|
|
Post by technicolour on Sept 17, 2020 6:30:01 GMT
I think by the time he invited his fifteenth victim home he couldn't pretend he didn't know the likely outcome! That's premeditated IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by LoopyLobes on Sept 17, 2020 9:26:06 GMT
Started watching this last night. I remember it all as if it were more recent than 1983. David Tennant and Daniel Mays doing a brilliant job.
The shiny shoes. My Dad was in the Army and, yes, we all learnt to polish shoes to perfection. All done outside though. I was also taught how to iron to perfection too by Dad. I hardly ever iron these days though.
Sorry, back to programme. Obviously feeling hugely sad and horrified for the poor men killed by DN and their families too. But his poor lovely dog, Beep. That poor girl had no choice but to witness horrific scenes and then would have been home alone for long days while DN was at work.
|
|
|
|
Post by marion on Sept 17, 2020 9:45:36 GMT
My Dad used to be in charge of shoe polishing, and of course newspaper was put down beforehand. I noticed that Daniel Mays did have some newspaper but it wasn’t spread out very effectively. Wouldn’t have passed muster in our house, and my mother would have gone ballistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Sept 17, 2020 12:56:20 GMT
Well, that was answered last night. Does the law really only require that an accused person knew what they were doing to be considered sane? Isn't what was done knowingly taken into account? They are classed as either having the capacity to understand what they are doing is wrong or not having the capacity to understand or understand the consequences. The judgement isn't so much about what they did, rather it's about whether they know what they did, know that it is wrong, know that they will be criminally charged for it and are capable of being on trial. This does not mean that people who lack capacity are not held in secure hospitals, they are, they just can't stand trial. or may appear only briefly (think child criminals). They may still get a sentence or a recommendation for review etc and if they develop capacity they can be transferred back into the mainstream prison system. Once they come out, if they do, they will usually live in a secure house with 2:1 or 3:1 staffing. There are some people with 5:1 staffing, but beyond that it is usually a hospital section. The man found guilty in the Bulger case who has gone on to commit other offences, clearly has capacity as he had only ever been kept in prison rather than hospital. Recently a lot of very old Nazis have claimed incapacity in pre-trials but most have lost this because having an illness, or being frail is not an excuse. This was an attempt by Nilsen to try and have his sentence in a secure hospital rather than a prison. He might have achieved this if he went on the rampage attacking people at random whilst on remand, but he didn't do that, his killings were slow and ritualistic and he had a distinct type. |
|
|
|
Post by vicky on Sept 17, 2020 19:42:40 GMT
Well, that was answered last night. Does the law really only require that an accused person knew what they were doing to be considered sane? Isn't what was done knowingly taken into account? They are classed as either having the capacity to understand what they are doing is wrong or not having the capacity to understand or understand the consequences. The judgement isn't so much about what they did, rather it's about whether they know what they did, know that it is wrong, know that they will be criminally charged for it and are capable of being on trial. This does not mean that people who lack capacity are not held in secure hospitals, they are, they just can't stand trial. or may appear only briefly (think child criminals). They may still get a sentence or a recommendation for review etc and if they develop capacity they can be transferred back into the mainstream prison system. Once they come out, if they do, they will usually live in a secure house with 2:1 or 3:1 staffing. There are some people with 5:1 staffing, but beyond that it is usually a hospital section. The man found guilty in the Bulger case who has gone on to commit other offences, clearly has capacity as he had only ever been kept in prison rather than hospital. Recently a lot of very old Nazis have claimed incapacity in pre-trials but most have lost this because having an illness, or being frail is not an excuse. This was an attempt by Nilsen to try and have his sentence in a secure hospital rather than a prison. He might have achieved this if he went on the rampage attacking people at random whilst on remand, but he didn't do that, his killings were slow and ritualistic and he had a distinct type. Thank you for a clear explanation of something I was puzzled by. |
|
|
|
Post by beverley61 on Sept 18, 2020 11:41:35 GMT
Yes having capacity to commit a premeditated murder doesn't mean you aren't 'mad'. You can be that and still plan an act with malice aforethought knowing that it is a criminal offence. Nilsen always knew he was killing people and yet anyone watching or listening to him talk about his murders would decide he wad 'mad', that alone doesn't get you off or have your sentence transferred to a hospital.
