Data sharing could have stopped killing A report has shown that improved data sharing between prisons and police would help stop a repetition of the mistaken release of a man who committed manslaughter the same day. Anthony Peart was released on 29 July 2005 from the privately run Forest Bank prison in Pendlebury near Manchester, after charges against him for …
Nothing about that in this article, so the WTF was a reasonable conclusion to draw. Should there be additional, and valid, information pertaining to the story then it would seem to me, in my ignorance, to only be right & proper to include this in the article. Yeah?
So you want a reasoned response, give a reasoned & reasonable article, you want a red top response, write a red top article.
I see this is being used by Boris to spout about putting police on buses to stop stabbings in London.
But it's got nothing to do with yer average troublesome twat on the buses - the perp shouldn't have been released in the first place. Which party, Boris, introduced 'shutting the secure hospitals to sell the grounds off to line the pockets of our mates' policy? -- sorry "Care in the Community".
Er, um yes, well, blimey!
It's in the linked report (page 5). I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to consider mental illness as a likely factor under the circumstances, rather than flap their arms and go "surely that's murder", whether it's directly mentioned or not. But then I suppose a good arm-flap burns more calories than a moment's thought.
There is no mention of mental illness in either report, although I imagine that there would of been some sort of mental instability involved.
But it is just as likely to be a psychopathic disorder, as he has had no limits set by the so called law enforcers, he has acted though there were no consequences to his actions.
So have we lost our balance between liberalism and conservatism when it comes to dealing with those who have broken the law?
If he is capable of such behaviours, why was this not detected while he was in custody, and and evaluation not called for?
It seems likely then that even if had appeared in court on the burglary charge, he would have been released there as well, on the mad as a badger basis.
Then gone off and stabbed someone else.
In other words had the whole thing gone exactly according to plan, there'd be either the same or a worse situation than we have anyway. Largely because we neither treat nor lock up dangerous nut-jobs maybe locking them up is the cheaper option?
Why not just tax us to death so our government can have the latest, greatest technology along with management systems mankind can offer.
While we're at it...
We could have less accidents in the winter if we place heating coils in the roads, and bring the speed limit down to 20 mph.
I don't think the heart of this is because the government didn't get this instance right. Many other factors were left out by this rediculous article due to rediculous reporting.
The El reg article also skips over the fact that there had already been two trials and *then* he pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
Perhaps my ignorance is truly monumental, but I would have thought that the fact that someone killed because they were remonstrated against about chip throwing, and THEN was "convicted of manslaughter" (actually he pleaded guilty, he wasn't *convicted* of the offence; that was in the report too) surely THAT deserved some comment.
Sorry Sarah, I think the author's let the side down on this one.
You're right. In the early nineties when I was at school, a friend of my mum was murdered by someone who had severe mental problems. Was too young to make the link with government policy then, but growing up it was obvious, especially after Jonathan Zito was killed by someone who should have been receiving treatment via ‘care in the community’ all the Tories were doing was cutting cost and releasing people who need care under supervision.
Every few couple of years this happens, nutter on a bus, crazy person with a axe, phsyco kills his ex at her workplace... all make great headlines for the mail, normally happens to ordinary people in public places. Often reported as random freakish events.
You can see why they would do it; none of the released people were going to live in the affluent areas where they live/work and it saves millions of pounds. Politicians often skip over are the real causes of problems. Especially the ones they create.
Not to be pedantic, but on page 5 the report says that there was nothing to suggest that the defendant was suffering from mental illness.
It goes on to say he was referred, but not assessed.
So you're picking up on non existent issues, I thought that the comment that you are referring to is quite valid.
---
Section 2.8 should raise questions as to why the assessment could not have been pursued more vehemently. It would seem that this point is too short and should be questioned itself.
IMHO, the crux of the matter is that there are too many bleeding hearts that see only the "rights" of the perpetrator and totally ignore the RIGHTS of the victim(s) !! This problem is exacerbated by the real nutcases who insist on locking up pensioners who won't pay their council tax but allow murders and rapist free to roam because there is no more room in the prisons !!
I feel that there should be a long overdue reform of the entire legal system to remove a judge's decision to lock up minor "crimes" like not paying their telly licenses or parking fines in order to free up more room to lock up the seriously hard-case offenders !! The days of DEBTORS PRISONS should have been done with long ago !!
Alternatively, transport them to Australia !! I'm sure there will be a significant rise in the number of "debt defaulters" just to get a free ticket to Bondi Beach !! And, in these days of the poor economy, it could help the struggling cruise companies make ends meet !! A win-win solution all round !!
If he was mentally incompetent, why was he found guilty of manslaughter instead of the system that released him?
You'd think the bureaucracy that accidentally released a danger to society should be held to responsibility the same way that an individual that accidentally caused a death would be.
Here it's kind of like blaming a carelessly flung hammer for the death instead of the person that negligently flung it.
He was not "found guilty" of anything. The report clearly states that he pleaded guilty to manslaughter. This introduces a completely different set of rules for the court to follow. As the court have accepted his plea then he is now guilty of the offence and the sentencing procedures start.
"You'd think the bureaucracy that accidentally released a danger to society should be held to responsibility the same way that an individual that accidentally caused a death would be."
Well you & I would. However the corporate manslaughter laws enacted a number of years ago still have not been able to get anyone convicted of manslaughter. Despite the rail crashes and chemical plant explosions. I think that the whole point of the bureaucracy is to avoid responsibility.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
