So Fusillier Lee Rigby's killers have pleaded Not Guilty to his murder.

[InsanityandBeyond]

Un fucking believable that they are able to do this. IMO they don't even need a trial do they? The police did that poor lad a real disservice when they did not shoot them dead. They must be laughing their fucking heads off at us.

A real deterrent for future deranged fundamentalists. Commit a horrific murder in broad daylight on busy streets with no fear of intervention, then be detained in comfort and safety, and be allowed to make an absolute mockery of the poor victim's family's grief. Have it replayed all over the media again whipping up more publicity and sympathisers while insisting you have done nothing wrong.

Absolutely sickened and ashamed of this country.

The last two people to be executed in Britain both received Pardons. This is why Execution is never w good thing IMO. As someone else stated upthread. They wanted the Police to kill them. I much prefer the alternative of seeing them to live out the rest of their lives in Isolation and or Fear. Re the Not Guilty plea. Did people really expect anything different from them. I'm sure Breivek tried to make out he was of sound mind too (as if shooting half of Norway dead was a regular thing ). My guess is these two would do the same claim they of sound mind regardless. They are cclearly not but then this is what Extremism does. Brainwashes. I would rather have a due process of allowing them to plead not guilty originally then allow them to be freed later on a technicality because due process wasn't followed. This was the reason Qatada couldn't be 'deported' (and I use that term lightly as didn't he leave of his own accord in the end anyway?) straight away. Because May didn't follow the correct legal procedures. However annoying (although occasionally wrong) the legal process may be I'm proud of it for not pandering to knee jerk reactions.

*a good thing. Sorry for typos I'm on the phone

To meet the definition of murder the killing has to be 'unlawful' (not justified). My guess is that this is why they are pleading not guilty, because in their warped minds the killing was justified.

It was a stroke of genius by the police for not shooting them dead. They wanted to be martyrs, one of them asked the paramedics to let him die. The police ensured that they will face justice. They will be denied what they believe is a glorious death and grow old behind bars. Their plea is irrelevant, they will be found guilty. They will pay and the extremist, terrorist murderous minority that they represent will be further exposed and, hopefully, it will make it harder for them to brainwash other young people in the future.

>Haven't they already said their defence is 'retaliation'

confused That doesn't sound like a defence under our laws.

They aren't claiming it is a defence under law. They are claiming it as a moral stance. I don't agree with it but I think they should be allowed to say what they like at their own trial rather than being compelled to plead guilty.

In their warped minds, it was not murder.

Soldiers fighting in wars (including our own) kill other soldiers, but it's not murder. The taking of a life has many forms. I'm assuming that they see themselves as 'soldiers' or martyrs for their cause, however unpalatable or unbelievable that is to us.

By pleading not guilty, they will be afforded a trial & unfortunately a platform to spout their hatred share their 'message'. In a similar way to the gunman responsible for the Norway school shootings (iirc)

I hate to use Daily Mailese but it really is a slippery slope. If we decide these people don't deserve a fair trial then where does it stop? A fair justice system is one of the reasons this country is great.

Without publicity for cases such as this, most of us would live under the assumption that such behaviour is inconceivable, and many would still be harping on about CCTV cameras being a waste of money.

What I know about the case I've heard from radio news broadcasts. I can't imagine they are going to get off lightly, they are a danger to society.

Can they be tried for terrorism as well?

I think we should be able to declare them guilty and not bother with the renewed media frenzy around this case whipping up more publicity for them.
Like the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six?

Just wondering,genuinely,...is it possible two people could be found to be "insane" at exactly the same moment? The chances of that occurring must be miniscule, surely? One person, maybe, and the other aiding and abetting, but not both??? I find it difficult to believe/understand that two people could share exactly the same derangement,at exactly the same time,(i.e. let's go murder a soldier in public). Would a psychaitrist say that it was possible? I just can't see" Insanity" being accepted as a defence at all.
I just find the whole thing absolutely shockingly gobsmacking.

jamdonut

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_à_deux

Did you ever see those women who threw themselves into motorway traffic on one of those 'police, camera, action' type programmes? I think they were diagnosed as having folio a deux

If they thought that they had even a 1 per cent chance of being acquitted on a technicality I am not surprised they plead not guilty.

I think we should be able to declare them guilty and not bother with the renewed media frenzy around this case whipping up more publicity for them.

Perhaps you should move to a country which doesn't have a judicial system then.

ForalltheSaints that is my worry. They can easily get off on a technicality by claiming Unfair Trail (because the World and his Dog saw what happened). That's why they must be seen to adhering to the law to the letter. Then hopefully. Their Lawyer won't be able to pull any stunts like that (Article 6 IIRC).

Yabu.

And also deranged.

People leave terror to be protected by our judicial system. Watch it will work. It's good they went not guilty IMO makes em look silly and when the evidence proves they did the crime they will receive their punishment. We don't require you to feel guilty to be found guilty.

Had a mammoth post get deleted grrrrr

My question: seen many people say crown must be out on notice for insanity plea (one even claimed notice must be given for self defence, is that true) and so that options no longer available.
However over here (Ireland) the arraignment date and the date set for trial would normally be a fair few months apart, so would they still not have the requisite time to put the state on notice if they intended to run such a defence?

A successful insanity defence normally results in more time spent in an institution than would have been spent in jail.

I'd accept that.
Tbh as I practice in Ireland I'm just fundamentally ignorant as to the timeline/procedure for case management on your side of the water.
I was interested to see so many claiming that there wouldn't be time between the plea being entered and the trial to put the state on notice as that's not the case over here.

OP, have any of the arguments expressed here changed your mind?

I don't think they would plead insanity, it would defeat the whole point of the exercise from their point of view.

Anyone posting here should be aware of possible contempt of court, and the prejudicing of a criminal trial.

See: www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/contempt_of_court/#a11

Just a couple of points - the defendants hoped their actions would polarise communities and stir up hatred which would ultimately result in these communities going to "war" with one another. However, this failed spectacularly as people of all faiths and ethnicity stood together in their revulsion of this crime and support for the victim and his family.

Secondly, if society doesn't hear the warped beliefs of these defendants how can they argue against them, and ultimately refute and destroy them? However, as previous posters have said it is highly unlikely that the Judge will allow a propoganda rant on the stand if they take it in their own defence - they will be forced to stick to relevant evidence. Equally, their defence lawyers will have to stick rigidly to the rules.

As awful as it is for the family, these defendants need to stand trial and all the evidence needs to be heard this is the bedrock of a civilised society.

I would have been amazed if they pleaded guilty. They want a full trial so that the pictures and descriptions will be repeated at length, and cause as much ill feeling as possible between communities. And judging from comments all over the place they have succeeded.
But we must not let our justice system be perverted. That's also what they would like.

You cannot as the accused wait until you get in to the witness box and claim you were insane unless you or your defence team have given prior notice you intend doing so.

You have to lead evidence to prove that you were insane and give the prosecution your witness list which will need to include a properly qualified psychiatrist beforehand.