Instead of wasting their time lobbying politicians all these protestors against China's action should spend a few weeks working weith people with heroin habits. Far more useful for society and it will probably convince them that maybe China has it right!

Have just listened (reluctantly) to some hand-wringing tosser on Radio 4's Thought for the Day banging on about this twat's "mental illness", as if that were a given. No hope of anybody at the BBC challenging Guardianista assumptions, of course.

It's a pity there wasn't a proper assessment of his mental health issues (because the absence means there is potential for abuse of the system); the Chinese legal code also allows for (but does not guarantee) clemency for those with mental illness - and presumably that is the area in which the family's hopes rested.

What they seem to have overlooked is that definitions of psych conditions are culturally variable (ask any medic who has worked with Gurkhas how challenging this can be). So what they may genuinely believe is a relevant condition may be nowhere near the Chinese threshold.

Back in the early 80's my mad uncle decided that it would be a good idea to smuggle acid from Scotland to Iceland, he was bi-polar and a solicitor. He tried to rope in his brothers into his illegal venture - all told him to F.O. Needless to say he was caught, tried and played the "Mad Man Card". He got detained in a padded cell for a while.
Ever time he goes off his rocker he seems to brake the law and gets a way with it. He loves having the immunity.
After his last "Bi-Polar" attack I decided to cut ties. He was extremely violent to family members but knew not to resist arrest, hmmmmm.

Surely if this guy was so unable to differentiate between this and that or carrying heroin in to a country with a death penalty for such actions and just going in without hte heroin he shoul dhave been in a nut house or similarly supervised?

It's called care in the community, and he shipped out to Poland a couple of years ago and I don't think they were to bothered either.

They also seem to have overlooked the fact that it's not up to the Chinese government to prove he doesn't have a mental illness and was therefore competent to be tried. The assumption in Chinese as well as Western legal systems is that the individual is sane and competent unless proven otherwise.

Neither the man himself nor the organisations behind him were able to produce any such proof. If it existed it'd have been handed over, surely?

OK!! Does Bipolar mean, you take it in the NORTH REGIONS at the same time as in the SOUTH REGIONS????

I think that you're just a smidgin confused. Why don't you ask him

Is it anything to do with having penguin stuffed polar bear on feast days?

I think his defence wanted him to be assessed (Reprieve even payed for an appropriately qualified psychologist to fly out and assess him - the Chinese agreed to this, but then changed their minds), but the Chinese repeatedly opposed the idea.

He'd also been living rough in Poland for several years, so I imagine that's why there was a lack of proof (although I do consider a psychiatrist's interpretation of behavioural reports proof, and these are often a feature when forming a diagnosis), because he was off the radar as it were - one of the difficulties in the UK is assessing our own homeless for mental health issues, let alone British individuals who are slumming it in other countries. But from what I've read (statements on the Reprieve website from people who knew him), it certainly sounds like he was not the full ticket.

In my view, what stinks about all of this, is it's not that they executed a drug smuggler, as nobody would disagree with that. It's that they did not allow him to be assessed by a mental health professional. If what they actually did was execute somebody who lacked any kind of self-control because they experienced life like it was a Roger Rabbit cartoon, then I think it is barbaric. It would be like sentencing the two suicide bombers who reportedly had Down's Syndrome to execution, if their bombs had not gone off (I say this only if he were as ill as people argued).

If the Chinese were so convinced that he didn't have mental health problems, why wouldn't they assess him? From the British side, we had qualified professionals arguing that it seemed likely that like he had mental health problems. The Chinese response was that the officials of the courts were of the opinion that he was sane, and did not need to be assessed.

Why were no statements issued by any health professionals from their side? Surely if would have made diplomatic sense to have him assessed, considering several Western nations had condemned the whole situation.

Although I do wonder if perhaps he was assessed, but no clinician had the conscience to certify him as sane.

Because, under their law, none were needed. The burden of proof of incapacity lies with the accused and their associates, as i've already explained. It's not our legal system and works differently.


Why would the operation of law be dependant on views held in another country? Scratch that, why should it?

He broke Chinese law, he paid the Chinese penalty, end of. No-one (except Brussels, the U.S, France, Germany, half the English speaking world) tells us what our laws should and shouldn't be, why should we expect China to do anything except go through with the verdict and punishment?

The most awful thing about this episode is that our lawyers have not made a penny. Now as a law abiding 'non ethnic' minoritity I feel that my rights have somehow been..abused.

I wrote this in the mind that the Countries are condemning China for not operating within its own law (as I've read from several sources - although I think it's mainly the EU & Germany who have been vocal), and I'm assuming a countries standing, and how others view you on the international stage is important for issues such as trade, diplomacy etc. (In the same way, I think it may be foolish for the UK to keep condemning this action & further damage our ties with China).

But if you are saying the media have it wrong, and that China did not ignore its own laws in relation to how the mentally ill are treated, then you are right - why should they adopt their laws to suit other nations.

*briefly edited for typos as I'm in the process of getting ready to go out - but sorry I've not made this more readable

I think his defence wanted him to be assessed (Reprieve even payed for an appropriately qualified psychologist to fly out and assess him - the Chinese agreed to this, but then changed their minds), but the Chinese repeatedly opposed the idea.

He'd also been living rough in Poland for several years, so I imagine that's why there was a lack of proof (although I do consider a psychiatrist's interpretation of behavioural reports proof, and these are often a feature when forming a diagnosis), because he was off the radar as it were - one of the difficulties in the UK is assessing our own homeless for mental health issues, let alone British individuals who are slumming it in other countries. But from what I've read (statements on the Reprieve website from people who knew him), it certainly sounds like he was not the full ticket.


_____________________________________________________________


His family said that he was Bi Polar, so, as they hadn't really kept in touch with him, there must have been medical records dating back some time, for them to be able to say this. The fact that they were unable to produce such records suggests that he had never been diagnosed with Bi Polar, or any other mental health problem.

Under those circumstances, I imagine that the Chinese thought that the Org Reprieve would pay a tame shrink to give evidence on his behalf.

He wanted Jihad, now he's found out about the waiting virgins.

Last edited by Monty417 on Thu Dec 31, 2009 7:15 pm; edited 1 time in total

Then I'm sure he'll be very disappointed. He probably had more chance of meeting them when he was singing about bunnies

The media seem to be assuming that because Article 18 of the Criminal Code offers the possibility that mental instability may absolve the accused from criminal responsibility, that this would be exercised.

They conveniently overlook the stipulations of:

Article 3, that "Any act deemed by explicit stipulations of law as a crime is to be convicted and given punishment by law";

Article 5, that "The severity of punishments must be commensurate with the crime committed by an offender"; and

Article 61, "When deciding the punishment of a criminal element, the sentence shall be imposed on the basis of the facts of the crime, the nature and circumstances of the crime, and the degree of harm to society, in accordance with the relevant stipulations of this law."

He was trafficking drugs. China had extremely unhappy experiences with wide-spread drug abuse and what that did to their society. Their perception of the "degree of harm" he committed is informed by their own recent history and it's pretty vile.

Article 18 - which covers mental competency - provides that people with mental disorders but who retain the ability to tell right from wrong may be given a lesser sentence. May - not must - there is scope for clemency, but no right to it. And as pointed out above, there are other articles covering sentencing, based on impact of offence.