Early Release

tangled_metal

rick_chasey said:

Presumably what's happened is the rozzers decided to put him behind bars on a lesser charge as the evidence for the more hefty charge was shakier, and so for the lesser crime you (not unreasonably) get things like parole blah blah.

He pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. I heard they investigated for the more serious charge then in court it ended up being the lesser charge. But he pleaded guilty at the earliest possibility to everything. So does a fair cop mate not get you charged and sentenced for everything if the greatest crimes have shaky evidence? He copped to it but the evidence wasn't there for all the crimes so they played safe because a guilty plea doesn't guarantee the guilty verdict? It confuses me what happened with his prosecution.

All irrelevant since he would have been out sooner or later anyway to the same kind of outcome.

rjsterry

mr_goo said:

Close family. Damned auto spelling.

I know it's possible to find anything you want on the interweb if you look hard enough. But the prescribed stuff is surely not that accessible. I'm just thinking that some of the younger offenders of these terrorist attacks are being guided to look for the stuff... Groomed if you will.

It's not just an Islam thing either. It certainly applies to Christianity and some branches of that faith with unsavoury links to right wing ideology.

Ah, understood. Groomed is exactly the right word, whether there is a religious or political cause, or no cause at all.

mr_goo

rick_chasey said:

mr_goo said:

Close family. Damned auto spelling.

I know it's possible to find anything you want on the interweb if you look hard enough. But the prescribed stuff is surely not that accessible. I'm just thinking that some of the younger offenders of these terrorist attacks are being guided to look for the stuff... Groomed if you will.

It's not just an Islam thing either. It certainly applies to Christianity and some branches of that faith with unsavoury links to right wing ideology.

It's nothing to do with faith.

I can point to tonnes of examples of the same things occuring when faith has nothing to do with it.

Certainly in the last couple of instances it's everything to do with faith. Albeit a warped and misinterpreted version.

ballysmate

mr_goo said:

rick_chasey said:

mr_goo said:

Close family. Damned auto spelling.

I know it's possible to find anything you want on the interweb if you look hard enough. But the prescribed stuff is surely not that accessible. I'm just thinking that some of the younger offenders of these terrorist attacks are being guided to look for the stuff... Groomed if you will.

It's not just an Islam thing either. It certainly applies to Christianity and some branches of that faith with unsavoury links to right wing ideology.

It's nothing to do with faith.

I can point to tonnes of examples of the same things occuring when faith has nothing to do with it.

Certainly in the last couple of instances it's everything to do with faith. Albeit a warped and misinterpreted version.

That seems to be an unspeakable truth for some.

rjsterry

It's not unspeakable, just not that important.

ballysmate

rjsterry said:

It's not unspeakable, just not that important.

The motives/reasoning behind a terrorist attack, any terrorist attack. are not that important?
Head, may I introduce you to sand?

rjsterry

We're talking about sentencing and release aren't we? Not the causes of islamist terrorism.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

rjsterry said:

It's not unspeakable, just not that important.

The motives/reasoning behind a terrorist attack, any terrorist attack. are not that important?
Head, may I introduce you to sand?

I would have thought you of all people would be familiar with the work of the Baader–Meinhof Group

rolf_f

I'm with the Government on this. It would have been much safer if, rather than being released early to stab people, he was released next year to stab people.
Though there is the risk there that it might just encourage people to get their stabbing in early, before they are arrested for non stabbing activities.
Or maybe better to just concentrate on rehabilitation - ie solving the problem rather than just punishing and delaying?

john80

Here is an alternative system. You go to prison and if you can comply with the rules that make the prison a safe and stable environment then you get to be educated. If you can't obey the rules then you don't get educated and you get sent to that really bad prison for persistent pricks that has only one route out and that is through compliance. Consider it a basic contract with the state.

Now you are in the education club as you could get through a day listening to a reasonable instruction and not attacked anyone. You only get to leave when you have either learnt some sort of trade that will allow you to get a well paying job or you are educated to a level that you can go to university in a state valued degree as there will be some people that are pretty bright even though their younger judgement was lacking. Fail to do this then you don't get released period as you are unlikely to change your ways and are of no benefit to society.

If prison is about rehabilitation then surely a time based sentence is a waste of time as if it is short you can't do any of the above in a meaningful way and if you don't show any signs of being rehabilitated then why should the sentence not be long. I guess this would never fly as it would require a huge amount of money to implement. Hence the current how many head banger's can you put in a room approach we currently roll with.

surrey_commuter

john80 said:

Here is an alternative system. You go to prison and if you can comply with the rules that make the prison a safe and stable environment then you get to be educated. If you can't obey the rules then you don't get educated and you get sent to that really bad prison for persistent pricks that has only one route out and that is through compliance. Consider it a basic contract with the state.

