Would be suicide bomber jailed for life

[JHE]

Converts to Islam have been noticeably overrepresented among jihadis (mostly failed ones, of course) in Britain. We shouldn't be surprised. Converts to any ideology are often among the most fanatical.

The case also marks a continuing use by Islamist terrorists of 'clean hands' operatives who are also sometimes from vulnerable groups which is similar to the Richard Reid case.

Yes, this dim young man, Mohammad Rashid Saeed Alim (or whatever the fuck he calls himself) reminds me quite a bit of Richard Reid, the one who tried to blow up an aeroplane full of people, but was too incompetent to set off the bomb in his shoe.

I think the vulnerability you refer to is an unmet need for brotherhood, comradeship. Reid found some of what he needed by converting to Islam but, like a druggy increasing the dose, wanted it in a stronger form and found it with the jihadis.

 

[_angel_]

How would sheltered housing identify that he was susceptible long before being detected to being seduced by bomb plotters, or stop him being seduced by them, or stop him carrying out the various acts over the years that he admitted?

And doesn't he have the right to associate freely with others and the right under article nine of the ECHR to freedom of thought, conscience and religion? He is a grown up citizen, even with his apparent intellectual impairment arising from his apparent neurodiverse status, and subject to the grown up citizen's responsibilities not to commit crimes.

The court seems to have been satisfied that he know right from wrong, and he has himself expressed contrition although it isn't clear wherher he is sorry for what he did and planned to do, or sorry he got caught. He doesn't seem to have led the cops to his associates.

I don't think he should have been constrained in advance of his crime, even if it could have been foretold that he might have been susceptible. I hope you're not suggesting that all men with asperger's or all Muslims should be in some way segregated or specially monitored!

Wow! What smearing.

Lets underfund the system for people with learning disabilities/ low IQs then tell them it's 'freedom'.

It's his low mental age that is the impairment here. Not being aspergers or muslim.

 

[Dan U]

he wouldn't be under any mental health section so his liberty wouldn't be deprived.

there is a huge amount of legislation around this.

a bit if support for a vulnerable adult may have stopped this though. so much for pova.

 

[Azrael]

In your mind, maybe, but the court clearly didn't think so, and given that the convicted man was represented by one of the leading lawyers on diminished responsibility we can be sure that this issue will have been well tested.

Whatever the skill of Reilly's barrister, the courts can only apply the law as it stands. I believe the insanity defence and rules for judging competence to stand trial are too narrow.

I feel sorry for Reilly because he's going to a barbaric fate he's completely ill-equipped to handle. I can't see the justice in punishing someone if they didn't appreciate what they were doing.

The "useful purpose" is to punish a serious wrongdoer that was clearly capable of causing a great deal of harm and had no moral problems either understanding what they were doing or proceeding to the attempt.

I defer to no one here in my eagerness to see wrongdoers punished. But punishment only makes sense if an individual's being held to account for a wicked choice: a combination of mens rea and actus reus. Did Reilly, with Asperger's Syndrome and a mental age of 10, appreciate the consequences of his actions? And was he free from coercion and manipulation from cleverer individuals? The sentence is bound up with his competence to stand trial: whatever its comparitive merits, in real terms 18 years is an extremely substantial punishment.

As an aside, I don't believe that anyone below the age of majority should be subject to the adult justice system. As Reilly had a mental age of 10, that protection should extend to him.

I agree he needs to be detained, but the manner of his detention should be different.

As for improving our gaols, find me the pressure group that campaigns to restore hard labour, single-cell occupancy and abolish early release, and I'll gladly join.

 

[_angel_]

Whatever the skill of Reilly's barrister, the courts can only apply the law as it stands. I believe the insanity defence and rules for judging competence to stand trial are too narrow.

I feel sorry for Reilly because he's going to a barbaric fate he's completely ill-equipped to handle. I can't see the justice in punishing someone if they didn't appreciate what they were doing.

