|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 26, 2024 9:06:02 GMT
[Moved from elsewhere]
Attorney General reviews whether sentence of Nottingham knifeman Valdo Calocane is too lenient
The Attorney General is considering whether judges should review the sentence of Nottingham knifeman Valdo Calocane after receiving a submission that it could be unduly lenient.
A judge handed down a hospital order to the 32-year-old, who has paranoid schizophrenia and whose pleas to manslaughter by diminished responsibility were accepted earlier this week.
The families of the three people he killed have reacted angrily to the sentencing and accused prosecutors of a 'fait accompli' in accepting a manslaughter charge rather than perusing a murder verdict.
A spokesman for Attorney General Victoria Prentis confirmed her office had received a referral arguing the sentence administered yesterday had been unduly lenient.
The mother of Barnaby Webber, one of Calocane's victims, is quite rightly blaming police incompetence for these deaths because Calocane should not have been on the streets. Nine months previously a warrant was issued for his arrest for the violent assault of a police officer, this warrant seems to have been forgotten about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 26, 2024 9:07:54 GMT
A very valid subject for a thread - how should we care for those with severe mental health issues. It could divert into how victims families are involved, if at all, in justice process or even into the rather pathetic pandering to the tabloids by the Attourney General. All let down yet again by an idiotic thread title. Mods could I please request that you sort this out. Dappy, ffs remove the pole before you sit down, you'll do yourself a mischief. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 26, 2024 9:16:03 GMT
Both of my boys are/were closely involved with this issue. Youngest works with street homeless (in Nottingham - he was actually doing a "street audit" as it unfolded, and a colleague of his is the hostel worker who fought the killer off when he tried to break into his establishment!), and knows that many of his clients are people with significant mental health needs. Even if they're in the treatment loop, expecting a homeless person leading a chaotic life to keep up with a treatment/medication regime is hopeless. (And those services, themselves, are now cut to the extent that they barely exist..). As for D.C Eldest Son: He spent his last year in uniform as Desk Sergeant - booking in and overseeing guests of the Police Service. There were times when ALL of the visitors to his Sheffield station were people undergoing mental health distress. It's all unsustainable. The problem is that any "solution" is going to be expensive. REALLY expensive. A network of new treatment facilities - from clinics to residential units - new staffing, from psychiatrists and medical professionals to psychiatric social workers, etc. And it's not just spending - it's spending that's neither high profile, nor politically advantageous. There WAS a case for "Care in the Community". Hospitals were full of people who shouldn't be there, and who - with appropriate support - could live independently. The problem with the policy, from the outset, was that it was seen as a cost cutting bonanza, as care responsibility was taken from the NHS and handed over to a hodgepodge of Health, Local Authority, Charities, Private Companies (someone who IS sectioned to a place for treatment might easily be cared for in a private unit - IF a bed is available. The weekly charge for such a placement can easily be many thousands of pounds per day..), and family. All governments should bow their heads in shame over how those who suffer from mental health are treated in the UK Walter. And BTW more power to your two sons elbow.. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jan 26, 2024 9:25:20 GMT
Thank you Walter for a genuinely interesting insight after the idiocy of the early part of the thread. Roughly 100 people are killed each year by people suffering severe mental illness.people suffering severe mental illness are themselves disproportionately victims of serious crime. Like so many public services the system is completely broken if it exists at all. I think though you are right that because , apart from occasional high profile cases, these are not issues that command public or media attention, it feels unlikely to receive the funding or attention it needs to change much. Maybe it’s even right that other broken public services are an even higher priority. I don’t really know.