I have a friend who was in prison, they deserved to be and there are no excuses for their crime. They were felt to be too mentally ill to go to prison in the first instance but then after treatment in hospital were transferred back into the prison system to serve the rest of their sentence. They were able to use temporary diminished responsibility and other issues to mitigate the sentence but not incapacity to excuse their actions or excuse them from being in the dock in front of a jury.
|
|
|
|
Post by vicky on Sept 18, 2020 13:39:14 GMT
Did anyone watch the follow up programme last night? I started to but after listening to the real Denis Nilsen talking about his crimes for only a short while I found it too distressing so watched my recording of All Creatures Great and Small instead - far more wholesome! I found it interesting - or maybe enlightening would be a better word - that I could watch and listen to David Tennant as Nilsen speaking almost the exact same words, in the same hectoring tone of voice and it not have the same effect on me in the way that the man himself had. My powers of suspension of disbelief clearly aren't as strong as I thought!
|
|
|
|
Post by geometryman on Sept 18, 2020 16:45:34 GMT
My reaction was similar - listening to the real Nilsen speaking was somehow much more horrible than listening to the same words from David Tennant.
The follow-up programme was pretty much a waste of time I thought - apart perhaps from some previously unseen film footage it added almost nothing new, because the 3-part dramatisation had followed events so accurately. Even the now ageing real people involved mostly only said things we'd already heard as actors' lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by technicolour on Sept 18, 2020 18:24:14 GMT
Well, I didn't know he had a boyfriend and I wonder why they split. Also interesting to see, as observed above, how much more chilling the real Nilson came across. Also interesting to see the home movies where his bullying was unconcealed. For me the follow up was an excellent addition to the sometimes ponderous dramatization.
|
|
|
|
Post by undertheparapet on Sept 18, 2020 18:24:23 GMT
I don’t think it is possible (all in one go) to understand the complexity of criminal accountability and the form in which those persons are “held” subsequently You have to do it by reference to a matrix. The columns refer to the degree of culpability and responsibility for your actions, The rows refer to the passage of time, before and subsequent to the event(s) There will be a number of cells where the columns and rows intersect. Also bear in mind that, subsequent to the outcome of any trial, those expert witnesses whose opinions have been trashed by a jury will probably seek to retrieve something of their reputations. Barristers don’t care either way, but psychiatrists do.
Some of the cells can be encapsulated as follows:
1. you are “insane” at the time of the offence, either through significant psychiatric disorder, some physical (neurological) temporary state, e.g. poisoning, (NB,alcohol doesn’t make the cut here) or through significant intellectual disability. In these cases, you are not considered responsible for your “criminal” actions. If you have recovered subsequently, or your condition is treatable, you may be acquitted of the crime and/or be treated for it prior to release. If it is determined that you’re not fit to stand trial, there will not be one. The public sometimes finds this removal of criminal responsibility difficult to tolerate, especially if the victims are children.
3. You are not insane (by any of the above definitions) at the time of the offence. The motives are established as financial or revenge based. In the U.K., we do not have crimes of passion. You are held criminally responsible. The charge directed at you may be mitigated by the circumstances, e.g. manslaughter in the case of a history of domestic violence. Or, at trial, the judge may offer the jury a choice of guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter or acquittal.
2. The tricky part is the murky area in between.... where “personality disorders”:are presented as a line of defence. This is common in the area of serial killing or rampage killing (although the latter often concludes by suicide of the perpetrator or judicial killing by police). There are a lot of vague and unhelpful terms bandied around, e.g. “abnormality of the mind”. Nowadays, most personality disorders are not regarded as dissolving criminal responsibility and, in addition, aren’t regarded as treatable. This is fair, but also avoids the tricky political manifestations of hospitalising someone with deviant sexual behaviour involving rape or murder. These offenders are not insane. They are responsible for their actions and are what some people would call “bad” , not mad. Some people ( e.g. Peter Sutcliffe) try very hard to put themselves into category 1, when they are category 2. This was the Judge’s opinion, despite the opposing view of 4 Forensic Psychiatrists. In the end, the latter had their way, after conviction and a period of imprisonment, when PS was sent to Broadmoor.
Remember, Dennis Nilsen‘s trial was not long after Sutcliffe’s, but he was probably too narcissistic to put the responsibility on God for instructing him. Ian Brady took the same view.
|
|
Anymore to come?
