Can you get away with paedophilia by pleading dementia?

[hinduwoman]

Certainly a repeat offender seems to have convinced UK court that since he is suffering from dementia he cannot be held responsible for sexually absuing children..

http://www.thenewsminute.com/news_sections/1662

Raymond Varley, the British citizen facing charges of sexual offences against children in India from 1989-1991 will not be extradited to India, despite India's repeated appeals. Putting an end to India's appeals and practically closing down all legal options for India, a British Court has refused India's extradition petition. The court has said that India was given ample opportunity for examination, but they didn't. Varley had claimed that he was suffering from dementia and he was not the man wanted in India for sexual crimes. It is on the basis of his claims of dementia that the court has rejected extradition plea.

66-year-old Varley is one of the accused in the Goa orphanage child sexual abuse case tracing back to 1989 which involved many foreign nationals. The racket was run by an Indian called Freddy Peats in Goa. Peats gave foreign nationals access to children in the orphanage. Back in 1991 when raids were conducted in Peat’s house the police found more than 2000 obscene images of children.
Varley has been charged by the CBI on many counts of sexual abuse including sodomy, indecent assault and and taking indecent photographs.
At least five children had identified Raymond Varley from photographs and recounted how Varley has abused them.
On May 8, 2014, a Westminster judge had rejected to grant the Indian government’s request for extradition and had accepted Raymond Varley’s claim that he was suffering from dementia.
Varley, a teacher from Halifax, procured a report from a neuro psychologist Linda Atterton who was based out of Norwich, which was 291 km away from where he lived. Varley made her report the crux of his argument against extradition. I t is however baffling how someone suffering from dementia could locate a psychologist through the internet and get the certificate.
Various activists have questioned if the neuro psychologist was qualified to declare Varley was suffering from dementia.
Varley's victory is dangerous for India. In this specific case it means that the man will never undergo trial. There will be no logical conclusion for the case.
Activists in India have also not been happy about the way the Crown Prosecution Service had fought the case on India's behalf.
It should also be of great concern to India that Varley has been allowed to get away on grounds that he has dementia, this could be a loophole that other child sex offenders can claim. The Crown Prosecution Service, activists say, never told the CBI that India could go for an independent medical evaluation.
What about the victims of child sexual abuse and other such offenders
Raymond Varley's case is not just about bringing him back to India for trial, it is also about the victims. Many child sexual abuse victims do not come out in the open, and for those who have, it is important that the legal and policing system brings the perpetrators to book.
The UK Court's rejection will enable other offenders like Johnathan Robinson (another British citizen who is wanted for similar charges) to continue with such heinous crimes without any fear of the law.
...
Linda Atterton in her finding said Varley had “widespread moderate-severe impairment severely affecting everyday life”, but she cannot “pinpoint the type of dementia but it may be Alzheimers”.
...
The Independent UK has reported that Varley had previously served time in prison in UK in the mid 1980s and “was given treatment at Wormwood Scrubs to deal with his sexual offending”.

One immediate reaction in India is that the judge does not care how many brown children a white man abuses.

 

[Bronzeage]

It is legitimate for a person to plead "not responsible" for a crime, but there are specific rules for this in any legal system. First, there must be an admission to the crime. No point in pleading crazy for something you didn't do. A finding of not responsible does not mean the accused gets away with no penalty. In the case of a charge of pedophila, it means the man has admitted to being a hazard to children, which the state cannot ignore. If he cannot control his actions, by his own admission, he must be confined in a suitable institution, for the good of the public. Beyond that, the burden of proof is now on the accused. He must make a plausible case for his defense, instead of demanding the State prove theirs beyond a reasonable doubt.

As it appears the Crown is familiar with Varley and his pedophilia, I'm surprised they aren't eager to send off to a place where he would be someone else's problem and let an Indian court determine his degree of dementia.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Certainly a repeat offender seems to have convinced UK court that since he is suffering from dementia he cannot be held responsible for sexually absuing children..

http://www.thenewsminute.com/news_sections/1662

Raymond Varley, the British citizen facing charges of sexual offences against children in India from 1989-1991 will not be extradited to India, despite India's repeated appeals. Putting an end to India's appeals and practically closing down all legal options for India, a British Court has refused India's extradition petition. The court has said that India was given ample opportunity for examination, but they didn't. Varley had claimed that he was suffering from dementia and he was not the man wanted in India for sexual crimes. It is on the basis of his claims of dementia that the court has rejected extradition plea.

