Not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness

bundah said :

Silentforce said :

By coincidence, a Google search reveals that a person of the same name appears in the Australian Public Service Gazette No. PS01 – 05 Jan 2012.

I know i’m going on about this but what Porritt did to his mother was truly brutal and horrific and absolutely disgusted me. When I read that CJ Higgins sentenced him to 5 years and released him immediately after having spent 22 months behind bars I was stunned and bloody angry. Yes she was a strict disciplinarian and at times mean to her children but to stab one’s mother 57 times, killing her, makes him the biggest POS in my eyes. But for Higgins to do what he did was absolutely reprehensible and spoke volumes of his deranged, sick values re human life and that he was not fit to be a judge.

What is with you Momma’s boys? Being a mother doesn’t preclude you from being an awful human being. Not in the case of the OP, but in the case you’re describing you seem to be brushing aside some pretty concerning pieces of information.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Trust me, ip. If I was trolling, you would never be able to tell.

I am 100% not trolling here. I am just commenting on what has been posted, and you have just posted for the third time in a row that you believe mentally ill peeps should be able to kill without consequence.

I agree, the system is messed up, but if you kill somebody, you need to be held accountable, regardless of mental illness or drug abuse.

At no point have I said that anyone should not have consequences for killing someone. That is twisting and misinterpreting my statements. You seem to think that the only consequence is prison, and in doing so, you misunderstand the purpose of prison.

Being under the control of the mental health Tribunal, and through it the public mental health service, for 20 years or more, is a consequence. Try it, and you’ll find it is not a lot of fun.

Introducing drug abuse to the discussion is a red herring and irrelevant. Kinda like trolling, funnily enough.

IP

bundah said :

IrishPete said :

Perhaps the people who should be locked up and the key thrown away are the ones who, Bundah rightly points out, failed Aranyi’s mother by their inaction. There is a pattern of this behaviour in ACT Mental Health (and to be fair, in other States and Territories and countries too, where there is less individual scrutiny because the cases are more common), with Jonathan Crowley being another well-known example. He should have been hospitalised the day before he was shot by police. Procrastination in the Crowley case and the Aranyi case had serious consequences. But not for the mental health system which trundles along, as if nothing ever happened.

Exactly and call me cynical but the aim of any pollie, apart from ostensibly doing the right thing by the community, is to guarantee their political future. There is no question that mental health, policing and the justice system needs substantial additional resources to operate effectively however the geniuses in power say that there are insufficient funds to enable this process. Well there are times, as unpopular as it might be, where the gummint needs to step up and enlighten the community that in order to get the appropriate level of resources then they have little option but to increase taxes.

Throwing more money at a broken system won’t necessarily fix it. There is a lot that could be done better without 1c more in funding.

IP

bundah said :

Silentforce said :

By coincidence, a Google search reveals that a person of the same name appears in the Australian Public Service Gazette No. PS01 – 05 Jan 2012.

I know i’m going on about this but what Porritt did to his mother was truly brutal and horrific and absolutely disgusted me. When I read that CJ Higgins sentenced him to 5 years and released him immediately after having spent 22 months behind bars I was stunned and bloody angry. Yes she was a strict disciplinarian and at times mean to her children but to stab one’s mother 57 times, killing her, makes him the biggest POS in my eyes. But for Higgins to do what he did was absolutely reprehensible and spoke volumes of his deranged, sick values re human life and that he was not fit to be a judge.

Mr Higgins has family members who are involved in the mental health and criminal justice systems, and he may be a lot more “sympathetic” than he should be.

IP

Silentforce said :

By coincidence, a Google search reveals that a person of the same name appears in the Australian Public Service Gazette No. PS01 – 05 Jan 2012.

I know i’m going on about this but what Porritt did to his mother was truly brutal and horrific and absolutely disgusted me. When I read that CJ Higgins sentenced him to 5 years and released him immediately after having spent 22 months behind bars I was stunned and bloody angry. Yes she was a strict disciplinarian and at times mean to her children but to stab one’s mother 57 times, killing her, makes him the biggest POS in my eyes. But for Higgins to do what he did was absolutely reprehensible and spoke volumes of his deranged, sick values re human life and that he was not fit to be a judge.

Apologies – a conviction of unlawful homicide was recorded against Mr Porritt.