Now you are in the education club as you could get through a day listening to a reasonable instruction and not attacked anyone. You only get to leave when you have either learnt some sort of trade that will allow you to get a well paying job or you are educated to a level that you can go to university in a state valued degree as there will be some people that are pretty bright even though their younger judgement was lacking. Fail to do this then you don't get released period as you are unlikely to change your ways and are of no benefit to society.

If prison is about rehabilitation then surely a time based sentence is a waste of time as if it is short you can't do any of the above in a meaningful way and if you don't show any signs of being rehabilitated then why should the sentence not be long. I guess this would never fly as it would require a huge amount of money to implement. Hence the current how many head banger's can you put in a room approach we currently roll with.

I would agree for common criminals but really can not see the point with people so mad that they believe in jihad. Letting them out and shooting them when they commit a minor crime seems as good a solution as any.

rjsterry

They're not mad. It's not a mental health issue. They got talked into terrorism (If you'll excuse the massive oversimplification), so someone can talk them out of it.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

They're not mad. It's not a mental health issue. They got talked into terrorism (If you'll excuse the massive oversimplification), so someone can talk them out of it.

I disagree with this. The man who stabbed a few people on London Bridge was, in my highly unqualified mind, mentally ill, and should have been treated as such.

rjsterry

How can you possibly make an assessment of that?

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

How can you possibly make an assessment of that?

Hardly the actions of a sane person. How do you characterise the people behind mass shootings in school? I go with mental health issues.

john80

rjsterry said:

They're not mad. It's not a mental health issue. They got talked into terrorism (If you'll excuse the massive oversimplification), so someone can talk them out of it.

I am guessing that some people got talked into being a Nazi in the 40's. Who talked Hitler and his inner circle into their plan? Was a higher power talking to them? If this is the case can I claim this if I want to do some bad stuff? I am a bit happier holding humans to account for their actions instead of letting the big bad boy in the corner get the flack.

rjsterry

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

They're not mad. It's not a mental health issue. They got talked into terrorism (If you'll excuse the massive oversimplification), so someone can talk them out of it.

I am guessing that some people got talked into being a Nazi in the 40's. Who talked Hitler and his inner circle into their plan? Was a higher power talking to them? If this is the case can I claim this if I want to do some bad stuff? I am a bit happier holding humans to account for their actions instead of letting the big bad boy in the corner get the flack.

Don't mean to suggest that this removes personal responsibility, but ideology is learnt. Hitler didn't invent his ideas in a vacuum, not that the people formulating an ideology usually like to get their hands dirty.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

How can you possibly make an assessment of that?

Hardly the actions of a sane person. How do you characterise the people behind mass shootings in school? I go with mental health issues.

What particularly mental health issue do you think is relevant here or do you just prefer not to think that most people are capable of killing?

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

How can you possibly make an assessment of that?

Hardly the actions of a sane person. How do you characterise the people behind mass shootings in school? I go with mental health issues.

What particularly mental health issue do you think is relevant here or do you just prefer not to think that most people are capable of killing?

Do you accept that people who commit suicide are often mentally ill? If you do, then why do you think suicide by armed police is the action of a sane person? That's without even considering the indiscriminate killing.

Of course people can kill. They tend to do it for more normal reasons than suicide though

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

How can you possibly make an assessment of that?

Hardly the actions of a sane person. How do you characterise the people behind mass shootings in school? I go with mental health issues.

What particularly mental health issue do you think is relevant here or do you just prefer not to think that most people are capable of killing?

Do you accept that people who commit suicide are often mentally ill? If you do, then why do you think suicide by armed police is the action of a sane person? That's without even considering the indiscriminate killing.

Of course people can kill. They tend to do it for more normal reasons than suicide though

What on earth is a "more normal reason"?
Don't just do a Stevo and answer a question with another question. What mental health condition do you think is involved? If you accept that someone truly believes in an afterlife where they will be rewarded for actions against a perceived enemy, there is no need to invoke vaguely defined mental health issues to explain their actions.

rick_chasey

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

They're not mad. It's not a mental health issue. They got talked into terrorism (If you'll excuse the massive oversimplification), so someone can talk them out of it.

I am guessing that some people got talked into being a Nazi in the 40's. Who talked Hitler and his inner circle into their plan? Was a higher power talking to them? If this is the case can I claim this if I want to do some bad stuff? I am a bit happier holding humans to account for their actions instead of letting the big bad boy in the corner get the flack.

Tangental but would strongly recommend Kershaw's 'working towards the fuhrer' essay if you are actually interested in how that all came about.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

How can you possibly make an assessment of that?

Hardly the actions of a sane person. How do you characterise the people behind mass shootings in school? I go with mental health issues.

What particularly mental health issue do you think is relevant here or do you just prefer not to think that most people are capable of killing?

