Oh well if Satan was driving, that's different...

[Chris S]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/7363608.stm

WTF? I guess you can come up with whatever bullshit you like to get yourself off  .

[border-rider]

Ms Montanaro has been ordered to return to Leicester Crown Court on 27 June to be made subject of an order of the court

I dunno what they have in mind for her. though.

An insanity plea's a double-edged sword sometimes.

[Julian]

She was suffering from schizophrenia.  I don't think that's bullshit - apart from anything else, it would need to be confirmed by medics.  You can't just say you're schizophrenic and get away with things.

I'm glad it sounds like she's getting the treatment she needs.

[Chris S]

So, if I do some Bad Stuff and then claim the voices made me do it - provided I'm reasonably plausible, I get away with it (and maybe get some superfluous therapy)?

That's f*cked up...  .

[Wowbagger]

Giving evidence, psychiatrist Dr Susan Smith said: "I would say she was severely unwell because she was so out of touch with reality she was unable to converse with people.

"My opinion was that she should have been admitted to hospital." she said.

Sounds pretty conclusive to me.

I believe that there is such a thing as mental illness, and I can see no reason to doubt the opinion of the medical professional in this case.

[border-rider]

You may end up being put away for treatment for longer than a prison sentence. 

[Julian]

So, if I do some Bad Stuff and then claim the voices made me do it - provided I'm reasonably plausible, I get away with it (and maybe get some superfluous therapy)?

That's f*cked up...  .

No.  If you are diagnosed as insane under the M'Naughton rules, which includes schizophrenia, then you will be locked up in an institution for treatment for an indefinite period rather than punished with prison.

Those who try to feign mental illness usually end up with an additional sentence for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

I don't see how you reach that conclusion unless you believe either that schizophrenics are just "making it up," or that mental health professionals make spurious and fictitious diagnoses.  Oh, I suppose there's a third option - that the insane should be held responsible for their actions and imprisoned. 

[Chris S]

I don't see how you reach that conclusion unless you believe either that schizophrenics are just "making it up," or that mental health professionals make spurious and fictitious diagnoses.  Oh, I suppose there's a third option - that the insane should be held responsible for their actions and imprisoned. 

It's a toughie. I suffered depression for a few years in my 20's; and learnt it wasn't about "snapping out of it". Later, other family members have suffered - so I know a little of how mental illness works, though I'm no expert.

But, it's not hard to feign mental illness when the alternative is gaol.

Who knows what the Real Story is here. Sadly, I'm one of those cynics who thinks the worst in this kind of case. Thankfully, you (Liz) are one of the types of people who actually have to make tough decisions - not me. I have the luxury of sitting here making expansive (and probably ludicrous) claims whilst others have to make the decisions for real.

Ah well... back to the regression testing...

[Julian]

Depression isn't insanity under the M'Naughten rules.  It's a relatively high test to meet, and it's a double edged sword, because to rely on insanity as a defence, you have to show that you're insane enough to need considerable treatment.  It's not a 'get out of jail free' card.

Having said that, there's always Ernest Saunders...

[Ian H]

Having said that, there's always Ernest Saunders...

If I remember correctly he feigned dementia. That's probably easier than schizophrenia.

[Julian]

And it was to get time off his sentence, not to be declared insane under M'Naughten, so yes, much easier.

[Adrian]

Having said that, there's always Ernest Saunders...

If I remember correctly he feigned dementia. That's probably easier than schizophrenia.

In an interview with The Times published in January 1992, Saunders said the symptoms were a result of a "cocktail of tranquilisers and sleeping tablets" he had been prescribed, and that he was making a good recovery.

So no pretending there. OK?

[Ian H]

In an interview with The Times published in January 1992, Saunders said the symptoms were a result of a "cocktail of tranquilisers and sleeping tablets" he had been prescribed, and that he was making a good recovery.

So no pretending there. OK?

OK. I'll await the libel writ.