66-year-old Varley is one of the accused in the Goa orphanage child sexual abuse case tracing back to 1989 which involved many foreign nationals. The racket was run by an Indian called Freddy Peats in Goa. Peats gave foreign nationals access to children in the orphanage. Back in 1991 when raids were conducted in Peat’s house the police found more than 2000 obscene images of children.
Varley has been charged by the CBI on many counts of sexual abuse including sodomy, indecent assault and and taking indecent photographs.
At least five children had identified Raymond Varley from photographs and recounted how Varley has abused them.
On May 8, 2014, a Westminster judge had rejected to grant the Indian government’s request for extradition and had accepted Raymond Varley’s claim that he was suffering from dementia.
Varley, a teacher from Halifax, procured a report from a neuro psychologist Linda Atterton who was based out of Norwich, which was 291 km away from where he lived. Varley made her report the crux of his argument against extradition. I t is however baffling how someone suffering from dementia could locate a psychologist through the internet and get the certificate.
Various activists have questioned if the neuro psychologist was qualified to declare Varley was suffering from dementia.
Varley's victory is dangerous for India. In this specific case it means that the man will never undergo trial. There will be no logical conclusion for the case.
Activists in India have also not been happy about the way the Crown Prosecution Service had fought the case on India's behalf.
It should also be of great concern to India that Varley has been allowed to get away on grounds that he has dementia, this could be a loophole that other child sex offenders can claim. The Crown Prosecution Service, activists say, never told the CBI that India could go for an independent medical evaluation.
What about the victims of child sexual abuse and other such offenders
Raymond Varley's case is not just about bringing him back to India for trial, it is also about the victims. Many child sexual abuse victims do not come out in the open, and for those who have, it is important that the legal and policing system brings the perpetrators to book.
The UK Court's rejection will enable other offenders like Johnathan Robinson (another British citizen who is wanted for similar charges) to continue with such heinous crimes without any fear of the law.
...
Linda Atterton in her finding said Varley had “widespread moderate-severe impairment severely affecting everyday life”, but she cannot “pinpoint the type of dementia but it may be Alzheimers”.
...
The Independent UK has reported that Varley had previously served time in prison in UK in the mid 1980s and “was given treatment at Wormwood Scrubs to deal with his sexual offending”.

One immediate reaction in India is that the judge does not care how many brown children a white man abuses.

A person evaluated with Dementia can be exempt from prosecution, or released from jail if prosecuted. Let us rephrase that. As long as the court can be convinced the person has dementia, he can be excused prosecution or even released from jail. There is a well known case concerning Ernest Saunders, involving a totally difference scenario.

Dementia is supposedly incurable, yet Ernest made a 'full recovery.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...out-of-jail-and-back-in-business-1347932.html

I doubt if it has anything to do with the Judge not caring how many children are abused.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It is legitimate for a person to plead "not responsible" for a crime, but there are specific rules for this in any legal system. First, there must be an admission to the crime. No point in pleading crazy for something you didn't do. A finding of not responsible does not mean the accused gets away with no penalty. In the case of a charge of pedophila, it means the man has admitted to being a hazard to children, which the state cannot ignore. If he cannot control his actions, by his own admission, he must be confined in a suitable institution, for the good of the public. Beyond that, the burden of proof is now on the accused. He must make a plausible case for his defense, instead of demanding the State prove theirs beyond a reasonable doubt.

As it appears the Crown is familiar with Varley and his pedophilia, I'm surprised they aren't eager to send off to a place where he would be someone else's problem and let an Indian court determine his degree of dementia.

If a person with dementia is evaluated as 'no longer a risk' he would normally be set loose again.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is legitimate for a person to plead "not responsible" for a crime, but there are specific rules for this in any legal system. First, there must be an admission to the crime. No point in pleading crazy for something you didn't do. A finding of not responsible does not mean the accused gets away with no penalty. In the case of a charge of pedophila, it means the man has admitted to being a hazard to children, which the state cannot ignore. If he cannot control his actions, by his own admission, he must be confined in a suitable institution, for the good of the public. Beyond that, the burden of proof is now on the accused. He must make a plausible case for his defense, instead of demanding the State prove theirs beyond a reasonable doubt.

As it appears the Crown is familiar with Varley and his pedophilia, I'm surprised they aren't eager to send off to a place where he would be someone else's problem and let an Indian court determine his degree of dementia.

I don't know but it is quite possible that the Crown did consider deportation but it was successfully fought by the defense attorney. A deportation hearing would be an entirely different case. The sitting judge in this case wouldn't have the option, as far as I know, to decide to deport him.

