UK : East : 19 yr old sectioned after torching Stowmarket Squat

[General Lighting]

I'm glad he's in the can where he belongs (he is lucky that he has got hospital and not just prison) as those squatters are friends of my friends! IMO they should detain people with mental health problems (in hospital) a lot sooner, as soon as their illness makes them commit criminal acts against others - at least until it is proven they can tell right from wrong.

Perhaps those places like Severalls weren't such a bad idea after all?

STOWMARKET: A teenager who suffers from schizophrenia is today under the care of mental health services after endangering lives by starting a fire.

James Dent, 19, of no fixed address, admitted he started the blaze at the house in Finborough Road, Stowmarket - owned by the Church of England - where six squatters were sleeping in July last year.

It was heard at Ipswich Crown Court yesterday that on July 29, last year, the squatters had gone to bed some time between midnight and 4am. At 9.30am some of them were woken by a fire alarm and managed to put out the fire quickly.

The court heard that the fire had been started by lighting oil-soaker paper wrappings inside bin bags in a downstairs room. Two fire crews were sent to the scene and a police helicopter was also despatched.

Prosecuting, Matthew Edwards said there had been an allegation that Dent had stolen some vinyl records from one of the squatters.

He said: “At least one of the individuals was not woken by the alarm. They were still asleep when the fire took hold. In interview the defendant [Dent] acknowledged starting the fire and admitted being fully aware of his actions.”

The fire did not cause much damage and was put out by some of the occupants using blankets. The defendant was later seen standing bare-chested opposite the squat, holding a bread knife.

He was arrested and taken to the police station, where it was heard he spat at an officer and smeared excrement on the cell wall.

At the time he was on bail for other offences, which he pleaded guilty to, including possession of cannabis, attempted theft of a motor vehicle and two counts of criminal damage, which took place between April 19 and July 20, 2008.

The court also heard that he has previous convictions for a number of offences, including possessing an offensive weapon, and suffers from schizophrenia.

Judge David Goodin said: “You are beset by voices telling you to harm others. In view of what you did at the squat where there were half a dozen people, and your background, there is no doubt you present a serious danger to the public by virtue of your mental illness.”

Judge Goodin made an order to detain him under the mental health act at a hospital.

Teenager detained after starting fire - Evening Star 24

[1984]

Originally posted by General Lighting

IMO they should detain people with mental health problems (in hospital)

Thats a bit of a sweeping statement man, and have you ever been sectioned? It does more bloody harm than good a lot of the time. There are so many people with sever mental health problems, myself included, to say they should be detained against their will is a bit harsh to say the least.

I am guessing you don't mean it so literally because you are an intelligent articulate guy, but it seems like that's the kind of discrimination people with mental health problems have to deal with every damn day.

ps even with something like schizophrenia, the ratio of people with the illness to severe crimes committed is hardly one that justify taking away the freedom of thousands of people in this country.

[General Lighting]

Originally posted by 1984

Thats a bit of a sweeping statement man, and have you ever been sectioned?

I came very close to it in the mid 1980s and it was only because my uncle who worked in NHS mental health talked my parents out of letting the local NHS section me.

There are so many people with sever mental health problems, myself included, to say they should be detained against their will is a bit harsh to say the least.

a lot of patients are not a threat to others and can be treated as outpatients and live in the community. The ones I do feel should be detained are those whose severe mental problems make a serious danger to others and themselves if allowed to go free. In this case the young man had already committed several crimes and his health issues should have been addressed early IMO. He could have killed people by burning out the squat, worse he did so as he had been challenged for taking other peoples property.

As I mentioned before I have had issues with depression etc myself but I feel very strongly that people should not use it as an excuse for dysfunctional or criminal behaviour. (I think this is more the fault of the legal profession than the health service).

[1984]

Originally posted by General Lighting

I came very close to it in the mid 1980s and it was only because my uncle who worked in NHS mental health talked my parents out of letting the local NHS section me.

a lot of patients are not a threat to others and can be treated as outpatients and live in the community. The ones I do feel should be detained are those whose severe mental problems make a serious danger to others and themselves if allowed to go free. In this case the young man had already committed several crimes and his health issues should have been addressed early IMO. He could have killed people by burning out the squat, worse he did so as he had been challenged for taking other peoples property.

As I mentioned before I have had issues with depression etc myself but I feel very strongly that people should not use it as an excuse for dysfunctional or criminal behaviour. (I think this is more the fault of the legal profession than the health servicE).

