Vanessa Marshall, KC, prosecuting, told the court that Dunlop was first seen by mental health professionals when he was just three years old.
And what conclusions did these so-called 'professionals' come to..?
The court heard how Dunlop regularly used cannabis, crack cocaine, mamba and heroin, as well as drinking, leading him to have psychotic behaviour.
Defending, Mary Prior, said: "All of the psychiatrists accept he has paranoid schizophrenia, which has been only partly treated. Some say he has autism, some say he has ADHD, some say he has obsessive compulsive disorder."
But it appears no-one said 'Hey, look, this nutter shouldn't be released onto the streets!'. So you really have to worry about their professionalism.
Not that they are the ones ever paying the price, of course.
Judge Timothy Spencer KC told Dunlop: "You can turn instantly from being apparently amiable to being very violent indeed." He said he took Dunlop's mental health issues as mitigation, but found the murder was not involuntary.
Dunlop was given a life sentence, with a minimum of 15 years behind bars before he can be considered for parole.
He'll be all better in 15 years, I'm sure...
4 comments:
Yep, sounds just like real science alright: 'OK, Steve, you've got either AIDS, cancer or a hernia depending on which doctor we ask'.
We should totally use evidence from those guys in court!
Come on, JUlia, we all know that a spell in prison helps lunatics recover from mental illness, don't we?
Yes anon, just as everyone knows that a diagnosis of any mental health issue (including schizophrenia) automatically, and instantly removes any and all traces of judgement about right and wrong and legal/illegal, right?
I’ve worked, on and off, in mental health for decades and there are literally millions of sufferers who (shock horror) never ever commit a crime (no matter how minor). I know many sufferers of schizophrenia who, literally, refuse to go out when in crisis ‘knowing’ they cannot trust themselves (they literally lock ‘themselves’ up rather than face the alternative).
But you know this, since you are obviously one of those who uses any mental health issue as an excuse, and a (hopefully) get-out-of-gaol-free card when you can.
The vast majority (I’d say all if it didn’t include ‘accidental’ crimes) of those with mental health issues who commit crimes aren’t "sufferers who incidentally commit crimes" they’re "criminals who incidentally have a mental health issue" (and most don’t even have that, just a complicit ‘professional’ willing to give them a label to use in court).
We'll pretend not to notice your lack of basic comprehension, and absolute lack of concern for a man, and family, destroyed because ... placing someone who refuses to comply with treatment somewhere where they can't do such things is, according to you, so heinous a crime you'd rather he be allowed to wander unhindered, killing as many as he chooses (that alone tells us all we need to know about you).
The alternative, as seen recently in Texas, is that he (and you I suspect), relying on being protected by the police and social workers from the consequences of your behaviour, 'will' soon face 'more direct' responses from a population who no longer trust the police and authorities - and when the rough-music starts to play, you really wont enjoy the tune (briefly).
"Yep, sounds just like real science alright..."
What passes for it these days, anyway...
"...we all know that a spell in prison helps lunatics recover from mental illness, don't we?"
Probably as well as a spell in what passes for a mental asylum these days!
"...(and most don’t even have that, just a complicit ‘professional’ willing to give them a label to use in court)."
Why not? They never face the consequences, do they?
Post a Comment