 

[Bronzeage]

Certainly a repeat offender seems to have convinced UK court that since he is suffering from dementia he cannot be held responsible for sexually absuing children..

http://www.thenewsminute.com/news_sections/1662



One immediate reaction in India is that the judge does not care how many brown children a white man abuses.

A person evaluated with Dementia can be exempt from prosecution, or released from jail if prosecuted. Let us rephrase that. As long as the court can be convinced the person has dementia, he can be excused prosecution or even released from jail. There is a well known case concerning Ernest Saunders, involving a totally difference scenario.

Dementia is supposedly incurable, yet Ernest made a 'full recovery.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...out-of-jail-and-back-in-business-1347932.html

I doubt if it has anything to do with the Judge not caring how many children are abused.

If a person with dementia is evaluated as 'no longer a risk' he would normally be set loose again.

There are two issues here. First, was Varley suffering dementia at the time of his crimes? This will have a bearing on his responsibility. Second, is he suffering from dementia at the moment?

If his dementia is current, he cannot assist in his defense and thus should not be tried. He can still be assessed for his risk to the public and held in the appropriate institution.

If he was not suffering from dementia at the time of the crimes, and is suffering now, he can be tried for the crimes anytime in the future, should he be declared "recovered and no longer a danger to the public."

It's plain to see, this is just a stalling tactic to delay justice. If this man is truly demented, any future crimes he commits will be the responsibility of the British government.

 

[whichphilosophy]

A person evaluated with Dementia can be exempt from prosecution, or released from jail if prosecuted. Let us rephrase that. As long as the court can be convinced the person has dementia, he can be excused prosecution or even released from jail. There is a well known case concerning Ernest Saunders, involving a totally difference scenario.

Dementia is supposedly incurable, yet Ernest made a 'full recovery.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...out-of-jail-and-back-in-business-1347932.html

I doubt if it has anything to do with the Judge not caring how many children are abused.

If a person with dementia is evaluated as 'no longer a risk' he would normally be set loose again.

There are two issues here. First, was Varley suffering dementia at the time of his crimes? This will have a bearing on his responsibility. Second, is he suffering from dementia at the moment?

If his dementia is current, he cannot assist in his defense and thus should not be tried. He can still be assessed for his risk to the public and held in the appropriate institution.

If he was not suffering from dementia at the time of the crimes, and is suffering now, he can be tried for the crimes anytime in the future, should he be declared "recovered and no longer a danger to the public."

It's plain to see, this is just a stalling tactic to delay justice. If this man is truly demented, any future crimes he commits will be the responsibility of the British government.

Correct; insanity at the time of the act is a defence. Unfit to stand trial is a defence and a mental health review board may evaluate the person later to see if they are fit for trial.
The courts however, rely on the expertise of the psychiatric and medical evaluators. So it would be unfair to blame the British government.

 

[Sarpedon]

I'm starting to wonder if most criminals aren't mentally disturbed or deficient in some ways.

But of course if one goes down that rabbit hole, who knows where he will end up!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm starting to wonder if most criminals aren't mentally disturbed or deficient in some ways.

But of course if one goes down that rabbit hole, who knows where he will end up!

Or maybe it's the criminals who are the sane ones and the rest of us who are crazy.

Your mind = blown

 

[Sarpedon]

Not by anything you've ever posted.

 

[doubtingt]

Most forms of dementia would not serve as a valid basis to claim that he didn't realize raping kids was a bad thing. Only very extreme forms, usually entailing irreversible brain degeneration would qualify, and the person would basically be a constant threat to themselves and others and incapable of basic functioning.

So, even if he has mild dementia, its likely a bullshit excuse (some evil bastards also happen to have dementia), or if his dementia is that bad then its implausible that he would ever be "no longer a threat".

Note that this is based upon the actual science of dementia and what is reasonable to infer from it. How the courts actually deal with such cases may have little to do with science or reason.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Most forms of dementia would not serve as a valid basis to claim that he didn't realize raping kids was a bad thing. Only very extreme forms, usually entailing irreversible brain degeneration would qualify, and the person would basically be a constant threat to themselves and others and incapable of basic functioning.

So, even if he has mild dementia, its likely a bullshit excuse (some evil bastards also happen to have dementia), or if his dementia is that bad then its implausible that he would ever be "no longer a threat".

Note that this is based upon the actual science of dementia and what is reasonable to infer from it. How the courts actually deal with such cases may have little to do with science or reason.