BimboGeek #6 – Agree.
Deficiencies in the ACT Mental Health system not only affect ACT locals and their families (most of whom are not trained or equipped to manage friends and relatives with MH issues; their impotence also has international repercussions as demonstrated in the case of Adrian Richardson who rammed the front gate at the US Embassy in July this year. Making world-wide news for all the wrong reasons

IrishPete #14
As Glen Porritt did not receive a criminal conviction, he could be living/working anywhere. By coincidence, a Google search reveals that a person of the same name appears in the Australian Public Service Gazette No. PS01 – 05 Jan 2012.

IrishPete said :

CNG – stop trolling. There is a more than a subtle difference between saying someone “lock him up and throw away the key” and someone saying “No one is saying he should be free to walk the streets ffs”. I think you can take the “ffs” to mean the responder was somewhat contemptuous of your statement.

When you talk about lack of consequences for someone who kills because they are mentally ill, you demonstrate no understanding of the purpose of the criminal justice system, nor of mental illness and the mental health system.

The principles on which the CJS operates require people to be rational – they need to be capable of being deterred from doing stuff before they do it (general deterrence), deterred by being punished (specific or individual deterrence), they need to be capable of being rehabilitated from offending, and they need to be capable of being incapacitated (locked up). Someone like Mr Aranyi only ticks the last box.

Perhaps the people who should be locked up and the key thrown away are the ones who, Bundah rightly points out, failed Aranyi’s mother by their inaction. There is a pattern of this behaviour in ACT Mental Health (and to be fair, in other States and Territories and countries too, where there is less individual scrutiny because the cases are more common), with Jonathan Crowley being another well-known example. He should have been hospitalised the day before he was shot by police. Procrastination in the Crowley case and the Aranyi case had serious consequences. But not for the mental health system which trundles along, as if nothing ever happened.

These cases, and many many others less well known, require inquests, not adversarial court cases, to establish what happened, and learn from the mistakes.

IP

Trust me, ip. If I was trolling, you would never be able to tell.

I am 100% not trolling here. I am just commenting on what has been posted, and you have just posted for the third time in a row that you believe mentally ill peeps should be able to kill without consequence.

I agree, the system is messed up, but if you kill somebody, you need to be held accountable, regardless of mental illness or drug abuse.

IrishPete said :

Perhaps the people who should be locked up and the key thrown away are the ones who, Bundah rightly points out, failed Aranyi’s mother by their inaction. There is a pattern of this behaviour in ACT Mental Health (and to be fair, in other States and Territories and countries too, where there is less individual scrutiny because the cases are more common), with Jonathan Crowley being another well-known example. He should have been hospitalised the day before he was shot by police. Procrastination in the Crowley case and the Aranyi case had serious consequences. But not for the mental health system which trundles along, as if nothing ever happened.

Exactly and call me cynical but the aim of any pollie, apart from ostensibly doing the right thing by the community, is to guarantee their political future. There is no question that mental health, policing and the justice system needs substantial additional resources to operate effectively however the geniuses in power say that there are insufficient funds to enable this process. Well there are times, as unpopular as it might be, where the gummint needs to step up and enlighten the community that in order to get the appropriate level of resources then they have little option but to increase taxes.

CNG – stop trolling. There is a more than a subtle difference between saying someone “lock him up and throw away the key” and someone saying “No one is saying he should be free to walk the streets ffs”. I think you can take the “ffs” to mean the responder was somewhat contemptuous of your statement.

When you talk about lack of consequences for someone who kills because they are mentally ill, you demonstrate no understanding of the purpose of the criminal justice system, nor of mental illness and the mental health system.

The principles on which the CJS operates require people to be rational – they need to be capable of being deterred from doing stuff before they do it (general deterrence), deterred by being punished (specific or individual deterrence), they need to be capable of being rehabilitated from offending, and they need to be capable of being incapacitated (locked up). Someone like Mr Aranyi only ticks the last box.

Perhaps the people who should be locked up and the key thrown away are the ones who, Bundah rightly points out, failed Aranyi’s mother by their inaction. There is a pattern of this behaviour in ACT Mental Health (and to be fair, in other States and Territories and countries too, where there is less individual scrutiny because the cases are more common), with Jonathan Crowley being another well-known example. He should have been hospitalised the day before he was shot by police. Procrastination in the Crowley case and the Aranyi case had serious consequences. But not for the mental health system which trundles along, as if nothing ever happened.

