knowledge, provided by the duty lawyer he fired, telling him he wanted to represent himself: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12213752

Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Bring me me hang'n noose!
What doubt do you think exists in this case?

Note also that I specifically stated the death penalty would be a very poor option.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 02:32 PM   #1849
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,395
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Insider?

It's common knowledge, provided by the duty lawyer he fired, telling him he wanted to represent himself: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12213752



What doubt do you think exists in this case?

Note also that I specifically stated the death penalty would be a very poor option.

None

But everyone is entitled to a trial

To do with this is less a slippery slope and more a cliff face
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 02:34 PM   #1850
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,470
Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy View Post
What would happen if he is not pronounced fit to plead?
What normally happens. He would be confined to a facility for the criminally insane for the rest of his life without doubt and in conditions little different to jail.

Of course it’s highly likely this will happen. He will face trial.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 02:44 PM   #1851
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,395
Pretty hard to get away with insanity these days I think.

Took me ages.

Wibble
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 05:10 PM   #1852
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,048
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Pretty hard to get away with insanity these days I think.

Took me ages.

Wibble
Are you suggesting there are posters here who think you may be sane?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 06:07 PM   #1853
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25,507
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
But everyone is entitled to a trial
Even worse, everyone is entitled to a trial by a jury. I hope this bloke doesn't get drawn again: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=10649592

Our justice system is so weak that I don't really see a slippery slope being advanced if we waived trials for people streaming themselves committing a crime.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 07:58 PM   #1854
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 25,732
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
<snip>

He should be refused the right to plead not guilty - he filmed himself doing it for Zarquon's sake.
I think that this shows there is a problem with the court system. I suggest it needs reforming in cases where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. Show the defence this evidence and they need to show there a massive hole in it. Maybe it was not the defendant who did the filming and was not in the film. Do that and either the defendant goes free or is allowed to plead not guilty. Otherwise he pleads guilty and the trial discusses mostly the sentence. Though in this case it is a matter of is it life or life?
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 09:34 PM   #1855
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25,507
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
Though in this case it is a matter of is it life or life?
"Life" in NZ only means a prisoner can be recalled to jail at any time after parole. Minimum periods are set at sentencing, and the record right now is 32 years for a 3-murder robbery.

I'm not sure how they'll handle Tarrant. If they decide to place a non-parole period, I imagine it has to be life without parole.

Another option would be to deport him to his homeland. That's the option I like - Aussie have sent us enough of their problems, they're due some back.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 09:46 PM   #1856
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,395
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
"Life" in NZ only means a prisoner can be recalled to jail at any time after parole. Minimum periods are set at sentencing, and the record right now is 32 years for a 3-murder robbery.

I'm not sure how they'll handle Tarrant. If they decide to place a non-parole period, I imagine it has to be life without parole.

Another option would be to deport him to his homeland. That's the option I like - Aussie have sent us enough of their problems, they're due some back.
Agree it will be the first ever life without parole.

Personally think put him in whatever country between us and Aus has the worst prison conditions.

If it is ours, I can live with paying for it
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2019, 11:36 PM   #1857
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,363
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
"Life" in NZ only means a prisoner can be recalled to jail at any time after parole. Minimum periods are set at sentencing, and the record right now is 32 years for a 3-murder robbery.

I'm not sure how they'll handle Tarrant. If they decide to place a non-parole period, I imagine it has to be life without parole.

Another option would be to deport him to his homeland. That's the option I like - Aussie have sent us enough of their problems, they're due some back.
We also have the sentence of "Preventive Detention". Its what we use when the court considers the person will always be a danger to the public.

Alfred Thomas Vincent (a serial, recidivist paedophile) has been in prison on preventive detention since 1968.
__________________
"Covid-19 doesn't care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; its an equal opportunity killer" - Joy Reid

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 12:58 AM   #1858
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25,507
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
We also have the sentence of "Preventive Detention". Its what we use when the court considers the person will always be a danger to the public.
Not for murder though, which must be given a life sentence.

The sections where preventive detention can apply are here, and as you can check for yourself, murder isn't included.