I defer to no one here in my eagerness to see wrongdoers punished. But punishment only makes sense if an individual's being held to account for a wicked choice: a combination of mens rea and actus reus. Did Reilly, with Asperger's Syndrome and a mental age of 10, appreciate the consequences of his actions? And was he free from coercion and manipulation from cleverer individuals? The sentence is bound up with his competence to stand trial: whatever its comparitive merits, in real terms 18 years is an extremely substantial punishment.

As an aside, I don't believe that anyone below the age of majority should be subject to the adult justice system. As Reilly had a mental age of 10, that protection should extend to him.

I agree he needs to be detained, but the manner of his detention should be different.
As for improving our gaols, find me the pressure group that campaigns to restore hard labour, single-cell occupancy and abolish early release, and I'll gladly join.

This is a good point. Repeatedly bleating 'he had a fair trial, his learning difficulty was taken into account' just doesn't cut it. Just how bad has someone's mental impairment got to be before people take it seriously?

 

[rioted]

Nonetheless, morality and the law rightly judges him for his intentions as well as his actions.

And if he was 10, rather than had that mental age? You. Are. Sick.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Wow! What smearing.

Lets underfund the system for people with learning disabilities/ low IQs then tell them it's 'freedom'.

It's his low mental age that is the impairment here. Not being aspergers or muslim.

Wow! What smearing.

I didn't say that. I did suggest that the system for people with learning disabilities shouldn't be used and isn't appropriate to be used to monitor potential terrorist bombers!

 

[Fullyplumped]

And if he was 10, rather than had that mental age? You. Are. Sick.

But he isn't ten, he's a grown-up. Ther court decided he was fit to plead after hearing the evidence and argument.

You. Are. Probablyveryniceinreallifebutawfullysoppyaboutterroristbombers.

 

[rioted]

he's a grown-up.

No he fucking isn't!

No doubt in the states he'd be sentenced to be fried and you would be criticising those of us who object for trying to subvert justice and law, and being soft on terrorism. You. Are. Sick.

 

[Azrael]

But he isn't ten, he's a grown-up.

In body and law, yes. In mind, no.

And I'm going to have a jolly good chuckle if someone accuses me of being soft on terrorist bombers.

 

[JHE]

Just a little note to those who think that his supposed IQ of 83 makes the failed bomber unsuitable for imprisonment:

Apparently, dim Mo is cleverer than many of his fellow prisoners.

“Overall our findings show that the average IQ of the prison population is 13 below the national average of 100. A sizeable minority has a very low IQ indeed.

[...]

Research published by the Youth Justice Board found that almost a quarter (23%) of young offenders had an IQ of less than 70 and a further third (36%) had an IQ of less than 80. (Harrington, Bailey et al, 2005) ​

See: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/subsection.asp?id=828

 

[Fullyplumped]

No he fucking isn't!

No doubt in the states he'd be sentenced to be fried and you would be criticising those of us who object for trying to subvert justice and law, and being soft on terrorism. You. Are. Sick.

Calm down and mind your language. He is, we aren't in the states and I'm not criticising people for subverting anything, just suggesting that he's the perpetrator here, not us.

You. Are. Gettingawfullytenseyouneedanicesitdownandacupoftea.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Just a little note to those who think that his supposed IQ of 83 makes the failed bomber unsuitable for imprisonment:

Apparently, dim Mo may be cleverer than about 60% of his fellow prisoners.

Research published by the Youth Justice Board found that almost a quarter (23%) of young offenders had an IQ of less than 70 and a further third (36%) had an IQ of less than 80. (Harrington, Bailey et al, 2005) ​

See: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/subsection.asp?id=828

But there isn't enough sheltered housing for that many!!!

 

[Azrael]

So far as I know, a low IQ isn't the same as having the mental age of a 10-year-old. I'm happy to be corrected by those who know, although I have my doubts about IQ as a measure of smarts.

And Reilly had a combination of low IQ and Asperger's Syndrome, which is much less common.

Even if it his condition was common, it simply means that we should be gaoling far fewer young offenders.

