Should people with schizophrenia who commit crimes be sent to secure institutions?

[infobleep]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...rd-to-london-train-near-horsley.176035/page-6
I did think they might be charged with manslaughter but at that stage I wasn't aware of their previous convictions.

Given they have schizophrenia, anyone know why they wouldn't be sent to a secure institution along the lines of Broadmore?

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Given they have schizophrenia, anyone know why they wouldn't be sent to a secure institution along the lines of broadmoee?

Schizophrenia can be managed in most circumstances without having to lock people up.

Being diagnosed with a medical condition should not mean being detained.

 

[infobleep]

Schizophrenia can be managed in most circumstances without having to lock people up.

Being diagnosed with a medical condition should not mean being detained.

I take your point but is prison therefore the right place for someone with this condition.

I appricate a great wrong has been done but according to the Prisons Reform Trust, if I'm reading their stats correctly, there is a higher than average amount of people with mental health issues in prison than outside it.

26% of women and 16% of men said they had received treatment for a mental health problem in the year before custody.

25% of women and 15% of men in prison reported symptoms indicative of psychosis.The rate among the general public is about 4%.

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/WhatWeDo/Projectsresearch/Mentalhealth

Is prison the right place for someone with schizophrenia? Maybe they will get the proper help they need in prison. I do appreciate why they need to be kept away from the public though.

 

[GB]

Schizophrenia can be managed in most circumstances without having to lock people up.

Being diagnosed with a medical condition should not mean being detained.

If they have killed or seriously injured someone as a result of their condition then yes they should be detained.

 

[cjmillsnun]

If they have killed or seriously injured someone as a result of their condition then yes they should be detained.

I don't think the need to detain the individual concerned is in question (If we are referring to the person who stabbed someone else to death on a train). The question is where they should be detained.

Should it be in a conventional prison or in a secure hospital (for example Broadmoor).

 

[AM9]

If they have killed or seriously injured someone as a result of their condition then yes they should be detained.

If the attack was deemed to have been a consequence of their mental condition and that condition was still present, then they should be detained for treatment. If however according to expert opinion, the condition was no longer present or didn't constitute a threat to others, then the individual should not be subject to any detention or constraint.

 

[Flying Snail]

If the attack was deemed to have been a consequence of their mental condition and that condition was still present, then they should be detained for treatment. If however according to expert opinion, the condition was no longer present or didn't constitute a threat to others, then the individual should not be subject to any detention or constraint.

Considering the individual concerned previously stabbed someone in the neck it is likely that his being free to kill on this occasion was because some "expert opinion" was put forward to secure his release.

Of course as with judges issuing lenient sentences on other repeat and violent offenders there is never any responsibility taken when the "expertise" of the psychiatric professionals cause dangerous mentally ill persons to be in a position to bring death and misery to other innocent people.

 

[DerekC]

Considering the individual concerned previously stabbed someone in the neck it is likely that his being free to kill on this occasion was because some "expert opinion" was put forward to secure his release.

Of course as with judges issuing lenient sentences on other repeat and violent offenders there is never any responsibility taken when the "expertise" of the psychiatric professionals cause dangerous mentally ill persons to be in a position to bring death and misery to other innocent people.

So what should we do? Run an online bidding process sponsored by the Daily Mail so that the public can decide sentences? Or just bang 'em up and throw away the key?

 

[fergusjbend]

Considering the individual concerned previously stabbed someone in the neck it is likely that his being free to kill on this occasion was because some "expert opinion" was put forward to secure his release.

Of course as with judges issuing lenient sentences on other repeat and violent offenders there is never any responsibility taken when the "expertise" of the psychiatric professionals cause dangerous mentally ill persons to be in a position to bring death and misery to other innocent people.

I don't know anything about this offender's previous offence, but it he was sentenced to a fixed period of imprisonment he would have been released after serving half of it. No psychiatrist (or other 'expert') would have been involved in the decision. If he had been sentenced to a hospital order (ss37/41) he could not have been released except by the decision of a Mental Health Review Tribunal - an independent body chaired by a judge. Flying Snail is simply wrong in his assertion that psychiatrists call the shots in these cases.

Offenders who are suffering from a mental disorder (which includes mental illness, mental impairment and psychopathic disorder) are not automatically 'excused' from the consequences of their actions. It must be shown in court that the offender is legally insane (not being aware of his act, or if he was aware, then not being aware that it was wrong) - the so-called McNaughton test - or that he was suffering from a mental disorder of a nature and degree to make it appropriate for him to be detained in hospital for assessment, or assessment followed by treatment (Mental Health Act 1983, as amended). The court may fix a term for the period of detention, or may make it without limit of time.