The only question is the non-parole period.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 01:03 AM   #1859
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 25,732
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
<snip>

Another option would be to deport him to his homeland. That's the option I like - Aussie have sent us enough of their problems, they're due some back.
As an Australian I will vote for that. Even better do this before the trial. Let Australia put him on trial. It would be similar to what Australia has done to others and other countries.

Save NZ plenty of money. But yes I can see any NZ politician who suggests the above would very likely be thrown out at the next election, if not before. A case of a great idea that not many people will agree with.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 01:26 AM   #1860
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 91,621
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
I think that this shows there is a problem with the court system. I suggest it needs reforming in cases where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. Show the defence this evidence and they need to show there a massive hole in it. Maybe it was not the defendant who did the filming and was not in the film. Do that and either the defendant goes free or is allowed to plead not guilty. Otherwise he pleads guilty and the trial discusses mostly the sentence. Though in this case it is a matter of is it life or life?
You've just described what pretty much happens in a trial!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 02:47 AM   #1861
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Not for murder though, which must be given a life sentence.

The sections where preventive detention can apply are here, and as you can check for yourself, murder isn't included.
...he is also being charged with 39 attempted murder charges, which (bizarrely) does qualify, and they aren't ruling out further charges as well. So I think preventive detention would apply here.
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 03:00 AM   #1862
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,395
There is the other option

I think in some cases the judge can rule partial sentences to run consecutive rather than concurrent (might have it the wrong way round, but the first is have to serve the first then the next, and the other serve at the same time).

So in most cases eg a rape and murder the sentence for rape 5 and the sentence for murder 10 combined is 15 years (totally out of eg), they serve 10

If the judge says for every murder apart from one 2-3 years are consecutive, geezers bye bye for 100 years at least
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 03:04 AM   #1863
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,395
Actually scratch that whole post


Think we don't have that.

Was getting that from the Pell case in Aussie who do, which I listened to the live stream of

Sorry!
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 05:19 AM   #1864
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 25,732
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You've just described what pretty much happens in a trial!
No, not if everything is in writing not verbal. And no cross examination is allowed. If no real defence can be established then the defendant is found guilty. If the defence wants to cross any witnesses they are asked questions in writing and the replies are in writing and added to the witness statements. The questions and answers could be sent via registered post or email. This avoids a trial where many witnesses need to be standing around waiting to be called at a trial many months after the person is arrested. In this method trials would be rare as innocent people would have shown that the evidence against them is weak and guilty people would know that the evidence is overwhelming.

If there is a trial then it is only on disputed things.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 11:23 AM   #1865
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25,507
Originally Posted by banquetbear View Post
...he is also being charged with 39 attempted murder charges, which (bizarrely) does qualify, and they aren't ruling out further charges as well. So I think preventive detention would apply here.
Nope, you can't have both. Life sentences take precedence over all other sentences, so it's not an option unless they drop the murder charges.

Having screwed up so many murder cases in this country, I think the cops are determined to show they're on the ball with Tarrant and will charge him with everything they can dream up.

I would have thought 50 murder charges was enough, but there will be calls of "respecting the victims" by having him charged with every act of harm. Pointless exercise, but the cops are pretty butch right now and basking in their rare position of high regard.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 11:35 AM   #1866
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,363
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Not for murder though, which must be given a life sentence.

The sections where preventive detention can apply are here, and as you can check for yourself, murder isn't included.

The only question is the non-parole period.
Banquetbear beat me to it. Any of the 39 attempted murder charges could draw a preventive detention sentence. The lives of those survivors could still be in danger if the shooter were to get out.

On the Gun Laws front, the first round of new laws get their second reading in Parliament today tomorrow.

I think our Politicians have been quite clever how they have gone about this. They have seen how definitions have been misused in the USA where gun manufacturers have managed to skirt around restrictions by making minor design changes, so our politicians are going to build in provisions in the law to immediately react to any major or minor design changes.

https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/cr...utomatic-bans/

"Police Minister Stuart Nash said the Government has anticipated "ongoing technological advances" in weapons manufacturing.