These cases, and many many others less well known, require inquests, not adversarial court cases, to establish what happened, and learn from the mistakes.

IP

IrishPete said :

bundah said :

IrishPete said :

[

but they will ALL likely have spent a long time in prison waiting for these decisions to be made, like Aranyi.

The judgement in Aranyi’s case indicated that he was mentally impaired. Mind you one could quite justifiably point the finger at the legislators and the judiciary and label them as impaired!

Okay, point taken, but Mr Aranyi is (or was) mentally impaired as the result of a mental illness. The legal terms used for mental function don’t align well with the real world (another failure of law-makers). If his “impairment” was a low IQ (intellectual disability) or a brain injury, he is unlikely be kept in a hospital, because those conditions aren’t considered treatable by the medical profession.

IP

What I also find extraordinary is that Justice Nield told the court the tragedy was Aranyi’s mother had predicted her own death.The court heard Aranyi’s mother had sought a mental health order against her son in the lead up to her death because she feared for her safety. He noted an order was made that he attend an appointment at Woden on April 2, and Aranyi strangled his mother during a dispute about the appointment.

So here we have a situation where, essentially, a 75 year old woman concerned for her well being was let down by the mental health system. Why the hell didn’t they act immediately instead of waiting? If this isn’t a wake up call then I don’t know what is.

BimboGeek said :

Pete legally insane is exactly what you think itis: a kludgy legal tem referring to people who commit crimes and then convince a judge that they are irresponsible due to a serious mental illness. Many mentally ill people who would previously have been classed as psychotic are not insane and sometimes people are considered insane without a diagnosable illness.

Not sure if I read you correctly but you seem to argue that the solution lies not in some abuse-proof policy but in better implementation. It’s a pity governments don’t try harder to get rid of the corrupt officials and abusers of power. I guess they don’t want to look bad by finding mistakes or frighten their staff away by investigating them unnecessarily. Tricky creatures, these humans…

Well, no. “legally insane” could be applied to anyone who the law has determined to be unable to make their own decisions as the result of a mental illness. They don’t actually have to have broken the law. On any one day there are hundreds of people in Canberra who a court or tribunal has determined cannot make their own decisions, and are under a Psychiatric Treatment Order or Guardianship Order because of a mental illness (and many more under Guardianship for reasons other than a mental illness, like intellectual disability, acquired brain injury or a dementia).

So if we are only talking about the ones who have committed criminal offences, then we are talking about a much smaller number. Most of them will only be under the control of the mental health Tribunal for months or years, because the offence was not serious – they get the same duration of “control” as they would have got a prison sentence for (though there are various other aspects of their “sentence” that are different, e.g. it can’t be suspended, or served as weekend detention).

But at the end of that period (sometimes called a Limiting Term) they can still be put under the civil mental health system, if they are considered to present an ongoing risk, so they can be continued on a PTO, which allows them to be detained anyway. The only real difference is that a PTO does not allow them to be detained in a prison.

I didn’t use the word “corrupt” but otherwise your second paragraph accurately reflects my view, a view developed from years of working in the system at various levels and in various roles. A policy doesn’t have to be abuse proof, if the people carrying it out are both competent and well-intentioned.

Your comments about being “legally insane” without a mental illness, or seriously mentally ill but not “legally insane” reflect the mismatch between the mental health and legal systems. Why should a judge be deciding if someone is mentally ill? But it also partly reflects the relatively poor science of mental illness (or perhaps more accurately poor practice of the science), and also the adversarial nature of our justice system.

IP

bundah said :

IrishPete said :

[

but they will ALL likely have spent a long time in prison waiting for these decisions to be made, like Aranyi.

The judgement in Aranyi’s case indicated that he was mentally impaired. Mind you one could quite justifiably point the finger at the legislators and the judiciary and label them as impaired!

Okay, point taken, but Mr Aranyi is (or was) mentally impaired as the result of a mental illness. The legal terms used for mental function don’t align well with the real world (another failure of law-makers). If his “impairment” was a low IQ (intellectual disability) or a brain injury, he is unlikely be kept in a hospital, because those conditions aren’t considered treatable by the medical profession.

