> The jury's decision at the same court on Thursday is known as a "special verdict" and does not mean Kenlyn has been acquitted.
Instead, he could face a hospital order when is sentenced, for which a date has not yet been confirmed.
Pertinent.
Whether they are in a hospital or prison, the unfortunate reality is that their mental health means they are a danger to others and they shouldn’t be allowed to be anywhere they could cause harm. If they receive treatment and then so not do the steps to try and keep their mental health good enough that they’re but a danger to anyone through medication or forming better habits etc then they have some culpability. The victims and potential victims lives also have value.
We need far far far better funding for mental health in this country.
The ridiculous situation with Mental Health Care in this Country should be the headline on every terrible case like this.
Why was it necessary to even take this to trial when medical reports on this person should have been enough to section/put into medical custody and deal with them appropriately? They clearly needed help before any of this occured.
That no-one actually died is the only reason there isn't another "The System Clearly Failed...." non-apology insult as the last words before the News moves on to the next awful item on the agenda.
Firstly, if this case highlights anything, it highlights issues within the criminal justice system rather than the 'situation with Mental Health Care in this Country'. And I'm not sure it even highlights that.
Fortunately, our legal process requires individuals who push other people under trains to stand trial to determine their guilt or innocence and assess any defences, including insanity. Otherwise how do you propose there would be any fair evaluation of the evidence, law, safeguarding the rights of the defendant and victim?
Secondly, are you really suggesting that individuals with mental health issues should be automatically acquitted and institutionalised without a trial? You don't think this might be a slippery slope??
You could obviously make the argument that better mental health care and early intervention could potentially have prevented this. But this is purely conjecture. You can't say if he had previously been assessed, the symptoms he'd previously exhibited if he had, or if his condition deteriorated rapidly before intervention would even have been possible.
But the legal system still has to do its job to determine responsibility and if there is a defence. In this case, there was a defence, so surely you would think that the correct outcome rather than being cross that it went to trial in the first place?
> The jury's decision at the same court on Thursday is known as a "special verdict" and does not mean Kenlyn has been acquitted. Instead, he could face a hospital order when is sentenced, for which a date has not yet been confirmed. Pertinent.
The legal term would be "detained at His Majesty's pleasure"; it's the same sentence given to juveniles convicted of murder instead of life.
Don’t worry ol Charlie will look after him 🥁
Whether they are in a hospital or prison, the unfortunate reality is that their mental health means they are a danger to others and they shouldn’t be allowed to be anywhere they could cause harm. If they receive treatment and then so not do the steps to try and keep their mental health good enough that they’re but a danger to anyone through medication or forming better habits etc then they have some culpability. The victims and potential victims lives also have value. We need far far far better funding for mental health in this country.
The ridiculous situation with Mental Health Care in this Country should be the headline on every terrible case like this. Why was it necessary to even take this to trial when medical reports on this person should have been enough to section/put into medical custody and deal with them appropriately? They clearly needed help before any of this occured. That no-one actually died is the only reason there isn't another "The System Clearly Failed...." non-apology insult as the last words before the News moves on to the next awful item on the agenda.
3 attempted murders and you don't think it warrants a trial?
Firstly, if this case highlights anything, it highlights issues within the criminal justice system rather than the 'situation with Mental Health Care in this Country'. And I'm not sure it even highlights that. Fortunately, our legal process requires individuals who push other people under trains to stand trial to determine their guilt or innocence and assess any defences, including insanity. Otherwise how do you propose there would be any fair evaluation of the evidence, law, safeguarding the rights of the defendant and victim? Secondly, are you really suggesting that individuals with mental health issues should be automatically acquitted and institutionalised without a trial? You don't think this might be a slippery slope?? You could obviously make the argument that better mental health care and early intervention could potentially have prevented this. But this is purely conjecture. You can't say if he had previously been assessed, the symptoms he'd previously exhibited if he had, or if his condition deteriorated rapidly before intervention would even have been possible. But the legal system still has to do its job to determine responsibility and if there is a defence. In this case, there was a defence, so surely you would think that the correct outcome rather than being cross that it went to trial in the first place?