The courts rely on experts in the field of dementia to provide their opinions, and evaluations and act accordingly.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It is legitimate for a person to plead "not responsible" for a crime, but there are specific rules for this in any legal system. First, there must be an admission to the crime. No point in pleading crazy for something you didn't do. A finding of not responsible does not mean the accused gets away with no penalty. In the case of a charge of pedophila, it means the man has admitted to being a hazard to children, which the state cannot ignore. If he cannot control his actions, by his own admission, he must be confined in a suitable institution, for the good of the public. Beyond that, the burden of proof is now on the accused. He must make a plausible case for his defense, instead of demanding the State prove theirs beyond a reasonable doubt.

As it appears the Crown is familiar with Varley and his pedophilia, I'm surprised they aren't eager to send off to a place where he would be someone else's problem and let an Indian court determine his degree of dementia.

I don't know but it is quite possible that the Crown did consider deportation but it was successfully fought by the defense attorney. A deportation hearing would be an entirely different case. The sitting judge in this case wouldn't have the option, as far as I know, to decide to deport him.

QUOTE: It is on the basis of his claims of dementia that the court has rejected extradition plea. UNQUOTE from the article. The Indian courts should have examined the evidence and perhaps sought to counter it. This is notwithstanding the fact that most persons would feel he should have been deported.

 

[Axulus]

How does a current case of dementia excuse a crime that took place 25 years ago? Is developing dementia a get out of jail free card, even if the crime took place before the dementia had occurred? Unless they are saying that someone has diagnosed him as having been suffering from dementia 25 years ago? Is it possible to diagnose someone like that? Wouldn't there be obvious progression of the disease over 25 years?

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm starting to wonder if most criminals aren't mentally disturbed or deficient in some ways.

But of course if one goes down that rabbit hole, who knows where he will end up!

The common standard of criminal insanity is an inability to distinguish a right act from a wrong act. If a paranoid person truly believes they are in danger and harms another person, they do have a defense in their delusion.

On the other hand, if a person does it simply for greed or even a thrill, but still understands they will be punished if caught, there is no defense in this. It's not enough to not care that it is a violation of the law.

Varley may try to avoid trial by claiming mental incompetency at the present time, but the slightest demonstration that he understood at the time, his sexual activities were illegal and punishable, destroys any incompetency defense.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't know but it is quite possible that the Crown did consider deportation but it was successfully fought by the defense attorney. A deportation hearing would be an entirely different case. The sitting judge in this case wouldn't have the option, as far as I know, to decide to deport him.

QUOTE: It is on the basis of his claims of dementia that the court has rejected extradition plea. UNQUOTE from the article. The Indian courts should have examined the evidence and perhaps sought to counter it. This is notwithstanding the fact that most persons would feel he should have been deported.

Ah, Thanks. I should have read the article more closely rather than just scanning it.

 

[Sabine Grant]

How does a current case of dementia excuse a crime that took place 25 years ago? Is developing dementia a get out of jail free card, even if the crime took place before the dementia had occurred? Unless they are saying that someone has diagnosed him as having been suffering from dementia 25 years ago? Is it possible to diagnose someone like that? Wouldn't there be obvious progression of the disease over 25 years?

Excellent questions, Axullus. Depending on which form of dementia, it is a degenerative condition. Dementia resulting from a cerebral accident (such as a stroke) would remain constant or non progressive. However dementia resulting from a degeneration of brain cells would be progressive and symptoms would increase. Alzheimer's falls under the category of a progressive degenerative condition which manifests itself via stages, progressing from mild symptoms to severe. To the late stage of being basically home bound and eligible to be placed in a memory unit in a full assisted living facility.
The nature of the accused's dementia would be crucial as to determining whether it was the result of a cerebral accident which disabled his ability to distinguish right from wrong or if the result of a degenerative condition. 25 years ago under a degenerative condition, it is highly improbable that he would have already been suffering of a mental disability totally impairing his judgement when it comes to distinguishing right from wrong.

Even if caused by a cerebral accident occurring prior to his sexually abusing children, in order for his judgement to be totally impaired, he would have had to sustain a cerebral accident of a degree severe enough that it would have also affected other functions, such as speech, motor coordination, ambulation etc... It does not appear that as part of the foreign nationals given access to that orphanage for the sole purpose of sexually exploiting children, he was under any physical limitations.

Does not appear also that Linda Atterton "in her finding" that "Varley had “widespread moderate-severe impairment severely affecting everyday life”, was able to make a case that such exhibited symptoms were present 25 years ago.

Further as " she cannot “pinpoint the type of dementia but it may be Alzheimers”, I must question to which extent she conducted any thorough tests. And if "it may be Alzheimer's", again, Varley was in his early 40's at the time he visited that orphanage. Highly improbable he would have exhibited "widespread moderate-severe impairment severely affecting everyday life" at the age of 40.

I will let you guess what my conclusion is....