 

[JHE]

So far as I know, a low IQ isn't the same as having the mental age of a 10-year-old. I'm happy to be corrected by those who know, although I have my doubts about IQ as a measure of smarts.

And Reilly had a combination of low IQ and Asperger's Syndrome, which is much less common.

Even if it his condition was common, it simply means that we should be gaoling far fewer young offenders.

I'm rather more impressed than you are by the fact that the court thought he was responsible for his actions - but, leaving that aside, what would you do with the dangerous ones among the people you think should not be in prison?

Dim Mo tried to murder lots of people. Even if I thought him not culpable, or less than fully culpable, I'd still want him kept locked up for a very long time so that he can't have a second go at blowing up a restaurant full of people.

 

[rioted]

But there isn't enough sheltered housing for that many!!!

And why is that?? Because more prisons appeals to the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade.

 

[Azrael]

I'm rather more impressed than you are by the fact that the court thought he was responsible for his actions - but, leaving that aside, what would you do with the dangerous ones among the people you think should not be in prison?

As I said above, the court can only apply the rules as they stand. I'm not questioning its competence, but the narrowness of the current insanity law. Reilly's guilty plea has obviously papered over many questions of competence: if the insanity defence were broadened, judges would more often reject such pleas.

I think Reilly should have been commited to a secure mental hospital after a jury hearing, as happens in some American states, to be held in a locked ward until such time as professionals or a jury judge him safe for release.

Unless there's some startling revelation about Reilly's competence (the Telegraph link described him as "brainwashed") then he should be treated as a patient, not a prisoner.

 

[Azrael]

And why is that?? Because more prisons appeals to the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade.

I support the death penalty for murder, and also oppose Reilly's conviction, so it's not that simple. I want as many prisons as are necessary, but I want the right people (properly convicted criminals) to go in them.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I think Reilly should have been commited to a secure mental hospital after a jury hearing, as happens in some American states, to be held in a locked ward until such time as professionals or a jury judge him safe for release.

Unless there's some startling revelation about Reilly's competence (the Telegraph link described him as "brainwashed") then he should be treated as a patient, not a prisoner.

Why? He's not ill. He did a bad thing and is being punished for it.

 

[Azrael]

Why? He's not ill. He did a bad thing and is being punished for it.

Yes, he did a "bad thing", but his criminal intent is key. We don't just punish actions. You don't convict madmen who murder as a result of delusions because they lack mens rea (guilty mind): if Reilly was "brainwashed", his deminished responsibility is on the same spectrum. Maybe he wasn't ill, but he appears to be deluded, and with his disabilities taken into account, the distinction blurs.

A mental hospital is imperfect, but it's less cruel than 18 years of prison: if you've an alternative, then by all means suggest it.

 

[Citizen66]

A mental hospital is imperfect, but it's less cruel than 18 years of prison: if you've an alternative, then by all means suggest it.

If he really had a compulsion to kill then he ought to have joined the army or got a job in the cabinet.

I mean the political and not the drinks one.

 

[Diamond]

Texas incarcerates and executes mentally handicapped youths. Your point?

You really do drive on into some utter shite at times. The lack of perspective.... mindblowing.

 

[Azrael]

And it bears repeating that no State of the Union can execute juvenile or mentally retarded convicts. It's unconstitutional.

Roper v.Simmons

Atkins v. Virginia

 

[nino_savatte]

You really do drive on into some utter shite at times. The lack of perspective.... mindblowing.

So says the poster with no point. What's your problem, arsehole, couldn't think of anything else to say?

 

[Diamond]

What's the fucking point nino? You're so blinkered, I might as well be talking to a brick wall.

 

[nino_savatte]

What's your fucking point, Diamond? You didn't bother to read or to understand the context in which my post was written. Better to pick a fight than to read and comprehend - eh?

 

[nino_savatte]

You're on ignore.

 

[butchersapron]

He's ignoring himself now - genius nino, genius!

I knew this day would come.