IP

IrishPete said :

BimboGeek said :

Well we’ve continued to f**k up the way that we treat the dangerously (and simply uncomfortably) mentally ill.

We can’t put them in prison because they don’t get any treatment and all the less-disturbed prisoners pick on them, sometimes quite violently.

We can’t put them in hospitals because the system was abused, hospitals were declaring people criminally insane and doping them up and patients were getting abused.

Care in the community isn’t working because the mentally ill are more often than not abandoned in the community. Their family gets fed up with their s**t and stop even talking to them, let alone checking up on them and making sure they aren’t hurting anyone, because the family don’t feel safe or comfortable going over there. The various social services are full of lovely carers but they can only achieve so much on their meager budgets.

So what idea do you geniuses have for dealing with people who are legally insane? Or for people who are mentally disturbed and likely to commit crimes but don’t meet the definition of insanity?

what does “legally insane” mean? the only people with mental illnesses who should be locked away from society are those whose illness does not respond to treatment, and who are a danger to others. that’s actually a very small number of people. nor should it be done as revenge for something they did when unwell, especially if that was contributed to by a mental health system that doesn’t ever accept responsiility for anything (ask Jonathan Crowley and his family about that).

what this genius suggests is that you hold your government and public servants accountable for their actions, and stop allowing them to hide their failures. every time you vote for one of the two major parties, you are voting for the status quo. and if you are one of those public servants who leave their consciences at home when you go to work in health, defence, immigration, police or wherever, then you are also the problem, no matter how you vote.

IP

So you do condone that mentally ill peeps can kill at will and face no consequences?

IrishPete said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Pork Hunt said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

IrishPete said :

Dr Koresh – please don’t feed the trolls.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd is obviously just trying to wind people up.

It is not possible to be as ill-informed as CNG is pretending to be.

IP

So ip, you condone the choking to death of ones mother as long as the choker is mentally ill?

No one is condoning anything. What part of mentally ill don’t you get? The dude thought his mum was the devil so he knocked her off. No one is saying he should be free to walk the streets ffs.

Ok, I’m glad we agree.

no-one is agreeing with you.

IP

Actually he did agree that he needs to be locked away.

Pete legally insane is exactly what you think itis: a kludgy legal tem referring to people who commit crimes and then convince a judge that they are irresponsible due to a serious mental illness. Many mentally ill people who would previously have been classed as psychotic are not insane and sometimes people are considered insane without a diagnosable illness.

Not sure if I read you correctly but you seem to argue that the solution lies not in some abuse-proof policy but in better implementation. It’s a pity governments don’t try harder to get rid of the corrupt officials and abusers of power. I guess they don’t want to look bad by finding mistakes or frighten their staff away by investigating them unnecessarily. Tricky creatures, these humans…

IrishPete said :

[

but they will ALL likely have spent a long time in prison waiting for these decisions to be made, like Aranyi.

The judgement in Aranyi’s case indicated that he was mentally impaired. Mind you one could quite justifiably point the finger at the legislators and the judiciary and label them as impaired!

bundah said :

IrishPete said :

bundah said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Lock him up and throw away the key. Having a mental illness should not mean you can just kill your mum and get away with it.

He’ll probably spend a little while in a mental health facility and then they’ll let him out. Mind you Glen Porritt stabbed his mum to death in 2005 and Tezza Higgins gave him a 5 year sentence and he was released after 22 months. What’s more he wasn’t legally mentally impaired at the time he stabbed her to death. Tezza could have applied the maximum, at the time, ie. 20 years for manslaughter but the incontrovertible fact, as is evident by the sentencing norms, is that life is cheap in this country. Yes there are some exceptions where life means life but they are far and few between.

Not at all sure of the relevance of the Porritt case here, given you even say that he wasn’t mentally ill at the time of the offence. Anyway, Mr Porritt was released after spending 22 months on remand n custody. Do you know that he is not now in a psychiatric hospital? As per the Aranyi case, once it leaves the court system, you do not ever hear of them again.

