hypocricy from the government.

markwalker

simply put.

Calling names is not helpful in putting forward whatever you point is in an acceptable and opinion changing way.

that is the comment. It is neither empty nor an indication of morality or otherwise..

rake

you extrapalate far to many false assumptions from unreleted sentences. are you a shrink?

markwalker

rake wrote:

you extrapalate far to many false assumptions from unreleted sentences. are you a shrink?

would you like me to be?

alfablue

rake wrote:

you extrapalate far to many false assumptions from unreleted sentences. are you a shrink?

I am sorry if I am misrepresenting what you say Rake, but it seems to me that you are proposing that the solution to a drug dealing problem in China (and maybe elsewhere including here) should include the execution of people with a severe mental illness. Are you saying the chaps execution was an acceptable part of this solution, or are you not?

rake

surely if people arent fit to be at liberty then the only way to exempt them from the law is to have them locked in an institute. since they were closed down there isnt room to put such people. the result of their crimes causes the same problems weather they are fit or not. someone with a heavy drug addiction could claim diminished care so where would you draw the line. i know its very harsh but how else do they send the message accross. no worries i know i can wind people up sometimes. im going to try and be less controvertial in 2010.

alfablue

Do I take from the above that your answer is that the execution of people with a severe mental illness is an acceptable part of the solution to drug dealing? I think that is what you are saying. Can you confirm? I don't wish to extrapolate beyond what you are actually saying.

One practical problem with your proposal to have people locked in institutions to prevent them undertaking criminal acts, is that their mental disorder is often only revealed for the first time when they commit those acts.

It would be a strange interpretation of the law where someone was recognised as suffering from a mental disorder and as such had diminished responsibility, but you still hold them fully responsible as per any other person. Even in Victorian times we had a more benevolent approach to treating the mentally ill.

If you want to incarcerate people on the basis that they may, one day, commit a criminal act whilst suffering from a mental illness, then you would need to lock up a very large number of people, probably in greater numbers than in the days of the lunacy act. There is also a reasonable chance that you and I would need to be included in these numbers . . just to be safe.

rake

who can make a reliable decision with brain problems. where would the line be. another approach would be to make anyone cuaght with drugs to take them, weather its 4kg or not.

alfablue

Do I take from the above that your answer is that the execution of people with a severe mental illness is an acceptable part of the solution to drug dealing? I think that is what you are saying. Can you confirm?

Well?

rake

it was in china.

alfablue

you wont answer?

rake

if i answer it will be turned, twisted, stretched, and buckled. im not being cast into a mould here.

alfablue

rake wrote:

if i answer it will be turned, twisted, stretched, and buckled. im not being cast into a mould here.

You accuse me of extrapolating too far, yet you are now backtracking and are not even prepared to make it clear what you believe. If you don't believe the things you say, why are you saying them? For effect?

Last chance, yes or no?

I would just like your answer and then I will make no comment either way, so you are in no danger of things being twisted. So, have the courage of your convictions, or I will just draw the obvious conclusion.

Its a simple question, you believe the execution of people with severe mental health problems is an acceptable part of the solution to drug dealing, yes or no?

nolf

Getting back to the original question and with a slightly cynical mind.
The government complained vocally at the actions of the Chinese, but didn't actually do anything to prevent it.

If they had really wanted to change the outcome there are many ways pressure could be applied, even to a more powerful country like China. It strikes me as a consistent government decision (rather than hypocritical), to let other countries deal severely with criminals from the UK.

Allow the US to extradite and punish a hacker, and allow China to execute a drug dealer. The domestic uproar over the hacker showed how careful the government has to be with regards to justice. However if the Government is convinced that the man is a drug dealer, then let China do as they will. China get to look tough on crime (executing a foreign national from a G8 country), and Britain get to protest it (looking good domestically).
Everybody wins, except for the guy executed.

Is it really worth using up the diplomatic capital to prevent the execution of a drug dealer?
I think, no.

KT1973

I think nolf is along the right lines here.
This guy has been in Prison in China, and on death row for almost 2 years and only now we hear about it.
Did he definately have a mental disorder? We don't know for sure. Certainly a rational educated person would be aware of the penalty of being caught in China with a large quantity of heroin. Was he rational? Was he desperate for the money?
Our polititians may stand up and make noises about how China can't do this to one of our citizens but do you think they (china) care? What will Britain do? Impose a trade imbargo? Wage war? It's in the same vein as the case of the Lockerbie bomber Al- Megrahi being returned to Libya in exchange for an (alleged) oil contract awarded to BP. It shows we're powerless on the world stage now and I think this has become evident in the newsclips I've seen, moreso than Akmal Shaihk's mental state or guilt.
Too little too late from gutless Britain. If he was mentally ill, then we've failed him.
.....if not, then he shouldn't be carrying 4kg of heroin through China.