It’s inevitable what will happen in this case. We will have the usual media firestorm for a few days, loads of statements of intent from politicians of all sides, some poor sod will largely at random become the face responsible in the media and be royally be shat on and eventually the government will seek to control the media storm by announcing a public inquiry. A few months down the road the inquiry will report with recommendations pretty similar to all the other inquiries over the years. Those recommendations will be quietly shelved and feck all will change.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 26, 2024 9:33:32 GMT
Interesting comparison: In 2016 Thomas Mair murdered Labour MP Jo Cox. Mair had a history of mental health problems, at the time of the murder he was on medication and was also a patient of the Mirfield-based Pathways Day Centre for adults with mental illness. Mair was a white man who was described as a supporter of the 'far right'. In spite of Mair's history of mental health problems the trial judge decided that when he murdered Jo Cox, he was sane.  Valdo Calicane killed three people and had a history of mental health problems. However on this occasion the trial judge accepted a plea of diminished responsibility due to mental health problems and found Calicone guilty of manslaughter. In other words, Calicane has litterally got away with murder, for the time being anyway.  Another case of an inconsistent judiciary? I suppose we will have to see what the Attorney General decides of Calicane's unduly lenient sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Jan 26, 2024 9:42:33 GMT
Interesting comparison: In 2016 Thomas Mair murdered Labour MP Jo Cox. Mair had a history of mental health problems, at the time of the murder he was on medication and was also a patient of the Mirfield-based Pathways Day Centre for adults with mental illness. Mair was a white man who was described as a supporter of the 'far right'. In spite of Mair's history of mental health problems the trial judge decided that when he murdered Jo Cox, he was sane. Valdo Calicane killed three people and had a history of mental health problems. However on this occasion the trial judge accepted a plea of diminished responsibility due to mental health problems and found Calicone guilty of manslaughter. In other words, Calicane has litterally got away with murder, for the time being anyway. Another case of an inconsistent judiciary? I suppose we will have to see what the Attorney General decides of Calicane's unduly lenient sentence. The difference I think is the potential violence that would be expected in the future . Mair is obviously not seen as a threat to himself , other inmates or prison guards where as Calocane is . Thats why he was charged in the way he was and sent to a secure Hospital where they can force the meds on him . Thats not the case in prison where he can refuse them under yuman rights . Personally I think both should have a bullet in the back of the head but as the law stands Im just trying to get my head around it . |
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Jan 26, 2024 9:43:34 GMT
Publicising the antics of extremely psychotic individuals puts ideas into the heads of others with similar psychoses. Valdo Calocane knew what the consequences of his actions would be ... that's why he did it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 26, 2024 9:58:15 GMT
The difference I think is the potential violence that would be expected in the future . Mair is obviously not seen as a threat to himself , other inmates or prison guards where as Calocane is . Thats why he was charged in the way he was and sent to a secure Hospital where they can force the meds on him . Thats not the case in prison where he can refuse them under yuman rights . Personally I think both should have a bullet in the back of the head but as the law stands Im just trying to get my head around it . The point is, even though Mair had a history of mental illness, was taking medication for mental health problems and a patient of a day centre for adults with mental illness, the trial judge decided that at the time he murdered Jo Cox, he was sane. On the other hand, the trail judge accepted triple killer Calicane's plea of diminished responsibility due to mental health problems. Quite clearly something has gone wrong, which is why the attorney general is reviewing the unduly lenient sentence and will hopefully refer it back to the courts. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Jan 26, 2024 10:03:51 GMT
The difference I think is the potential violence that would be expected in the future . Mair is obviously not seen as a threat to himself , other inmates or prison guards where as Calocane is . Thats why he was charged in the way he was and sent to a secure Hospital where they can force the meds on him . Thats not the case in prison where he can refuse them under yuman rights . Personally I think both should have a bullet in the back of the head but as the law stands Im just trying to get my head around it . The point is, even though Mair had a history of mental illness, was taking medication for mental health problems and a patient of a day centre for adults with mental illness, the trial judge decided that at the time he murdered Jo Cox, he was sane. On the other hand, the trail judge accepted triple killer Calicane's plea of diminished responsibility due to mental health problems. Quite clearly something has gone wrong, which is why the attorney general is reviewing the unduly lenient sentence and will hopefully refer it back to the courts. So what sentence do you think he should get ? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 26, 2024 10:08:04 GMT
The point is, even though Mair had a history of mental illness, was taking medication for mental health problems and a patient of a day centre for adults with mental illness, the trial judge decided that at the time he murdered Jo Cox, he was sane. On the other hand, the trail judge accepted triple killer Calicane's plea of diminished responsibility due to mental health problems. Quite clearly something has gone wrong, which is why the attorney general is reviewing the unduly lenient sentence and will hopefully refer it back to the courts. So what sentence do you think he should get ? He should have been found guilty of triple murder and attempted murder, and sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole, a whole life tariff. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Jan 26, 2024 10:20:15 GMT
So what sentence do you think he should get ? He should have been found guilty of triple murder and attempted murder, and sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole, a whole life tariff. I would agree along with a hot rod up his jacksy every morning and waterboarding for breakfast ,lunch and dinner to go with the stale bread . He will continue to be a violent inmate and a danger to prison guards as he can refuse to take the drugs that keep him on the right side of sanity . Or he gets a hospital sentence where they can force the drugs into him that will make him manageable . Its the lack of your banged up for life thats the issue here I think . Whos to say in years to come a drug will come to the market that's a once only dose . Would he then be deemed sane and let out ? |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 26, 2024 10:21:58 GMT
