/ Right to Silence

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
FesteringSore - on 23 Nov 2016
Like other right minded people I abhorred the horrific murder of Jo Cox.

What I now find puzzling is that not only did the perpetrator refuse to answer police questions but he pleaded not guilty on all charges and then declined to offer any argument countering the case put forward by the prosecution. It must also be of some concern that he shows no remorse. I wonder if it is all part of, in his mind, a psychological "game" to prolong the agony for the family of the victim.

Wonder how the minds of people like this work?
KevinD - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:

I dont believe he pleaded not guilty but that he simply refused to say anything and so was defaulted to not guilty.
Lusk - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:

I must admit, I did wonder why he pleaded not guilty at first, but then I thought he may have got a lesser sentence by doing so.
This way, only prison guards will have the pleasure of his delightful company until he drops dead.
As for how his (or similar others) minds work, f*ck knows. They're clearly not normal.
FesteringSore - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> I dont believe he pleaded not guilty
Ah right, I wasn't aware of that. However it still leave me wondering as to whether it was all part of his "game".
Post edited at 17:52
elsewhere on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:

> Ah right, I wasn't aware of that. However it still leave me wondering as to whether it was all part of his "game".

I suspect so but the judge may have put the kibosh on using the dock as a pulpit.

"But before sentencing, Mair asked to speak to the courtroom. The judge declined, saying he had already had an opportunity"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38079594
Trangia - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:

> Ah right, I wasn't aware of that. However it still leave me wondering as to whether it was all part of his "game".

Why wonder? He's not worthy of any further thought by any of us. Forget him, he is a pathetic excuse for a human being.
1
digby - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Trangia:

In a way he is worthy of further thought. We should always be thinking that wrong acts small or large should not be done. Anything that leads to actions like his, small or large, should be condemned. Remembering him should remind us of these things.
The old 'lest we forget' thing.
KevinD - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Trangia:

> Forget him, he is a pathetic excuse for a human being.

There is a good reason for some to be interested eg whether anyone else is following the same path and if so can they be dealt with earlier.
Overall though I would agree. Reminds me of some tw*t of a cop killer appealing, and failing, against their conviction.the police chief was asked for their opinion which was to paraphrase "they failed and will stay in prison. good. I wont waste any more time on them"
marsbar - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:

I think he wanted his day in court. He is a selfish bastard with no idea or care for the hurt and damage he has caused, both on the day, and in making all those present have to come to court.
abr1966 - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:

When I was a trainee I spent 5 months in Ashworth Special Hospital....I came out of it thinking some people are just evil bas**rds and need locking up for life.
2
Big Ger - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to abr1966:

> When I was a trainee I spent 5 months in Ashworth Special Hospital....I came out of it thinking some people are just evil bas**rds and need locking up for life.

Agreed.
Dave Perry - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:

I once had the pleasure of working with a policeman from xxxxxxx country, and he told me that there was no right to silence is n his country. When I asked innocently what do you do if they refuse to speak, he told me that prisoners who refused were tortured until they spoke.

Maybe that's what this perpetrator deserved?

13
baron - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:
If he'd wanted to prolong the trial would he not have mounted a 'better' defence?
damhan-allaidh on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Dave Perry:

No.
2
krikoman - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Dave Perry:

> I once had the pleasure of working with a policeman from xxxxxxx country, and he told me that there was no right to silence is n his country. When I asked innocently what do you do if they refuse to speak, he told me that prisoners who refused were tortured until they spoke.

> Maybe that's what this perpetrator deserved?

Then where do you stop, do you carry on torturing someone until they say what you want them to say?

No body deserves torture.

You might do well to listen to what her husband had to say.
2
marsbar - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Dave Perry:

That's not how we do things. He had his right to silence, he was convicted, he goes to jail.
Robert Durran - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to abr1966:

> When I was a trainee I spent 5 months in Ashworth Special Hospital....I came out of it thinking some people are just evil bas**rds and need locking up for life.

Ashworth is a psychiatric hospital. The people there are ill, not evil.
2
abr1966 - on 23 Nov 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

Well there isn't a clear line in legal, clinical or ethical concepts relating to where the concept of illness begins or ends.

Where do you think psychopathy fits in?
1
Ridge - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Ashworth is a psychiatric hospital. The people there are ill, not evil.

That's a very fine distinction. If you're evil enough then most people would regard you as mentally ill.