I agree more help should be given to people with mental health problems. But mental health problems do cause dysfunctional behaviour, do cause people to take foolish risks etc while perhaps it shouldn't be excused it should be understood to a far greater degree.

I dont know how they were meant to know he was a sever risk to the public, just because he had committed presumably minor crimes in the past. You cant make his illness go away, so what are you going to do, lock away everyone for life who commits a few crimes and has a mental illness?

[General Lighting]

Originally posted by 1984

I dont know how they were meant to know he was a sever risk to the public, just because he had committed presumably minor crimes in the past. You cant make his illness go away, so what are you going to do, lock away everyone for life who commits a few crimes and has a mental illness?

no, not for life - it would not be proportionate as a mentally healthy person commiting the same crime (arson with intent to endager life) would only get maybe 6 months to 2 years in jail.

what is needed in his case is a targeted deprivation of liberty as well as treatment. Not as harsh "punishment" as would be meted out to a healthy person but some sort of treatment to convince him stealing, smashing up stuff and torching things is wrong and if he keeps on doing it he will lose his liberty for longer.

the crimes affect others (as I said the people in the squat are known to my circle of friends) and they need to be considered too..

[1984]

Originally posted by General Lighting

no, not for life - it would not be proportionate as a mentally healthy person commiting the same crime (arson with intent to endager life) would only get maybe 6 months to 2 years in jail.

what is needed in his case is a targeted deprivation of liberty as well as treatment. Not as harsh "punishment" as would be meted out to a healthy person but some sort of treatment to convince him stealing, smashing up stuff and torching things is wrong and if he keeps on doing it he will lose his liberty for longer.

the crimes affect others (as I said the people in the squat are known to my circle of friends) and they need to be considered too..

well yes, not he has shown he is a danger and has committed a serious crime endangering life of course he should be sectioned and has been hasn't he? I thought your point was he should have been sectioned before he did anything to hurt anyone, which is the scary part.

With regards to stealing I think he should be treated in the same way as anyone else who steals. You can hardly say someone who steals and has mental health problems should be sectioned just in case they burn down a squat a few years later. Highly disproportionate.

If were talking about targeting mental health services at people who are in prison etc then I couldn't agree more. And he should have been given more help. But I don't think that help should have involved taking way his human rights unless it could have been proven he was a serious risk, it has to many implications for thousands if people in this country.

Anyway I said my bit and tbh this is really upsetting me as it just shows the kind of discrimination I am probably going to have to deal with when I get back into the real world. Already 1 in 3 employers wouldnt even consider someone with mental health problems and if intelligent alternative minded types like yourself seem to have discriminatory views about mental health suffers then its going to be a hard future to say the least.

Sorry if I have misunderstood anything you have said and I am sorry to back out of the debate as it were but otherwise it really is going to wreck my day and you will have the last word, so to speak, to correct anything you don't agree with.

take it easy

[General Lighting]

Originally posted by 1984

well yes, not he has shown he is a danger and has committed a serious crime endangering life of course he should be sectioned and has been hasn't he? I thought your point was he should have been sectioned before he did anything to hurt anyone, which is the scary part.

there has been a misunderstanding here - made worse by the fact the papers cannot report the guys entire criminal past.

What I mean is that as soon as someone is showing aggression towards others to the point the cops etc get involved the NHS must step in at the same time as the criminal justice system. Even property damage and theft can be viewed as intimidating by the victims depending on the context in which it occurs. It seems to be the case this guys angry behaviour went unchallenged until he did something serious, when maybe he could have be treated earlier....

If the crimes are just "minor" maybe a compulsory weekend in hospital for therapy would suffice - same as how I feel a "healthy" person should be made to take part in compulsory restorative justice for a similar crime. Perhaps the two could even be combined. Early intervention is far better than letting someone reach the stage they hurt others or themselves and/or long sentences/treatment regimes.

most mental health patients don't commit crime anyway - but those whose illness makes them do so need treatment. If whatever treatment/therapy is available works and they stop committing the crime, all well and good. If the criminality escalates and there is no remorse then the person should be detained. Even then I feel that a genuinely ill person should be offered treatment as well as punishment.

I think you'll find people are much more sympathetic to those with mental health issues than they were 10-20 years ago particularly on the alternative scene where these are common but they still have the right to be angry when betrayed or a friend turns on them. It appears that for the lad to have allegedly stolen the records he must have been invited into the squat as a friend. Also, the negative publicity caused by the lad setting the fire caused the squat to be subsequently evicted.