The Pussy Pass…

Tom_77 wrote:

The Metro has some more details about her behaviour in hospital:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/24/councillor-killed-driver-100mph-rush-home-deliver-message-god-10452901/

 

My understanding is that you have to be seriously mentally ill to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. It’s not like you can stick a pair of pants on your head and a pencil up either nostril and get away with anything you feel like.

 

Thanks Tom, as I said earlier her behaviour was not… normal, but sadly nowadays people are far too quick to pile  in on an internet forum post without checking the basic facts. 

Off to the next…

https://xkcd.com/386/

I reckon if she’d had a
I reckon if she’d had a choice beforehand, she’d have chosen not to have the psychotic episode regardless of the consequences. I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy. Do people have to be on a bicycle to get any kind of sympathy from some here?

wibble.

wibble.

srchar wrote:

srchar wrote:

I have no problem with the lady being cleared of the offence due to mental health issues affecting her judgement at the time, but I do have a problem with her being allowed to drive again.  In my opinion, her licence should be withdrawn on medical grounds.  Another episode could mean another two innocent deaths.

I’ve no problem with her not being sent to prison as a result of a guilty verdict (though I know that option wasnt available), but I dont think she should have been cleared completely, a serious crime was committed, a person died as a result,she was culpable for those actions even if mentally,and I’m not qualified to assess that either way,she cant be held responsible.

But its another case the CPS lose for death by dangerous driving in front of a jury who almost certainly empathised strongly with the defendant, which means the CPS will be that little bit more reluctant to pursue that charge in the future in cases that should warrant it,because they just dont get the convictions.

It’s an interesting moral

It’s an interesting moral dilemma – criminal psychologists are heading towards a conclusion that the person is not responsible for their behaviour. I seem to recall a Radiolab episode on the matter where someone’s personality had changed as the result of a TBI or something similar and they were acquitted of murder.

There are also long-term moves to consider non-custodial sentences for mothers because locking them up unfairly punishes their child – there have been guidelines on the matter for years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48663833

We also know from research that drivers behave very differently behind the wheel in comparison to when they’re not driving. People take insane risks and in general are much, much more aggressive.

Whilst driving this morning I got cut up on a two-lane on-slip by an Audi S3 doing what must have been close to 100mph. Had to slam on the brakes to avoid clipping him as he swapped from the outside to inside lane (where I was). Uphill sliproad, no armco, trees alongside with a steep drop into a small stream. If I’d clipped him he would be dead. And all that only to pull into the services at the next junction – for a Costa drive-thru no less – so clearly not an emergency. In my book that counts as completely irrational behaviour. On that basis, can any driver be responsible for their actions?

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

…and what is it with the OP’s anger towards women in general?  It’s irrational.

Oh, dear.  

Lazy, immature ‘thinking’.    

I am absolutely in favour of equality between men and women.

Which is why I oppose feminism. 

While we are on the subject of lazy and immature thinking, please could you elaborate on the name of this topic and what you meant by your original comment?  I note you haven’t attempted to explain or defend it yet.  Thanks. 

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I am absolutely in favour of equality between men and women.

Which is why I oppose feminism. 

I’m pretty sure that “feminism” doesn’t actually mean “enslave all the men and make them work for us wimmin”, you know…  (Not since they stopped making 1970s sitcoms, anyway).

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

…and what is it with the OP’s anger towards women in general?  It’s irrational.

Oh, dear.  

Lazy, immature ‘thinking’.    

I am absolutely in favour of equality between men and women.

Which is why I oppose feminism. 

From Wikipedia:

Feminism is a range of social movements, political movements, and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes.

What definition of ‘feminism’ are you using because as it stands you’re not making any sense.