"The second phase of changes, which we hope to introduce in June, will address the need to future-proof our gun laws. We need to make it easier for future Parliaments to respond quickly to further technological and social change."
__________________
"Covid-19 doesn't care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; its an equal opportunity killer" - Joy Reid

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 7th April 2019 at 01:11 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 11:42 AM   #1867
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,380
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
I think that this shows there is a problem with the court system. I suggest it needs reforming in cases where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt. Show the defence this evidence and they need to show there a massive hole in it. Maybe it was not the defendant who did the filming and was not in the film. Do that and either the defendant goes free or is allowed to plead not guilty. Otherwise he pleads guilty and the trial discusses mostly the sentence. Though in this case it is a matter of is it life or life?
That sounds like what already happens in a trial.

Never mind. I see this has been asked and answered.

Last edited by CaptainHowdy; 7th April 2019 at 11:48 AM.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 12:02 PM   #1868
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,354
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
That is the very basis of mental health defenses. And what are they for if not major crimes.

It's kind of like saying " they can find him innocent but he better get thrown in jail".
First of all, "mental illness" includes plenty of different types of conditions that negatively affect peoples mental faculties. This does not necessarily mean that such a mental illness would necessarily prevent them from being held accountable for their actions. In Sweden they say that the accused was "mentally disturbed" or ill, but not to the degree that they cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Second, it's certainly not unheard of for people who are mentally ill to be convicted of their crimes even if their mental illness essentially led them to commit said crime. Again under Swedish law, mentally disturbed people are more often than not sentenced to a "secure psychiatric institution" rather of prison, or more rarely simply not be sentenced to any penalty at all, simply because the bar for them to be deemed completely innocent because of insanity is extremely high.

Note here that in pretty much all cases being sentenced to a "secure psychiatric institution" often ends up with people being imprisoned longer than they would've had they just been sentenced to prison. In one case where an individual claimed to have "faked insanity", because they believed it would result in a shorter sentence, they ended up basically being imprisoned for a far longer time because they couldn't convince the doctors and prosecutors that they were sane and didn't belong there.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann

Last edited by Arcade22; 7th April 2019 at 12:04 PM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 01:20 PM   #1869
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,363
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Nope, you can't have both. Life sentences take precedence over all other sentences, so it's not an option unless they drop the murder charges..
Nope. You can be charged with multiple different offences and be found guilty, and sentenced separately on every single one of them. Furthermore, the court can order that the person serve all those sentences consecutively.
__________________
"Covid-19 doesn't care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; its an equal opportunity killer" - Joy Reid

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 7th April 2019 at 01:51 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 01:28 PM   #1870
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25,507
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Nope. You can be charged with multiple different offences and be found guilty, and sentenced separately on every single one of them. Furthermore, the court can order that the person serve all there sentences consecutively.
How do you serve consecutive life sentences?

This is why a non-parole period will be given.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 02:09 PM   #1871
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,048
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
How do you serve consecutive life sentences?

This is why a non-parole period will be given.
You serve the first "life" sentence until granted parole, which happens frequently, then start your second life sentence and so on. Eventually you die in jail.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 02:42 PM   #1872
banquetbear
Graduate Poster
 
banquetbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Nope, you can't have both. Life sentences take precedence over all other sentences, so it's not an option unless they drop the murder charges.
...cite?
banquetbear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 05:40 PM   #1873
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,363
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
How do you serve consecutive life sentences?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-t...life_sentences

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
This is why a non-parole period will be given.
Probably, but not necessarily how it will be done

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Nope, you can't have both. Life sentences take precedence over all other sentences, so it's not an option unless they drop the murder charge.
No, that is incorrect

Remember Russell John Tully? He was the guy who shot and killed two Work & Income staff in Ashburton and attempted to shoot and kill a third.

He was charged with two counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, and several firearms related charges.

He got a life sentence on both murders counts (with a 27 year non-parole period), 11 years for the attempted murder and 4 years for the firearms charges. The judge made them concurrent.

There is no reason why the 11 years he got could not have been Preventive Detention
__________________
"Covid-19 doesn't care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; its an equal opportunity killer" - Joy Reid

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 7th April 2019 at 05:57 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 06:56 PM   #1874
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 25,507
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
We aren't in USA and it won't happen.

