Should Ill or Old People Avoid Prosecution?

Lord Janner has finally appeared in Court to face charges of being a nonce. For weeks now his family and lawyers have argued that he is too ill to face a trial as he has dementia. They've also used his age, 87, as an excuse for not facing up to his alleged crimes.

What do you think? Should very old people be prosecuted for crimes they committed decades ago as younger men/women?

Also, should the fact an defendant has an illness like dementia (that probably means he/she can't remember the crime) stop them facing trial and going to prison if found guilty?

If it can be determined beyond all reasonable doubt from the evidence presented that he did it, then he should be prosecuted, demented or not.

I swear blind I didn't have a slash in the garden the other night when I was bladdered but Mrs B pointed to the dead roses, the trail of destruction and one of my socks left at the scene as evidence that I did the deed.

I argued staunchly that I couldn't remember having done it, but I have got previous and all the evidence pointed to it being true, so I had to accept her ruling with good grace.

Lord Janner should do the same.

Stop trying to get Rolf out of prison.

they are still trying Nazi war criminals who are in their 90's so no, age shouldn't be a barrier. The problem is that he probably won't be able to defend himself as a lot of these cases are usually one persons word against another and the wet liberals will be wringing their hands as we speak.

Age shouldn't make a difference, dementia should be considered (obviously) as a person may not be fit to defend themselves.

bwfc1874 wrote:Age shouldn't make a difference, dementia should be considered (obviously) as a person may not be fit to defend themselves.

But surely if the evidence is overwhelming illness shouldn't matter?

In the case of dementia, the person who committed those crimes is dead. My nan's had it for a few years now and she's like a child at this point. I'm sure it would be difficult for victims to accept but there's nothing left to be done, personally I'd rather spend my last few years in prison of sane mind than have my mind rotted by dementia.

No-one is above the law. It is generally up to the courts via experts that determine if a person is fit to plead. You only have to look at Ken Dodd to see it can be abused. Get 'em in go through the process and try if fit.

Bollotom2014 wrote:No-one is above the law. It is generally up to the courts via experts that determine if a person is fit to plead. You only have to look at Ken Dodd to see it can be abused. Get 'em in go through the process and try if fit.

I think as a general rule age should be no barrier to prosecution. However its the disposal ,the sentence that needs more looking at. What would be the point of jailing Janner if he's guilty.
Would a prison sentence make any sense?

Prison serves three purposes:
a) to punish
b) to rehabilitate
c) to protect others from criminality.
If you jailed Janner (or any other geriatric demented or not) what purpose would it serve. He's too old for rehabilitation. He's too old to be a danger to anyone but himself.
That leaves punishment- and its not necessary to jail someone like him as a punishment. I think it would be pointless. The public humiliation that he's guilty of an obnoxious crime should be enough, along with a court order never to be in the company of children without another responsible adult being present -or some other suchlike control order.
I must or might be going soft but I really can't see the logic in banging up a very old person when other punishments are available

It won't matter to Janner. Dementia strips you of everything.
Any punishment would affect his family,but have no real meaning for Janner.
Would the victims find closure? I doubt it.
No winners here.

rammywhite wrote:

Bollotom2014 wrote:No-one is above the law. It is generally up to the courts via experts that determine if a person is fit to plead. You only have to look at Ken Dodd to see it can be abused. Get 'em in go through the process and try if fit.

I think as a general rule age should be no barrier to prosecution. However its the disposal ,the sentence that needs more looking at. What would be the point of jailing Janner if he's guilty.
Would a prison sentence make any sense?

Prison serves three purposes:
a) to punish
b) to rehabilitate
c) to protect others from criminality.
If you jailed Janner (or any other geriatric demented or not) what purpose would it serve. He's too old for rehabilitation. He's too old to be a danger to anyone but himself.
That leaves punishment- and its not necessary to jail someone like him as a punishment. I think it would be pointless. The public humiliation that he's guilty of an obnoxious crime should be enough, along with a court order never to be in the company of children without another responsible adult being present -or some other suchlike control order.
I must or might be going soft but I really can't see the logic in banging up a very old person when other punishments are available

I agree with the major bit of your post, Rammy. Your final sentence intrigued me, what other punishments do you see as possibilities in this case, and what would you suggest as appropriate?

Not suggesting that there's any impropriety going on here but.........

Didn't Janner pen a letter to the Lords earlier this year advising them that he had no intentions of stepping aside from his daily role as an active member of the Upper Chamber?

Would he be capable of (A) writing the letter and (B) continuing to attend sessions and vote in The Lords if he really was suffering as is being suggested?

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Funny how rich and powerful people develop medical conditions when they are finally being brought to justice. As Breadman points out Janner hasn't resigned from the House of Lords.

I might also be a little more sympathetic if Janner hadn't argued that Nazi war criminals with Alzheimer's should be prosecuted regardless. Sauce for the goose, etc.

In Qatar in the 70s I knew an old local guy who smuggled 9kg of cannabis into the country under his thobe and was tracked down to his majilis by the police so he did a runner to his house where he produced a pre WW1 gun and shot a Nigerian copper in the shoulder (I was amazed it actually fired) and tried to leg it before being caught - about 10 yds down the road as he was pushing 80 years old.
The court gave him 7 years.
Qatari prisons were hell holes with no AC and a basic rice diet. He survived 2 years before he popped his clogs.
A longer sentence would have been pointless, but the Sharia court insisted on him doing the time in the full knowledge he'd be lucky to survive.
I'm not trying to justify Sharia but perhaps if our prisons were less of a doddle we could ensure it was viewed as a punishment, reduce sentence times accordingly and save the country billions that could be spent on something productive or useful. 
This is all well and good if there was no corruption or bias in the criminal justice system and sentencing was appropriate but I suspect we take a "humanitarian" approach to dealing with criminals to hedge our bets against potential injustice to some extent.
Under Sharia, I'd imagine any sentence would reflect his age and mental health - but he wouldn't avoid punishment altogether if proven guilty.

First one to mention Brucie gets a punch up the bracket.

boltonbonce wrote:First one to mention Brucie gets a punch up the bracket.

that'd be you then!

I love how even Boncey's threats have a distinct air of Bootsie & Snudge or a frustrated Hancock about them.

Gentle menace.