One thing I will say though is that drugs mules will be (almost without exception) exploited by the real traffickers and usually receive a very disproportionately low reward for the risk taken.

daviesee

The Government?
Hypocritical?

Never :evil:

Wake up those at the back :roll:

Chip \'oyler

I've got the definative answer to all this

Legalise all drugs!


(right I'm now off out for the whole of the day whilst the s h i t storm starts! )

Frank the tank

If the problem of illegal drug taking were to be erradicated then there would be less crime and more money could be spent on finding better treatments for all manner of medical conditions such as MS and mental health issues.

I believe this governments current policy is an indecisive one, It should be all or f**k all, i.e. The death penalty for drug traffickers,dealers,takers (regardless of celebrity) or just decriminalise the whole lot causing the price to drop and make it unprofittable for the criminal element and also it would be another source of tax revenue.

How's about that.

As for killing the mentally ill, no. Unless peadophilia is classed as mental illness?

Chip \'oyler

Frank the tank wrote:

If the problem of illegal drug taking were to be erradicated then there would be less crime and more money could be spent on finding better treatments for all manner of medical conditions such as MS and mental health issues.

I believe this governments current policy is an indecisive one, It should be all or f**k all, i.e. The death penalty for drug traffickers,dealers,takers (regardless of celebrity) or just decriminalise the whole lot causing the price to drop and make it unprofittable for the criminal element and also it would be another source of tax revenue.

How's about that.

As for killing the mentally ill, no. Unless peadophilia is classed as mental illness?

I would have thought that it is

rake

alfablue wrote:

rake wrote:

if i answer it will be turned, twisted, stretched, and buckled. im not being cast into a mould here.

You accuse me of extrapolating too far, yet you are now backtracking and are not even prepared to make it clear what you believe. If you don't believe the things you say, why are you saying them? For effect?

Last chance, yes or no?

I would just like your answer and then I will make no comment either way, so you are in no danger of things being twisted. So, have the courage of your convictions, or I will just draw the obvious conclusion.

Its a simple question, you believe the execution of people with severe mental health problems is an acceptable part of the solution to drug dealing, yes or no?

in this case yes. bi polar makes people happy and sad it doesnt affect their judgement. he ran a business in the past, he couldnt be that bonkers. his ex wife didnt think much of him either. he was a life long con man he would try anything to get off. take people who go out killing, they are all mentally ill by definition of what they are doing. would they get off the charges.

alfablue

rake wrote:

alfablue wrote:

rake wrote:

if i answer it will be turned, twisted, stretched, and buckled. im not being cast into a mould here.

You accuse me of extrapolating too far, yet you are now backtracking and are not even prepared to make it clear what you believe. If you don't believe the things you say, why are you saying them? For effect?

Last chance, yes or no?

I would just like your answer and then I will make no comment either way, so you are in no danger of things being twisted. So, have the courage of your convictions, or I will just draw the obvious conclusion.

Its a simple question, you believe the execution of people with severe mental health problems is an acceptable part of the solution to drug dealing, yes or no?

in this case yes. bi polar makes people happy and sad it doesnt affect their judgement. he ran a business in the past, he couldnt be that bonkers. his ex wife didnt think much of him either. he was a life long con man he would try anything to get off. take people who go out killing, they are all mentally ill by definition of what they are doing. would they get off the charges.

First off, I was asking the general question, and I still don't have an answer.

Secondly you say "bipolar...doesn't affect their judgement"

From the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10)

Mania without psychotic symptoms

Mood is elevated out of keeping with the patient's circumstances and may vary from carefree joviality to almost uncontrollable excitement. Elation is accompanied by increased energy, resulting in overactivity, pressure of speech, and a decreased need for sleep. Attention cannot be sustained, and there is often marked distractibility. Self-esteem is often inflated with grandiose ideas and overconfidence. Loss of normal social inhibitions may result in behaviour that is reckless, foolhardy, or inappropriate to the circumstances, and out of character
.
Mania with psychotic symptoms

In addition to the clinical picture described in F30.1, delusions (usually grandiose) or hallucinations (usually of voices speaking directly to the patient) are present, or the excitement, excessive motor activity, and flight of ideas are so extreme that the subject is incomprehensible or inaccessible to ordinary communication.