IP

I would be interested to know what actually happens to the mentally impaired who have killed others. I’ve attempted to extract info online but haven’t been able to find any stats which reveals their fate. Do you have any idea?

in civilised places or n the ACT?

it is a little more complicated anyway, as mental impairment and mental illness are different.

if someone is found not guilty by reason of mental illness, in the ACT, they are detained until the Tribunal says otherwise. they are detained in prison, or a psychiatric hospital. the length of time they can be detained for is set by the court, so for Aranyi it is 20 years.

if they are not guilty by reason of mental impairment, the same applies, but they are unlikely to be detained in a hospital because they do not have a treatable mental illness.

if someone is found unfit to plead they can be detained forever, in effect waiting for them to get better, and in practice this will probably be in a hospital.

but they will ALL likely have spent a long time in prison waiting for these decisions to be made, like Aranyi.

IP

IrishPete said :

(ask Jonathan Crowley and his family about that).

Yep and Warren I’anson who was shot dead by police at his Red Hill govie unit in 1995.

BimboGeek said :

Well we’ve continued to f**k up the way that we treat the dangerously (and simply uncomfortably) mentally ill.

We can’t put them in prison because they don’t get any treatment and all the less-disturbed prisoners pick on them, sometimes quite violently.

We can’t put them in hospitals because the system was abused, hospitals were declaring people criminally insane and doping them up and patients were getting abused.

Care in the community isn’t working because the mentally ill are more often than not abandoned in the community. Their family gets fed up with their s**t and stop even talking to them, let alone checking up on them and making sure they aren’t hurting anyone, because the family don’t feel safe or comfortable going over there. The various social services are full of lovely carers but they can only achieve so much on their meager budgets.

So what idea do you geniuses have for dealing with people who are legally insane? Or for people who are mentally disturbed and likely to commit crimes but don’t meet the definition of insanity?

what does “legally insane” mean? the only people with mental illnesses who should be locked away from society are those whose illness does not respond to treatment, and who are a danger to others. that’s actually a very small number of people. nor should it be done as revenge for something they did when unwell, especially if that was contributed to by a mental health system that doesn’t ever accept responsiility for anything (ask Jonathan Crowley and his family about that).

what this genius suggests is that you hold your government and public servants accountable for their actions, and stop allowing them to hide their failures. every time you vote for one of the two major parties, you are voting for the status quo. and if you are one of those public servants who leave their consciences at home when you go to work in health, defence, immigration, police or wherever, then you are also the problem, no matter how you vote.

IP

IrishPete said :

bundah said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Lock him up and throw away the key. Having a mental illness should not mean you can just kill your mum and get away with it.

He’ll probably spend a little while in a mental health facility and then they’ll let him out. Mind you Glen Porritt stabbed his mum to death in 2005 and Tezza Higgins gave him a 5 year sentence and he was released after 22 months. What’s more he wasn’t legally mentally impaired at the time he stabbed her to death. Tezza could have applied the maximum, at the time, ie. 20 years for manslaughter but the incontrovertible fact, as is evident by the sentencing norms, is that life is cheap in this country. Yes there are some exceptions where life means life but they are far and few between.

Not at all sure of the relevance of the Porritt case here, given you even say that he wasn’t mentally ill at the time of the offence. Anyway, Mr Porritt was released after spending 22 months on remand n custody. Do you know that he is not now in a psychiatric hospital? As per the Aranyi case, once it leaves the court system, you do not ever hear of them again.

IP

I would be interested to know what actually happens to the mentally impaired who have killed others. I’ve attempted to extract info online but haven’t been able to find any stats which reveals their fate. Do you have any idea?

bundah said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Lock him up and throw away the key. Having a mental illness should not mean you can just kill your mum and get away with it.

He’ll probably spend a little while in a mental health facility and then they’ll let him out. Mind you Glen Porritt stabbed his mum to death in 2005 and Tezza Higgins gave him a 5 year sentence and he was released after 22 months. What’s more he wasn’t legally mentally impaired at the time he stabbed her to death. Tezza could have applied the maximum, at the time, ie. 20 years for manslaughter but the incontrovertible fact, as is evident by the sentencing norms, is that life is cheap in this country. Yes there are some exceptions where life means life but they are far and few between.

Not at all sure of the relevance of the Porritt case here, given you even say that he wasn’t mentally ill at the time of the offence. Anyway, Mr Porritt was released after spending 22 months on remand n custody. Do you know that he is not now in a psychiatric hospital? As per the Aranyi case, once it leaves the court system, you do not ever hear of them again.

IP

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Pork Hunt said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

IrishPete said :

Dr Koresh – please don’t feed the trolls.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd is obviously just trying to wind people up.