Lastly, many prisoners who are not considered to be mentally disordered at the time of conviction subsequently prove to be unwell and cannot be managed in a prison setting. The MHA contains provisions (ss47&48) to transfer such persons to a secure hospital , but NHS provision is sadly inadequate.

 

[infobleep]

I don't know anything about this offender's previous offence, but it he was sentenced to a fixed period of imprisonment he would have been released after serving half of it. No psychiatrist (or other 'expert') would have been involved in the decision. If he had been sentenced to a hospital order (ss37/41) he could not have been released except by the decision of a Mental Health Review Tribunal - an independent body chaired by a judge. Flying Snail is simply wrong in his assertion that psychiatrists call the shots in these cases.

Offenders who are suffering from a mental disorder (which includes mental illness, mental impairment and psychopathic disorder) are not automatically 'excused' from the consequences of their actions. It must be shown in court that the offender is legally insane (not being aware of his act, or if he was aware, then not being aware that it was wrong) - the so-called McNaughton test - or that he was suffering from a mental disorder of a nature and degree to make it appropriate for him to be detained in hospital for assessment, or assessment followed by treatment (Mental Health Act 1983, as amended). The court may fix a term for the period of detention, or may make it without limit of time.

Lastly, many prisoners who are not considered to be mentally disordered at the time of conviction subsequently prove to be unwell and cannot be managed in a prison setting. The MHA contains provisions (ss47&48) to transfer such persons to a secure hospital , but NHS provision is sadly inadequate.

The NHS provision is inadequate as we don't pay enough tax in my opinion. I don't just mean rich or poor people, I mean everyone. Nor sure how it would work if tax as higher.

I clearly don't know the full mental state of mind of the person involved here but I do hope they get some sort of help to ensure they never do such a thing again, if they are ever released.

 

[Flying Snail]

I don't know anything about this offender's previous offence, but it he was sentenced to a fixed period of imprisonment he would have been released after serving half of it. No psychiatrist (or other 'expert') would have been involved in the decision. If he had been sentenced to a hospital order (ss37/41) he could not have been released except by the decision of a Mental Health Review Tribunal - an independent body chaired by a judge. Flying Snail is simply wrong in his assertion that psychiatrists call the shots in these cases.

And the review tribunal bases it's decision based on what? Largely the opinions of mental health professionals.

Oh and btw it is pretty rude to quote a poster and subsequently refer to them in the third person.

The fact is these professionals often do little but guess and as the evidence given in that trial where he was deemed to have been 'no concern of risk to himself or others' when he was last seen by a consultant psychiatrist in Lambeth on January 3 and had taken no antipsychotic medication at the time of the attack just a day before he murdered someone they get to just shrug their shoulders and walk away leaving other people and their families to deal with the consequences.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/12/man-guilty-surrey-train-attack-murder/

 

[infobleep]

And the review tribunal bases it's decision based on what? Largely the opinions of mental health professionals.

Oh and btw it is pretty rude to quote a poster and subsequently refer to them in the third person.

The fact is these professionals often do little but guess and as the evidence given in that trial where he was deemed to have been 'no concern of risk to himself or others' when he was last seen by a consultant psychiatrist in Lambeth on January 3 and had taken no antipsychotic medication at the time of the attack just a day before he murdered someone they get to just shrug their shoulders and walk away leaving other people and their families to deal with the consequences.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/12/man-guilty-surrey-train-attack-murder/

When referencing from other sites it is helpful to blind readers if you include a quote.

Health care professionals may not always get it right but we do need them. Yes they didn't stop this but I'm sure they have helped in cases that don't get to court, since with their help nothing serious happened.

 

[hooverboy]

If they have killed or seriously injured someone as a result of their condition then yes they should be detained.

under law (mental health act),a person can be detained/taken to a place of safety for assessment, if there is reasonable evidence to suspect the person in question MIGHT be at risk of hurting themselves or others.

in this instance it seems that his behaviour has been problematic for a while, and has got form for violent conduct.
I think it's a failure on the part of the NHS in this case.

Prison is probably not the correct facility for the condition(it is for the crime),but a secure compound where he can be monitored and medication administered is the better option.