People who are psychotic may have their judgement severely impaired. People who have delusions and hallucinations do, by definition, have their judgement severely impaired.

You say he can't be that bad because he ran his own company. People who are psychotic are not always psychotic. It is by definition a fluctuating disorder (bipolar). I have known several severely psychotic people over the years that have during periods of wellness, or prior to the onset of their illness, held down incredibly complex professional or high powered jobs (for example, barrister, airline pilot, architect, consultant psychiatrist!), have run their own companies (some household names), and indeed some people who are in the public eye (you would be shocked). I am afraid your understanding of the nature of these mental disorders is not adequate to make the judgements you offer.

rake

its not about my understanding of this illness, its about being subject to the same laws. when sutcliff was tried the question came up is he mentally ill. it was concluded most serial killers are. would this make it any different for the victims or families, i thimk not. there are also drugs to contol psycotics and depression. im no expert as you say, but not totally lacking any idea. i have known a few people with mental problems and i know varous traumatic events can cause anyone problems, also showing up at different ages in life.im not one of these people who think it cant happen to me. it doesnt surprise me people in the public eye can have problems, they say nobody in hollywood is normal.

Anonymous

China is no place to be if you want any sort of justice. The human rights record there is shocking, they have a totally different mindset and culture to the normal person in the UK. Trying to understand the Chinese way of thinking in juidicial terms would be impossible for us to try and fathom.

The bottom line maybe; Our government acts hypocritically all the time, lesser and greater at times. China does as it wants, always has, always will.

alfablue

rake wrote:

its not about my understanding of this illness, its about being subject to the same laws.

Well, it is about your understanding (or lack of) because you are not aware of the nature of psychoses, delusions, hallucinations, and the effect on someone's conduct and rationality. You are, however, now changing the focus of your argument.

when sutcliff was tried the question came up is he mentally ill. it was concluded most serial killers are. would this make it any different for the victims or families, i thimk not.

Of course not, but this is why (fortunately) the justice system is controlled by a judge and jury system in this country, not by the victims, otherwise we would have a bloodbath, no doubt (with plenty of wrongful lynchings!).

there are also drugs to contol psycotics and depression

Well, they are not magic, no more than are drugs for cancer, sometimes they work completely, sometimes a bit, sometimes not at all; sometimes the person becomes severely psychotic before they ever get treatment, often people who take them don't continue (unless compelled, and sometimes they are) because they don't believe they are unwell (lack of insight is a common feature of psychotic illness - the people just don't know they are ill).

im no expert as you say, but not totally lacking any idea.

I am afraid your ideas are so far from the reality as to be downright wrong. I think I have offered enough information now, I think you should go and educate yourself on mental illness if you are hoping to offer any judgement that is worthwhile, and informed by knowledge rather than prejudice. There are plenty of good sources you can read, but these do not include tabloid newspapers, which pedal the same misinformed views that you share. If this thread helps you gain a more informed knowledge of mental illness, then that will be a good thing 8)

nolf

Is the possibility of mental illness really relevant?

China were convinced at his guilt and thats what really matters.

If it forwards our national self interest to let him be executed, isn't the Government acting in our best interests by not kicking up a fuss?

A brave foreign policy decision, that the Government then covers domestically by releasing the story to the press at the same time as denouncing it. Smart and good.

Well done Gordon Brown.

Anyone?

eltonioni

How many people would his 4kg bag of smack have killed ?

Frank the tank

eltonioni wrote:

How many people would his 4kg bag of smack have killed ?

I heard today a bloke that drank in my local died last night, from guess what, a drugs overdose.

He was 34 and over the years lead his loved ones a right merry dance one way and another.

nasahapley

Frank the tank wrote:

I heard today a bloke that drank in my local died last night, from guess what, a drugs overdose.

He was 34 and over the years lead his loved ones a right merry dance one way and another.

Well if he was a drinker and we hadn't had the previous conversation about drugs then I would have guessed he'd have died from some sort of alcohol related illness, since that's a much, much more common way to go than a drug-related death. Funny how people who get so het up about illegal drug users ("kill 'em all") can nevertheless be proud of their own legal drug taking ('drinking in bars since 1977'), even if that drug has a massively harmful effect on society. The idea that illegal drugs are inherently bad but legal drugs must be ok because they're legal is just daft. Though to be fair you do acknowledge that some form of legalisation and regulation might be a better way forward than the hopeless war on drugs b****cks we've got now, so kudos for that.

