Here's the news I'm specifically referring to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7108056.stm

Here's what I don't get.

1. How on earth was Anthony Joseph allowed to walk out of Prison when there was a warrant for his arrest? Would it not be massively important to carry out at least some cursory basic checks on prisoners who were due for release - at the very least simply to confirm they were actually eligible to leave in the first place?

2. "...The defence said Joseph was suffering from the onset of paranoid schizophrenia." How weak is that? Just how easy is it to play the "diminished responsibility" card? From various reports it appears that doctors did not agree over whether Joseph was mentally ill at the time of the killing. Ok - So then why, if the doctors themselves can't decide, does justice favour him and not the victim?

How come California have seen fit to remove the plea of diminished responsibility?

Do you think a plea of Manslaughter on the grounds of Diminished Responsibility is a fit and proper plea, with a place in our justice system?

This kind of thing really grabs me by the gonads. Imagine if this victim was friend or family, and the murderer gets off light on this easy card...

2. "...The defence said Joseph was suffering from the onset of paranoid schizophrenia." How weak is that? Just how easy is it to play the "diminished responsibility" card?It's actually quite difficult in the US, since most states require you to prove that, at the time of the crime, you weren't aware that what you were doing was wrong. It may be different in the UK, though. That said, the article seems to imply that this man's paranoid schizophrenia was already an established fact before the murder. If that is truly the case, then I think a lesser sentence would be justifiable. Paranoid schizophrenia is no joke.

I believe that mental illness is a serious problem. I also believe that a lot of slimy criminals lie about it, which denigrates the people who truly are troubled. That makes me more PO'd than you can possibly imagine. There should be serious legal safeguards to prevent the misuse of this defense.

The mental health profession should tighten its control on its members, for one thing. The perception that many laypeople have is that some shrinks sell their testimony for either money or exposure. That perception must be fought, to safeguard not only society, but also the truly mentally ill.

I don't think manslaughter is a good qualification for homicide by a mentally ill person or someone in a mentally ill state. Diminished responsibility, okay, but I don't like the way qualification is changed as a result of that or of plea bargaining. I say, call things by names and don't make compromises affecting the truth of the matter.

This is not to say that you couldn't commit manslaughter by simply allowing yourself to fall into such a state that you wouldn't be able to control yourself. In a concrete case, perhaps that would be possible, but in general, it's not a highly probable configuration.

At any rate, call things by names.

Ok, first of all, if the defence was claiming 'onset of schizophrenia', then it wasn't established beforehand, as I understand it. It would just be 'schizophrenia'. Secondly, as I understand it, the EEG and PET scans of someone suffering from even the early stages of schizophrenia are significantly different from someone who isn't, so unless the issue was exactly when it began, I don't see an issue. Lastly, again, as I understand it, here in the US, such a defence is called a 'positive defence' in which case the burden of proof switches to the defendant, not the prosecution, but that's here, I have no idea about the UK.

Oh, and lastly, schizophrenia doesn't really 'suddenly manifest'. It may have gone undiagnosed until this time, but it wasn't the 'onset of schizophrenia'. Schizophrenia typically begins to express itself through the late puberty stages (16-23) and usually slopes up from somewhat strange and irrational behaviour to more extreme (in some cases violent) behavior. Anyway, as far as I know, this should have been a fairly binary thing. Either he's schizophrenic with violent tendencies or he's not.

Again, I'm not an expert on these things, so anyone that knows more about schizophrenia, feel free to correct me.

But in such a case, there should be a clause for "Danger to Self and Others" to keep this person away from society where he can do a minimum of harm...

I think that involves remanding the culprit to a mental health ward where he/she is placed in the state's care until 'cured', which, atm, is impossible for schizophrenia.

I think that involves remanding the culprit to a mental health ward where he/she is placed in the state's care until 'cured', which, atm, is impossible for schizophrenia.While it's true that there is no cure for schizophrenia, it's also true that there is no cure for herpes, genital warts or gayness*...and like herpes, genital warts, and gayness** schizophrenia can be treated...and many people with the illness improve enough to lead independent, satisfying lives. A patient need not be "cured" in order to be released.

* At least according to gay people.
** At least according to your typical evangelical Christian.

Ah, but for those with violent tendencies, going off the meds can have terrible consequences, and the meds for schizophrenia usually have some nasty side-effects, so schizophrenics are quite tempted to do so. Personally, I think regular supervised medication by a licensed physician should be required.

Agreed. In fact, I thought that this was already required.

1. How on earth was Anthony Joseph allowed to walk out of Prison when there was a warrant for his arrest? Would it not be massively important to carry out at least some cursory basic checks on prisoners who were due for release - at the very least simply to confirm they were actually eligible to leave in the first place?

Obviously, this is a failing of the system. I do not know enough about even the U.S. system to say whether or not it is possible for this to happen here. My thinking is that it's probably possible here too.

2. "...The defence said Joseph was suffering from the onset of paranoid schizophrenia." How weak is that? Just how easy is it to play the "diminished responsibility" card? From various reports it appears that doctors did not agree over whether Joseph was mentally ill at the time of the killing. Ok - So then why, if the doctors themselves can't decide, does justice favour him and not the victim?

As has been answered, the standard of proof is on the defense (to prove the accused is mentally ill - not to prove that he is innocent).

How come California have seen fit to remove the plea of diminished responsibility?

:confused: I don't understand how this relates to the article.

[Do you think a plea of Manslaughter on the grounds of Diminished Responsibility is a fit and proper plea, with a place in our justice system?

If Joseph actually does suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, then I can see some sense in the plea. However, what seems to be happening here is that it is a convenient way to avoid a murder charge.

If Joseph actually does suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, then I can see some sense in the plea. However, what seems to be happening here is that it is a convenient way to avoid a murder charge.At least in the US, these pleas almost never actually work. In fact, the way our system works, a great many people who actually are seriously mentally ill are convicted when they probably shouldn't be.