• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.

Mentally Handicapped Man Gets Two Years For Murder

Sharwood

Rich, doctor nephew
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
6,954
Location
A little place outside Atlanta
Link.

Man gets two years for jealousy killing
A man who tried to kill himself after "mercilessly" gunning down his estranged wife's lover has been jailed for two years.

NSW Supreme Court Acting Justice Jane Mathews said Tony James Riley, 48, was no longer the man he had been when he committed the crime.

Riley, a real estate agent of Mudgee in NSW's central west, shattered his skull and had part of his brain removed after shooting himself in the head on Valentine's Day last year.

He was clinically depressed about the breakdown of his marriage and had gone to the Gulgong property of his wife's lover, David Glenn Nichols, armed with a shotgun.

When Mr Nichols, 54, emerged from the home to try to negotiate, Riley shot him in the stomach at point-blank range, before firing a second time at his head.

Both blasts were fatal.

On Friday, acting Justice Mathews jailed Riley for a minimum of two years for Mr Nichols' manslaughter, saying he had already suffered punishment of a "very high order".

After killing Mr Nichols, Riley went to his office and shot himself in the head.

The suicide attempt came after he called his wife and police to say his family would be "better off without him".

Riley had been left "grossly impaired", with limited cognitive abilities and "inappropriately and fatuously cheerful" when he should be anxious or concerned, Acting Justice Mathews said.

He was unable to experience guilt, remorse, anxiety or fear.

Riley's condition was complicated by a lack of insight into his impairment, where "he thinks that he has largely recovered from his brain injury and that his levels of communication, cognition and behaviour are essentially intact", said Acting Justice Mathews.

His affairs have been signed over to his elderly parents by the Guardianship Tribunal, and he will require lifelong supervision and care after his release from prison.

"This was the man who said that he would rather kill himself than have the trauma and indignity of (others) visiting him in prison," Acting Justice Mathews said.

"If that man could see the Tony Riley as he now is, I suspect that he would consider the situation to be literally a fate worse than death."

Directly addressing Mr Nichols' family, the judge acknowledged the sentence may, to them, seem lenient in light of such an "unprovoked and unnecessary attack".

"But I hope you will understand ... that the person who is essentially responsible for your loss ceased to exist when he pulled the trigger on himself," she said.

"The man who has been sitting in court throughout these proceedings will bear the punishment for the deeds of that other man, but it is not he who is primarily responsible for them."

Members of the Nichols family nodded sadly as Acting Justice Mathews explained her decision.

Wearing an eyepatch and with a visible indentation in the left side of his head where his skull had been shattered, Riley displayed no emotion as he was sentenced.

The judge noted Riley's doctor had recommended he not be permitted to have access to guns in 2002, after a suicidal episode.

"Unfortunately, this recommendation was never taken up," she said.

"Had it been, the tragic killing of Mr Nichols might never have happened."

Riley will be eligible for parole in April 2010, with the balance of his maximum five-year term to expire in 2013.

I posted this because I wanted to see what people thought about it. On the one hand, when he committed the crime he wasn't handicapped in any way (other than depression, apparently, which is hardly an excuse), but now he has serious brain damage.

I've been following the case in the news over here, and he apparently completely understands the charges against him, what he did, etc., but doesn't have any emotions about it, his punishment, anything whatsoever. He seems intellectually capable of understanding it, but emotionally unable to do so, almost like a child.

I just want to see what people think about the sentence, any alternatives they'd like to offer up, etc. Note that he doesn't seem to need extensive psychiatric care, like that in a mental hospital.
 
I would either thin he understands the punshment and you give him more than 2 years or he doesn't have the capability to understand it and you put him in a mental hospital. Two years in prison seems wrong in either scenario.
 
It is akin to a mental illness. Thus, if the depression is severe enough, it can be as good an excuse as "insanity".
I'm aware of that, what I'm saying is he doesn't appear to have been suffering from it to the point where the 'insanity' defence would apply. If he were, his lawyers would have jumped on it.
 
Well according to your article, the family of the murdered guy seems to agree with the judge's decision, so I'm not sure there is a problem.
 
What's the point of making the public feed him for two years?
 
What's the point of making the public feed him for two years?

2 years? After jail, he will spend the rest of his life in a mental facility and you can bet he will not be paying for it.

I'm anti-capital punishment, though. It's tough being anti-capital punishment and anti-welfare, but in this particular context, I choose the lesser (if more widespread) of the two evils: welfare. Of course, he may still be capable of working for his keep, as all prisoners should.
 
2 years? After jail, he will spend the rest of his life in a mental facility and you can bet he will not be paying for it.

I'm anti-capital punishment, though. It's tough being anti-capital punishment and anti-welfare, but in this particular context, I choose the lesser (if more widespread) of the two evils: welfare. Of course, he may still be capable of working for his keep, as all prisoners should.
No he won't. He requires care, but not as much as a mental facility. More likely than not, his family will take care of him, then he will enter a nursing home at a younger age than is usual.
 
2 years? After jail, he will spend the rest of his life in a mental facility and you can bet he will not be paying for it.

Two things. First, which is more expensive? Which is a more appropriate place for him? Second, I wouldn't be so sure who's footing the bill. Probably not the guy himself, but not necessarily the state.

EDIT: Assuming he does need to be institutionalized.
 
I would either thin he understands the punshment and you give him more than 2 years or he doesn't have the capability to understand it and you put him in a mental hospital. Two years in prison seems wrong in either scenario.

Nothing more need be said.
 
Two things. First, which is more expensive? Which is a more appropriate place for him? Second, I wouldn't be so sure who's footing the bill. Probably not the guy himself, but not necessarily the state.

EDIT: Assuming he does need to be institutionalized.
In a mental institution, the state. In every Australian prison barring Junee, the state - Junee is privately owned, so there's some crossover between state money and private money. He'll likely be housed in Long Bay, which has mental facilities on the grounds. In a nursing home, his family will probably contribute, and they tend to be far better equipped and less full of sadistic pieces of sh*t than prisons and mental institutions.
 
If he were American, Bill Clinton would personally sign his death warrent in front of media.
 
If he were American, Bill Clinton would personally sign his death warrent in front of media.
I'm guessing you're referring to something in particular, but what?
 
Bully for Australia, paying the whole way! Around here, the decent facilities are private, and pricey. The only state-funded ones are frankly hell-holes.

So the second part: which is more expensive, imprisoning or institutionalizing? (I suppse it might not be relevant, if he's capable enough that his family can care for him at home, but now I'm just curious.)
 
I'm guessing you're referring to something in particular, but what?

Bill Clinton kills handicap people. Google that, I am sure something will come up. augureys talked about this before.

I am guessing this guy probably won't end up being sent to a regular prison anyways. They're not killing him either, are they augurey?
 
Bully for Australia, paying the whole way! Around here, the decent facilities are private, and pricey. The only state-funded ones are frankly hell-holes.

So the second part: which is more expensive, imprisoning or institutionalizing? (I suppse it might not be relevant, if he's capable enough that his family can care for him at home, but now I'm just curious.)

I am uncomfortable with the idea that economic profitability should be used to determinate the appropriateness of a justice sentence.
 
Back
Top Bottom