[Adrian]

Don't hold your breath

[clarion]

As an aside, I was unable to persuade the University of York that they should rename their Sir Jack Lyons Concert Hall, on the grounds that, either:

a)  They didn't really want to be associated with a convicted fraudster (albeit one that avoided prison on account of his illness), or

b)  He isn't a knight any more

[spen666]

So, if I do some Bad Stuff and then claim the voices made me do it - provided I'm reasonably plausible, I get away with it (and maybe get some superfluous therapy)?

That's f*cked up...  .

So you want to jail the mentally ill?

This lady had been seeking treatment BEFORE the accident. It is not a case of making astory up AFTER the accident

Home treatment staff, based at Leicester Royal Infirmary, released Ms Montanaro when she sought their help the day before the collision, despite the concerns of psychiatrists, the court heard.

Giving evidence, psychiatrist Dr Susan Smith said: "I would say she was severely unwell because she was so out of touch with reality she was unable to converse with people.

"My opinion was that she should have been admitted to hospital." she said.

[spen666]

So, if I do some Bad Stuff and then claim the voices made me do it - provided I'm reasonably plausible, I get away with it (and maybe get some superfluous therapy)?

That's f*cked up...  .

No.  If you are diagnosed as insane under the M'Naughton rules, which includes schizophrenia, then you will be locked up in an institution for treatment for an indefinite period rather than punished with prison.

Those who try to feign mental illness usually end up with an additional sentence for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

I don't see how you reach that conclusion unless you believe either that schizophrenics are just "making it up," or that mental health professionals make spurious and fictitious diagnoses.  Oh, I suppose there's a third option - that the insane should be held responsible for their actions and imprisoned. 

I thought the M'Naughton rules had been superceeded by statute


CORRECTION

The defence of insanity is still governed by the M'Naghten rules (M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200),

as per Blackstones Criminal Practice 2008

[spen666]

I don't see how you reach that conclusion unless you believe either that schizophrenics are just "making it up," or that mental health professionals make spurious and fictitious diagnoses.  Oh, I suppose there's a third option - that the insane should be held responsible for their actions and imprisoned. 

It's a toughie. I suffered depression for a few years in my 20's; and learnt it wasn't about "snapping out of it". Later, other family members have suffered - so I know a little of how mental illness works, though I'm no expert.

But, it's not hard to feign mental illness when the alternative is gaol.

Who knows what the Real Story is here. Sadly, I'm one of those cynics who thinks the worst in this kind of case. Thankfully, you (Liz) are one of the types of people who actually have to make tough decisions - not me. I have the luxury of sitting here making expansive (and probably ludicrous) claims whilst others have to make the decisions for real.

Ah well... back to the regression testing...

Sadly though you are also one of those who can't read the article properly.

As I stated in my other post, this woman had been seeking treatment BEFORE the accident. So its not a case of making up a story AFTERWARDS

[Chris S]

Sadly though you are also one of those who can't read the article properly.

As I stated in my other post, this woman had been seeking treatment BEFORE the accident. So its not a case of making up a story AFTERWARDS

Fair do's - I missed that all important fact.

[spen666]

Sadly though you are also one of those who can't read the article properly.

As I stated in my other post, this woman had been seeking treatment BEFORE the accident. So its not a case of making up a story AFTERWARDS

Fair do's - I missed that all important fact.

If the claim was made afterwards, then I can understand you being sceptical.

However, it is necessary for there to be very strong medical evidence before someone can escape liability on the grounds of insanity. This should not be confused with trying to mitigate liability. Avoiding liability and mitigating are different things

[Tourist Tony]

There is a much more important angle here.
Schizophrenic seeks treatment. Hospital sends her away. Two people die.
Are they looking at a negligence suit against the hospital?

[Sergeant Pluck]

I'm also surprised that there seems to have been little comment on the decision not to treat her.

[Regulator]

I'm also surprised that there seems to have been little comment on the decision not to treat her.

*In making this post I must declare an interest - Mr R is a psychiatrist*

That's an easy one.  Psychiatric services are chronically and disgracefully underfunded - even by NHS standards.  It is difficult enough to find the resources to adequately treat those who are detained against their will, never mind those who actively seek assistance of their own volition.

Never mind.  I'm sure the Department of Health and the various ministers who choose to comment on this case will blame the clinicians, rather than taking responsibility for sorting the mess out that they themselves have made.