A paranoid schizophrenic who kicked a female custody officer to death has been freed just two years after he was given an indefinite psychiatric hospital order.If that sounds familiar, then you're probably a long-time Reader of this blog.
Burke admitted manslaughter by diminished responsibility and was handed an indefinite hospital order at the Old Bailey in January last year - the same sentence given to Nottingham stabbing killer Valdo Calocane.
In shocking new pictures the killer, 30, can be seen working out unsupervised in a packed boxing gym and casually strolling to the shops to pick up his groceries. Just like the families of Calocane's Nottingham rampage Ms Barwell's relatives say they believed he would never be released.A relative quoted said that 'the killer is 'making a mockery of the system'...' but it's not him doing so, it's the justice system itself. It should call itself something else.
An MoJ spokesman told The Sun the matter was for the mental health trust treating Burke to comment.
Passing the buck as always.
A spokesman for Oxford Health mental care trust said: 'Due to patient confidentiality, we do not comment on, or confirm the identities of those in our care.
'However, we can say that if a person is being cared for by us as a result of a placement into mental health services rather than a prison sentence, part of their therapeutic time may well be spent in the community as opposed to being on a ward all the time.'
Perhaps if a patient's 'time in the community' had to be served with the psychiatrists' own family, instead of the general public, it might change things?
It's because, literally, no-one represents the victims and families in "the system". The lawyers represent "the State" (What, you thought 'your' lawyer believed and supported 'you' instead of "the law" and "their pay packet"?! Pu-lease!), the mental health institutions represent (identify with, support and 'take the side of') "the mentally ill".
ReplyDeleteThrow in the fact that mental health "professionals" (all of whom have entered the "profession" mainly because 'they themselves' have mental issues) are paid for 'curing', and is it really a surprise they do things like this (Look, he hadn't violently murdered anyone in a week. Ta-dah, he's cured - now give me a raise).
As someone who has worked in the area (as an 'actual' medical support to the quacks, who can't even manage to put a band-aid on a cut themselves, whilst claiming intellectual prowess) ...
It's much like alcohol. Guess what, alcohol does 'not' make you a violent thug, what it does is lower your inhibitions (your mask) so the violent thug you always were, leaks out.
Similarly, mental illness (and yes even schizophrenia) doesn't make you a violent , murdering thug either. What it does is gives the sufferer, who is already a violent thug, an ... excuse.
I've met many with schizophrenia who, even in their delusions, react (amazingly, who'd have thought it?) like ... normal people (would react) in a delusion. The problem is that the mental health professionals know this, but point-bank refuse to acknowledge that there are a minority who are 'naturally' violent. By pandering to the violent minority (sound familiar?) they tarnish the entirety of sufferers and ... then complain about the (stereotypical) tarnished reputation.
It's almost as if they are (Cloward-Piven) doing it deliberately.
I used to agree Julia, but now I've grown to think that most mental health workers and those in the "justice" system would cheerfully sacrifice even their own families (read the news for never-ending examples of them doing just that). So, my solution? If a mentally ill thug is released, or allowed to wander, and commits 'another' crime, they get 'terminated' (immediately, on the spot) and ... so do those that released them (preferably in the exact same manner their 'pet' murdered their victim - put it on pay-per-view and it would pay for the whole shebang and possibly clear the national debt).
Anonymous's final paragraph and solution goes, I consider, not only a bit far but would never be enacted. What might be a solution is that those who sign on the dotted line authorising release of the scrote into the community (temporarily or permanently) are on the hook in respect of crimes committed by the scrote for the next, say, 5-10 years. In other words, such signatories would be deemed guilty of the offence which the "cured" nutter has committed but with no excuses of "diminished responsibility" or similar.
ReplyDelete"It's because, literally, no-one represents the victims and families in "the system"."
ReplyDeleteGood point!
"What might be a solution is that those who sign on the dotted line authorising release of the scrote into the community (temporarily or permanently) are on the hook in respect of crimes committed by the scrote for the next, say, 5-10 years. "
That's a great plan, and would work...so it'll never be enacted.