It is not possible to be as ill-informed as CNG is pretending to be.

IP

So ip, you condone the choking to death of ones mother as long as the choker is mentally ill?

No one is condoning anything. What part of mentally ill don’t you get? The dude thought his mum was the devil so he knocked her off. No one is saying he should be free to walk the streets ffs.

Ok, I’m glad we agree.

no-one is agreeing with you.

IP

Pork Hunt said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

IrishPete said :

Dr Koresh – please don’t feed the trolls.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd is obviously just trying to wind people up.

It is not possible to be as ill-informed as CNG is pretending to be.

IP

So ip, you condone the choking to death of ones mother as long as the choker is mentally ill?

No one is condoning anything. What part of mentally ill don’t you get? The dude thought his mum was the devil so he knocked her off. No one is saying he should be free to walk the streets ffs.

Ok, I’m glad we agree.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

IrishPete said :

Dr Koresh – please don’t feed the trolls.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd is obviously just trying to wind people up.

It is not possible to be as ill-informed as CNG is pretending to be.

IP

So ip, you condone the choking to death of ones mother as long as the choker is mentally ill?

No one is condoning anything. What part of mentally ill don’t you get? The dude thought his mum was the devil so he knocked her off. No one is saying he should be free to walk the streets ffs.

IrishPete said :

Dr Koresh – please don’t feed the trolls.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd is obviously just trying to wind people up.

It is not possible to be as ill-informed as CNG is pretending to be.

IP

So ip, you condone the choking to death of ones mother as long as the choker is mentally ill?

Dr Koresh – please don’t feed the trolls.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd is obviously just trying to wind people up.

It is not possible to be as ill-informed as CNG is pretending to be.

IP

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Lock him up and throw away the key. Having a mental illness should not mean you can just kill your mum and get away with it.

He’ll probably spend a little while in a mental health facility and then they’ll let him out. Mind you Glen Porritt stabbed his mum to death in 2005 and Tezza Higgins gave him a 5 year sentence and he was released after 22 months. What’s more he wasn’t legally mentally impaired at the time he stabbed her to death. Tezza could have applied the maximum, at the time, ie. 20 years for manslaughter but the incontrovertible fact, as is evident by the sentencing norms, is that life is cheap in this country. Yes there are some exceptions where life means life but they are far and few between.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Lock him up and throw away the key. Having a mental illness should not mean you can just kill your mum and get away with it.

So by that you mean that he should be given the treatment he needs in a secure psychiatric facility?

Well we’ve continued to f**k up the way that we treat the dangerously (and simply uncomfortably) mentally ill.

We can’t put them in prison because they don’t get any treatment and all the less-disturbed prisoners pick on them, sometimes quite violently.

We can’t put them in hospitals because the system was abused, hospitals were declaring people criminally insane and doping them up and patients were getting abused.

Care in the community isn’t working because the mentally ill are more often than not abandoned in the community. Their family gets fed up with their s**t and stop even talking to them, let alone checking up on them and making sure they aren’t hurting anyone, because the family don’t feel safe or comfortable going over there. The various social services are full of lovely carers but they can only achieve so much on their meager budgets.

So what idea do you geniuses have for dealing with people who are legally insane? Or for people who are mentally disturbed and likely to commit crimes but don’t meet the definition of insanity?

DrKoresh said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Lock him up and throw away the key. Having a mental illness should not mean you can just kill your mum and get away with it.

I wish I lived in your world, everything would be so simple.

It is pretty simple. Do not strangle somebody to death.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Lock him up and throw away the key. Having a mental illness should not mean you can just kill your mum and get away with it.

I wish I lived in your world, everything would be so simple.

Lock him up and throw away the key. Having a mental illness should not mean you can just kill your mum and get away with it.

bundah said :

The question that needs to be answered is why mental health didn’t act when she sought help? Yet another failure in the system it would seem.

Indeed. Does anyone know if ACT holds inquests in cases like these? (I’d also like to see one for Linda Cox.)

IP

Acting Justice John Nield said that if Aranyi hadn’t been mentally impaired then he would have jailed him for twenty years. Nield also said that the deceased woman had sought help from the ACT mental health system one day before she was strangled.

The question that needs to be answered is why mental health didn’t act when she sought help? Yet another failure in the system it would seem.