Do you accept that people who commit suicide are often mentally ill? If you do, then why do you think suicide by armed police is the action of a sane person? That's without even considering the indiscriminate killing.

Of course people can kill. They tend to do it for more normal reasons than suicide though

What on earth is a "more normal reason"?
Don't just do a Stevo and answer a question with another question. What mental health condition do you think is involved? If you accept that someone truly believes in an afterlife where they will be rewarded for actions against a perceived enemy, there is no need to invoke vaguely defined mental health issues to explain their actions.

There is no single mental health issue that results in suicide, hence why it is difficult to prevent and diagnose. I am not a psychologist though, so don't have much more to add.

More normal reasons for killing, in my view, involve self preservation (e.g. war), money (greed) etc. Mostly the plan with killing is to not get caught/killed though.

I accept you can make an argument that they believe they are doing god's work and will be rewarded, but I don't really buy it. There are too many other examples of mass killing e.g. Andreas Lubitz, Anders Brevik, all the school mass shootings etc. They all have their reasons, but mental illness is the one I would go for.

I don't think we will agree on this subject.

rjsterry

Breivik surrendered - the better to attempt to proselytise from court. It varies depending on the ideology and whether that rewards "dying for the cause". I think one should not generalise and just putting it all on mental health feels like an avoidance of looking more closely.

tangled_metal

This guy possibly didn't go out looking for suicide by armed cop. If he knew he was being followed I wonder if he'd have gone through with the attack. If he did know he was being followed the police were not very good at covert surveillance.

Mental illness? Are you saying extreme religious views are tantamount to mental illness? There's a lot of Trump backers needing to go into secure facilities if that's the case. He's got the backing of some real religious extremists over there I believe.

Development of extreme ideology I reckon is about susceptibility of the individual to that pov, and effective communicators to exploit that susceptibility. It's grooming of another form. I wonder how many groomed kids go to Islamic extremism and how many just get passed around for sexual exploitation?

I believe there was a more intelligent debate after the French Islamist attack on the live music venue. The discussion was about who the Islamists targeted. In that case they were young, Male muslims who might have had little to do with their religion. Who had been on the outside of society and into petty crime, possibly drugs and from poor, mostly minority areas. Outsider types I guess.

Anyway, we need to a radicalise these people but personally I think discussion should be on who goes b down this route and how they first start on that path. Can society prevent rather than cure the problem? It's possibly a poverty and integration issue.

TheBigBean

tangled_metal said:

Mental illness? Are you saying extreme religious views are tantamount to mental illness?

Not at all. Just in some cases such as the recent London bridge attacks it is the best explanation.

rjsterry said:

Breivik surrendered - the better to attempt to proselytise from court. It varies depending on the ideology and whether that rewards "dying for the cause". I think one should not generalise and just putting it all on mental health feels like an avoidance of looking more closely.

As above, I am not saying it about all cases. It is more a reflection on some of the isolated incidents that we have seen recently. I don't think it covers those waging war in Syria on behalf of ISIS, for example.

tangled_metal

So Islamic terrorism is mental illness, Christian extremism is just right wing exuberance? Just curious what terrorism is mental and what is not mental?

If it's mental then it's not their fault surely. Mental illness is well an illness, hint is in the name. So it can't be right to just kill those with mental illness right? But other terrorism is not mental illness so shoot to kill Republicans, Christian right, etc.

rjsterry

On a lighter note, the Home Secretary really appears to have a bit of a mental block on the difference between terrorism and counterterrorism.

Pross

tangled_metal said:

So Islamic terrorism is mental illness, Christian extremism is just right wing exuberance? Just curious what terrorism is mental and what is not mental?

If it's mental then it's not their fault surely. Mental illness is well an illness, hint is in the name. So it can't be right to just kill those with mental illness right? But other terrorism is not mental illness so shoot to kill Republicans, Christian right, etc.

I don't see anyone say that. I disagree with Big Bean but that's a real straw man.

My ill informed view is that these things are generally carried out by people with a desire to fit in and be a part of something and who are therefore open to suggestion. As Goo said earlier, it's grooming - people with the desire to cause harm use those people to fulfill their ends. They are brainwashed into believing it is a good thing to die for the cause they want to be a part of. Psychology plays a huge part but being susceptible to psychological suggestion isn't mental illness.

Longshot

Personally I think some of these people are simply looking for a way to get revenge for perceived injustices. Their resentment and/or insecurities are easy for a groomer to prey on.

Others may well be a very misguided and extreme 'five minutes of fame' seeker looking for any cause that meets their ends.

There's no one answer - people are more complicated than that.

hamish_mctavish

TheBigBean said:

Two of the ISIS fighters from Brighton had a not that different story. Years of racism, abuse and being victims of crime with no action from authorities led to the creation of a gang to get revenge.

I think if you talk to anyone with first hand knowledge of this case you will find that it was not quite as straightforward as that.