Frank the tank

nasahapley wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

I heard today a bloke that drank in my local died last night, from guess what, a drugs overdose.

He was 34 and over the years lead his loved ones a right merry dance one way and another.

Well if he was a drinker and we hadn't had the previous conversation about drugs then I would have guessed he'd have died from some sort of alcohol related illness, since that's a much, much more common way to go than a drug-related death. Funny how people who get so het up about illegal drug users ("kill 'em all") can nevertheless be proud of their own legal drug taking ('drinking in bars since 1977'), even if that drug has a massively harmful effect on society. The idea that illegal drugs are inherently bad but legal drugs must be ok because they're legal is just daft. Though to be fair you do acknowledge that some form of legalisation and regulation might be a better way forward than the hopeless war on drugs b****cks we've got now, so kudos for that.

To be honest I believe that alcohol (or the abuse of) is a great social ill and causes all kinds of problems within society. However it is legal, if it were an illegal activity I would have to give it up as I prefer to live my life as a law abiding citizen.

rake

alfablue wrote:

rake wrote:

its not about my understanding of this illness, its about being subject to the same laws.

Well, it is about your understanding (or lack of) because you are not aware of the nature of psychoses, delusions, hallucinations, and the effect on someone's conduct and rationality. You are, however, now changing the focus of your argument.

when sutcliff was tried the question came up is he mentally ill. it was concluded most serial killers are. would this make it any different for the victims or families, i thimk not.

Of course not, but this is why (fortunately) the justice system is controlled by a judge and jury system in this country, not by the victims, otherwise we would have a bloodbath, no doubt (with plenty of wrongful lynchings!).

there are also drugs to contol psycotics and depression

Well, they are not magic, no more than are drugs for cancer, sometimes they work completely, sometimes a bit, sometimes not at all; sometimes the person becomes severely psychotic before they ever get treatment, often people who take them don't continue (unless compelled, and sometimes they are) because they don't believe they are unwell (lack of insight is a common feature of psychotic illness - the people just don't know they are ill).

im no expert as you say, but not totally lacking any idea.

I am afraid your ideas are so far from the reality as to be downright wrong. I think I have offered enough information now, I think you should go and educate yourself on mental illness if you are hoping to offer any judgement that is worthwhile, and informed by knowledge rather than prejudice. There are plenty of good sources you can read, but these do not include tabloid newspapers, which pedal the same misinformed views that you share. If this thread helps you gain a more informed knowledge of mental illness, then that will be a good thing 8)

i think i know a little more than you think and i havent offered much knowledge forward anyway. thats not the main point as i see it , point is all serious criminals have problems of some kind and who can determine a difinitive outline of whos responsible and who isnt, he smuggled drugs, bad move in china.

alfablue

rake wrote:

alfablue wrote:

rake wrote:

its not about my understanding of this illness, its about being subject to the same laws.

Well, it is about your understanding (or lack of) because you are not aware of the nature of psychoses, delusions, hallucinations, and the effect on someone's conduct and rationality. You are, however, now changing the focus of your argument.

when sutcliff was tried the question came up is he mentally ill. it was concluded most serial killers are. would this make it any different for the victims or families, i thimk not.

Of course not, but this is why (fortunately) the justice system is controlled by a judge and jury system in this country, not by the victims, otherwise we would have a bloodbath, no doubt (with plenty of wrongful lynchings!).

there are also drugs to contol psycotics and depression

Well, they are not magic, no more than are drugs for cancer, sometimes they work completely, sometimes a bit, sometimes not at all; sometimes the person becomes severely psychotic before they ever get treatment, often people who take them don't continue (unless compelled, and sometimes they are) because they don't believe they are unwell (lack of insight is a common feature of psychotic illness - the people just don't know they are ill).

im no expert as you say, but not totally lacking any idea.

I am afraid your ideas are so far from the reality as to be downright wrong. I think I have offered enough information now, I think you should go and educate yourself on mental illness if you are hoping to offer any judgement that is worthwhile, and informed by knowledge rather than prejudice. There are plenty of good sources you can read, but these do not include tabloid newspapers, which pedal the same misinformed views that you share. If this thread helps you gain a more informed knowledge of mental illness, then that will be a good thing 8)

i think i know a little more than you think

well if that is the case why have you done your very best to pretend otherwise? I just don't understand that at all :?

and i havent offered much knowledge forward .

We can finally agree on something