Interesting comparison: In 2016 Thomas Mair murdered Labour MP Jo Cox. Mair had a history of mental health problems, at the time of the murder he was on medication and was also a patient of the Mirfield-based Pathways Day Centre for adults with mental illness. Mair was a white man who was described as a supporter of the 'far right'. In spite of Mair's history of mental health problems the trial judge decided that when he murdered Jo Cox, he was sane. Valdo Calicane killed three people and had a history of mental health problems. However on this occasion the trial judge accepted a plea of diminished responsibility due to mental health problems and found Calicone guilty of manslaughter. In other words, Calicane has litterally got away with murder, for the time being anyway. Another case of an inconsistent judiciary? I suppose we will have to see what the Attorney General decides of Calicane's unduly lenient sentence. The difference I think is the potential violence that would be expected in the future . Mair is obviously not seen as a threat to himself , other inmates or prison guards where as Calocane is . Thats why he was charged in the way he was and sent to a secure Hospital where they can force the meds on him . Thats not the case in prison where he can refuse them under yuman rights . Personally I think both should have a bullet in the back of the head but as the law stands Im just trying to get my head around it . I am sure some prick will will state that lessons have been learnt. That excuse just doesn't cut in a civilsed society. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jan 26, 2024 10:22:10 GMT
The difference I think is the potential violence that would be expected in the future . Mair is obviously not seen as a threat to himself , other inmates or prison guards where as Calocane is . Thats why he was charged in the way he was and sent to a secure Hospital where they can force the meds on him . Thats not the case in prison where he can refuse them under yuman rights . Personally I think both should have a bullet in the back of the head but as the law stands Im just trying to get my head around it . The point is, even though Mair had a history of mental illness, was taking medication for mental health problems and a patient of a day centre for adults with mental illness, the trial judge decided that at the time he murdered Jo Cox, he was sane. On the other hand, the trail judge accepted triple killer Calicane's plea of diminished responsibility due to mental health problems. Quite clearly something has gone wrong, which is why the attorney general is reviewing the unduly lenient sentence and will hopefully refer it back to the courts. FFS Red, the Attorney General has got involved purely to seek to manage the media firestorm. It seems to be the way these days. The judge who heard the evidence in the Mair case concluded that the evidence showed that he was sufficiently in control of his mental capacity to be held legally responsible for his actions. The evidence in Calicane's case was found to show that he wasn't. I suspect in both cases those judgements were quite close to the line. The effect is basically the same - both men will be behind bars almost certainly for the rest of their lives - they may even be held in the same secure mental health "hospital" - who knows. Honestly your attempts to concoct a racial motive for how these two offenders were dealt with shows a concerning level of paranoia - try to get some help there mate . Lets not allow ourselves to be diverted from the real issue - how we deal with seriously mentally ill people and not fall for the diversion techniques. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jan 26, 2024 10:31:15 GMT
[Moved from elsewhere] Attorney General reviews whether sentence of Nottingham knifeman Valdo Calocane is too lenientThe Attorney General is considering whether judges should review the sentence of Nottingham knifeman Valdo Calocane after receiving a submission that it could be unduly lenient. A judge handed down a hospital order to the 32-year-old, who has paranoid schizophrenia and whose pleas to manslaughter by diminished responsibility were accepted earlier this week. The families of the three people he killed have reacted angrily to the sentencing and accused prosecutors of a 'fait accompli' in accepting a manslaughter charge rather than perusing a murder verdict. A spokesman for Attorney General Victoria Prentis confirmed her office had received a referral arguing the sentence administered yesterday had been unduly lenient. The mother of Barnaby Webber, one of Calocane's victims, is quite rightly blaming police incompetence for these deaths because Calocane should not have been on the streets. Nine months previously a warrant was issued for his arrest for the violent assault of a police officer, this warrant seems to have been forgotten about. Whilst I understand the relatives of those killed lashing out in order to find who was at fault for this sad episode we expect too much of a service stretched to the limit,black white or whatever if someone is defined as mentally ill they are suffering as much as anyone with a physical illness,it’s all too easy to blame the cops for all societies ills and I don’t really want to repeat why we are in the position we are now other than mental health is the Cinderella service nothing changes and less than a year ago this thread looked at the police’s frustrations link |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 26, 2024 10:32:14 GMT
FFS Red, the Attorney General has got involved purely to seek to manage the media firestorm. It seems to be the way these days. The judge who heard the evidence in the Mair case concluded that the evidence showed that he was sufficiently in control of his mental capacity to be held legally responsible for his actions. The evidence in Calicane's case was found to show that he wasn't. I suspect in both cases those judgements were quite close to the line. The effect is basically the same - both men will be behind bars almost certainly for the rest of their lives - they may even be held in the same secure mental health "hospital" - who knows. Honestly your attempts to concoct a racial motive for how these two offenders were dealt with shows a concerning level of paranoia - try to get some help there mate . Lets not allow ourselves to be diverted from the real issue - how we deal with seriously mentally ill people and not fall for the diversion techniques. The Attorney General has very quickly decided to review this sentence because it is so obviously lenient. I believe she has 28 days to deliberate. Calicane didn't accidentally happen upon his victims, he went looking for people to kill, he gathered weapons and planned his attacks which clearly shows intent. The trial judge should have convicted him of murder, not manslaughter. Hopefully this miscarriage of justice will be overturned. |
|