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
He got a life sentence on both murders counts (with a 27 year non-parole period), 11 years for the attempted murder and 4 years for the firearms charges. The judge made them concurrent.

There is no reason why the 11 years he got could not have been Preventive Detention
Dwayne Bell also got a 17-year [?] sentence for aggravated robbery, along with a 30-year non-parole period.

Like I said, they don't give preventive detention as well as life because the life sentence takes precedence.

All of which is academic, and if he pleads not guilty I expect the trial will be a year away, because the cops will want every scrap of evidence available and that's going to take them a long, long time.

The overtime bill right now must be horrendous.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 10:17 PM   #1875
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,887
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Even worse, everyone is entitled to a trial by a jury.

<snip>

Our justice system is so weak that I don't really see a slippery slope being advanced if we waived trials for people streaming themselves committing a crime.

It seems so weird to me that one regular citizen, not elected by anyone, can single handedly cause an entire country to not only have their gun rights infringed but potentially their right to a jury infringed...
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 10:53 PM   #1876
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 14,363
Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
It seems so weird to me that one regular citizen, not elected by anyone, can single handedly cause an entire country to not only have their gun rights infringed but potentially their right to a jury infringed...
We have no gun rights in New Zealand. Owning a gun here is a privilege.
__________________
"Covid-19 doesn't care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat; its an equal opportunity killer" - Joy Reid

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2019, 11:11 PM   #1877
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,395
Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
It seems so weird to me that one regular citizen, not elected by anyone, can single handedly cause an entire country to not only have their gun rights infringed but potentially their right to a jury infringed...
He gets a jury. It was just Atheists opinion.

But gun rights stuff aside, I tend to agree with you, with some other things that are going on.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2019, 12:39 AM   #1878
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,836
There seems to be a bit of confusion in some parts around the need for a trial in a case where the facts are more or less clear.

First of all, everyone is entitled to a trial, as has been mentioned. It's a fundamental democratic right, and it shouldn't be tampered with for the sake of a murderous Nazi.

Second, there might be a need to make it clear and commit to the court records what actually happened. This is for the historical record.

Thirdly, the living victims and the loved-ones of the dead have a right to see the perpetrator stand before a court for what he did.

Most importantly, however, there is a difference between comitting an act and being responsible for that act in a legal meaning. The court needs to decide that the terrorist was legally responsible for his actions. I find it likely that this will be the case, but it's important that it is determined by the court first.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2019, 01:03 AM   #1879
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 45,412
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
There seems to be a bit of confusion in some parts around the need for a trial in a case where the facts are more or less clear.

First of all, everyone is entitled to a trial, as has been mentioned. It's a fundamental democratic right, and it shouldn't be tampered with for the sake of a murderous Nazi.

Second, there might be a need to make it clear and commit to the court records what actually happened. This is for the historical record.

Thirdly, the living victims and the loved-ones of the dead have a right to see the perpetrator stand before a court for what he did.

Most importantly, however, there is a difference between comitting an act and being responsible for that act in a legal meaning. The court needs to decide that the terrorist was legally responsible for his actions. I find it likely that this will be the case, but it's important that it is determined by the court first.
Well said.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2019, 01:13 AM   #1880
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 25,732
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
There seems to be a bit of confusion in some parts around the need for a trial in a case where the facts are more or less clear.

First of all, everyone is entitled to a trial, as has been mentioned. It's a fundamental democratic right, and it shouldn't be tampered with for the sake of a murderous Nazi.

Second, there might be a need to make it clear and commit to the court records what actually happened. This is for the historical record.

Thirdly, the living victims and the loved-ones of the dead have a right to see the perpetrator stand before a court for what he did.

Most importantly, however, there is a difference between comitting an act and being responsible for that act in a legal meaning. The court needs to decide that the terrorist was legally responsible for his actions. I find it likely that this will be the case, but it's important that it is determined by the court first.
Trouble is, he has no incentive to make things easier for the prosecution. In fact if he can make things hard for them then he might get lucky. Like the prosecution making a serious error and so he is found not guilty of serious crimes. And if they do not make any errors he is no worse off then if he pleaded guilty at the start of the process.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.