The news that Peter Sutcliffe the so-called 'Yorkshire Ripper' is applying to the High Court to have his whole life term rescinded raises many issues, not least that he was found fit to plead in the first place and that the jury did not accept that he was not guilty of murder by virtue of diminished responsibility. I think it was clear to most people that he was in fact suffering from a serious mental illness at the time of the murders, but I guess they were such appalling crimes that there would have been great public alarm had there been no trial or conviction.
In fact Sutcliffe was diagnosed with a serious mental illness and was transferred to Special Hospital under sections 47 and 49 of the Mental Health Act quite soon after conviction. He has remained detained at Broadmoor ever since. If a Mental Health Review Tribunal ever form the view that he has recovered sufficiently, he will be returned to prison. Although there had been an earlier recommendation for a 30 year tariff, this was subsequently made whole life, no doubt taking into account widespread public concern. It will be interesting to see what Lord Justice Judge and his fellow Justices decide, as it would appear that Sutcliffe does have legitimate grounds to have the tariff set aside because he was clearly mentally ill at the time of the offences.
I suppose some would say it is all a bit academic because one way or the other it is most unlikely that Sutcliffe would ever be regarded as safe to release either through the MHRT or Parole Board route, but I guess in a democracy with an independent judiciary, how the State deals with such notorious cases is important for all our sakes.
Of course he was suffering from mental illness. One could say the same about any serial killer. Simply to be capable of committing such acts is probably page one of "symptoms of not being right in the head" by that famous psychologist "Captain Obvious".
ReplyDeleteShould society then say that all serial killers are "not guilty by virtue of diminished responsibility"? Kill one person and you're a murderer, kill seventeen and you are a poor sick individual who is to be pitied. Kill a million and you are probably in charge of the country.
Mental illness is not a sufficient extenuating circumstance to my mind. The test should be whether the criminal had sufficient mental capacity at the time to know the difference between right and wrong.
We could take that argument further: murder is not normal. A healthy individual does not resort to murder unless their own life is put in danger. We must conclude therefore that every murder (and by extension, all crime) is the result of a mental deficiency. Right?
Onus Probandy - unfortunately it's not that simple! You are ignoring Personality Disorders which basically are not treatable. Many serious offenders such as serial killers are quite likely to have one of a whole range of conditions such as Psychopathic PD, or Narcissistic PD. The nature of the condition means they do not/can not conform to society's norms and because it is not an illness, the prognosis for improvement is extremely poor. For this reason they can still end up being detained in Special Hospital in the hope that some form of cognitive therapy might work - or they just 'burn out'. Sutcliffe is different - he has a recognised mental illness that is treatable.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree - mental illness is most definitely recognised in English Law and medicine as being capable of disturbing the mind sufficiently to be a valid defence against criminal charges. Getting any more than one doctor to agree a diagnosis is however slightly more difficult.
Murders are committed for all sorts of reasons, including jealousy and in my experience the offender was invariably fully aware of their actions at the time, albeit possibly in a heightened emotional state. But that is accounted for amongst other factors in setting the tariff.
If you think Parom 1's are lengthy, imagine writing this one. Jim, Would YOU recommend Parole?
ReplyDeleteOh, and good luck getting him into a AP :)
Obi Wan - Nice one - But I guess academic at present because a Mental Health Tribunal would have to be satisfied he was fit to return to prison first. Then he has to succeed in getting the whole life tariff overturned, before he gets near the Parole Board. No I can't imagine recommending release and I agree a hostel would be difficult to find!
ReplyDeleteYou are ignoring Personality Disorders which basically are not treatable.
ReplyDeleteWell Jim I would have to take issue with that bald statement, worthy of a consultant psychiatrist. Leaving aside the shaky basis of many PD diagnoses, many aspects of PD are treatable, often at the level of symptoms. Probation staff have been working with clients/offenders/punters with PD for years, some of them even have diagnoses. Research would indicate a staggering proportion of our work is with people with varying levels of personality disorders. You may be aware of the DSPD programme that has been running over the last few years at the behest of the MOJ and the Department of Health. If you would like a little light reading I would commend No Longer a Diagnosis of Exclusion, DOH, which mandates equal access to mental health services for people with PD. If you wanted to argue that individuals with high psychopathy scores are unlikeley to benefit from treatment I would not resist, however there is work that can be done with folks with PD. Otherwise I've been banging my head against the wall for the last seven years. As may be apparent from the above I have been seconded into forensic mental health services working with PD folks at risk of further violent offending. Can I say how much I enjoy this blog. Reminds me why I moved to probation from social work all those years ago.
Thanks for that. I take your point about the bald statement that PD is not treatable - I think I have indeed been told that by psychiatrists!
ReplyDelete