Retrial Natasha Welsh
26 May 2015, 9:49 am
Jono wrote:
AlienorAspie wrote:
Nobody can have a re-trial unless there is a very serious reason for it- drastic new evidence that there was/wasn't a crime or evidence of police cover-ups as in the Stephen Lawrence case. Of course they have to re-trial if the initial trial was based on corruption.
I do think the media could use this case to badly represent aspergers/autism, but it says she got a suspended sentence? So if she gets help and still behaves like this she's going to prison. This is very common/normal. It sounds like she's been treated as a normal person who had a momentary lapse of judgement (the judge may think this was caused by her AS, which is possible in this situation, and some treatment and the threat of prison will help will remedy that problem), which happened to cause a lot more damage than intended. Do we really need her in prison if shes unlikely to ever do it again?
I do think the media could use this case to badly represent aspergers/autism, but it says she got a suspended sentence? So if she gets help and still behaves like this she's going to prison. This is very common/normal. It sounds like she's been treated as a normal person who had a momentary lapse of judgement (the judge may think this was caused by her AS, which is possible in this situation, and some treatment and the threat of prison will help will remedy that problem), which happened to cause a lot more damage than intended. Do we really need her in prison if shes unlikely to ever do it again?
My concern is that if aspergers/autism was used as a reason for why she did it, then the media and general public will have the opinion that autistic people are dangerous but autism doesn't make people randomly attack strangers.
I agree totally, but:
Quote:
Welsh admitted a grievous bodily harm charge following the attack in September.
The judge, Mr Recorder Wyn Lloyd Jones, gave her a 12-month prison sentence suspended for two years with supervision and support from mental health services.
The judge, Mr Recorder Wyn Lloyd Jones, gave her a 12-month prison sentence suspended for two years with supervision and support from mental health services.
I think this is fair of the judge, considering the circumstances. The problem is how it is being REPORTED. Phrases like "walked free from court" makes it sound like they just dismissed the entire thing because she said she did it because of her AS. She admitted to doing it, explaining why she wrongly had a strong aversion to smokers, and was given a totally normal punishment, even for people with no mental health problems. She will go to prison if she does anything else out of line. The resulting injuries were very shocking so makes a good news story, but she didn't actually pick out the ice skate and hit her on the skull so may have just not realised what kind of damage she could do (expecting a slightly annoyed smoker who got barged by a bag, rather than a near-dead one). We shouldn't be instantly imprisoning people for things like this without cause to suspect she is likely to do it again and do believe there are 1000s of cases of real judge corruption and/or ignorance in the UK that need more exposure instead of this one, sorry. I do agree its not helpful though.
_________________
Female, UK. Self diagnosed. Waiting for the NHS.
Apologies for long posts... I cant help it!
26 May 2015, 1:58 pm
AlienorAspie wrote:
Nobody can have a re-trial unless there is a very serious reason for it- drastic new evidence that there was/wasn't a crime or evidence of police cover-ups as in the Stephen Lawrence case. Of course they have to re-trial if the initial trial was based on corruption.
I do think the media could use this case to badly represent aspergers/autism, but it says she got a suspended sentence? So if she gets help and still behaves like this she's going to prison. This is very common/normal. It sounds like she's been treated as a normal person who had a momentary lapse of judgement (the judge may think this was caused by her AS, which is possible in this situation, and some treatment and the threat of prison will help will remedy that problem), which happened to cause a lot more damage than intended. Do we really need her in prison if shes unlikely to ever do it again?
they allow them in the U.S if juror,prosecuter or judge was bribed by the specified defendent.but they must prove the defendent knew the fix was on.I do think the media could use this case to badly represent aspergers/autism, but it says she got a suspended sentence? So if she gets help and still behaves like this she's going to prison. This is very common/normal. It sounds like she's been treated as a normal person who had a momentary lapse of judgement (the judge may think this was caused by her AS, which is possible in this situation, and some treatment and the threat of prison will help will remedy that problem), which happened to cause a lot more damage than intended. Do we really need her in prison if shes unlikely to ever do it again?
if the defendent's father was a judge and bribed another judge to aquite his son,as long as the son knew nothing he cant be retried
_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined
26 May 2015, 7:06 pm
AlienorAspie wrote:
Nobody can have a re-trial unless there is a very serious reason for it
Exactly. It's exactly why there simply MUST be a retrial. This gives others the precedent needed to let AS people get away with attempted bloody murder. Mark my words, defences will remind other judges of this decision, and we'll see this repeat itself. We'll be seen as vicious monsters and the people will be terrified of us in no time, and rightly so.
27 May 2015, 6:51 pm
vermontsavant wrote:
i dont really want to create a precident for more retrials just to punish the act against an autistic.
what about the wrongly procecuted autistic because he or she is autistic.you want courts retrying them
what about the wrongly procecuted autistic because he or she is autistic.you want courts retrying them
This is different, it's extenuating circumstances. No I don't think it's double jeopardy, the first trial that was not handled properly in the first place, and instead should be properly viewed as a miscarriage of justice.