It's quite interesting that similar attacks in Europe and the UK have been rapidly filed under "mental illness, definately not terrorism", but there's been no attempt by the defence to use that excuse in this case.
1
ultrabumbly on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

It is entirely possible to be both.
FactorXXX - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Ridge:

If you're evil enough then most people would regard you as mentally ill.

What exactly is 'evil' though?
I've always thought it was a religious term to describe someone that is 'wicked', 'possessed', etc.
If that is the case, should the term really be used to describe someone who does unspeakable violent acts, etc. but are obviously not being driven to do those acts by external supernatural forces?
People can believe to be driven by such forces and maybe that's when they should be considered to be mentally ill as opposed to being criminally violent?



johncoxmysteriously - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to FesteringSore:

Before we say that this individual was a piece of shit and not worth bothering about, it's worth a little googling of Britain First's local websites glorifying his actions.

Just to remind us all that there's a lot of pieces of shit not worth bothering with, or something.

Probably better in truth to remember, mourn and celebrate the wonderful Jo Cox.

jcm
Dave Perry - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I've just looked up Britain First. Never heard of them before. *(perhaps I lead a sheltered life) What a scary lot of thugs they looked like.
Post edited at 07:28
Dave Kerr - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to abr1966:
Evil is an outmoded, emotive and unhelpful word. To me it implies a sort of disembodied badness when in fact it's people who commit this kind of act.
Post edited at 07:53
damhan-allaidh on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Dave Kerr:

I used to kind of agree with you on that, and to some extent, still do. Without trying to seem too much like a pretentious hipster wet lettuce, I read Beyond Good and Evil a few years ago. Done well, pondering the nature of evil can actually be useful.
marsbar - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

I agree. I don't like words like evil, it's another way of saying "the devil made him do it".

Some people choose to do bad things and are otherwise quite sane.

Some people are mentally ill and do bad things due to illness. (Before anyone starts I am well aware as a sufferer myself that most mentally ill people don't do bad things)

Some people do bad things because of childhood damage. Other people suffer enormous damage as children, but don't do bad things.

I'm not sure how clear the distinction between sending to hospital and prison is, I suspect it's not as clear cut as we might like.
marsbar - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Dave Perry:

Where have you been? Make sure you watch the channel 4 clip of the pretend soldiers crashing their land rover into a car park barrier.

https://www.channel4.com/news/britain-first-far-right-anti-muslim-extremists-mosques

Then let's look at the lovely Jayda and her family history vs her wish for immigrants out. She is special.

https://exposingbf.wordpress.com/2015/05/15/dear-jayda/

Mustn't forget their esteemed leader wearing pants on his head at the Cenotaph

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/11/paul-golding-cenotaph-knickers-britain-first/

Back to the delightful Jayda, shouting at a tent,

http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/21/now-britain-first-are-just-accosting-random-homeless-people-5957239/




SenzuBean - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:

> I agree. I don't like words like evil, it's another way of saying "the devil made him do it".

> Some people choose to do bad things and are otherwise quite sane.

And yet other people choose to do 'good' things that are not what others consider to be 'good'. Using social convention to define what's good doesn't always work either (e.g. 60 years ago what was normal would not be considered 'good' now).
It's entirely possible (and quite likely I think, given his comments) in this particular case that he believed he was doing something for the greater good. (I shouldn't need to say it, but of course I think he was gravely mistaken - he did something bad, and it wasn't for any greater good IMO. There was a man who tried to assassinate Hitler, and he was doing something bad, but some would say for the greater good.)
marsbar - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

He probably did think that. I'm not qualified to say if this is because everyone he is ill, or because he was wrong, or because he was brainwashed. Meanwhile Britain First are trying to say "nothing to do with us".
ads.ukclimbing.com
fred99 - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Dave Perry:

The problem with torture is that all you get out of the victim is what they think the torturer wants to hear.
If the victim knows nothing, they also know that unless they say what the torturer wants to hear - or at least something akin to such - it won't stop, but as soon as they do say something appropriate, it will.
Torture is rather ineffective with regards to obtaining the actual truth, unless of course you already know precisely what the truth is, in which case why bother, unless that's how you get your kicks.
wercat on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to abr1966:

I came to the same conclusion re people and evil while at school
Dave Perry - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to fred99:

The torture post comments from the policeman - from Zambia I recall, were true. But my comments were tongue in cheek!
Dave Perry - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to marsbar:

And here's me thinking the NF were gone along with their ilk.

I looked and listened at all the links you gave -= Thanks.

What an ignorant bunch of nutters.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.