Talk:Akmal Shaikh/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Bi-polar disorder as a defense
The following paragraph keeps getting removed and then re-inserted, so I wanted to bring it here:
- According to Chinese criminal laws, only cognitive-impairment can be used as insanity defense.[50] Bipolar disorder, which affects mood rather than cognition, [51] cannot be used for insanity defense.[52]
Unless the Chinese language link from note 52 says that bi-polar disorder is not a valid defense under Chinese law, this seems to violate Wikipedia: SYNTH, specifically "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Therefore I propose the deletion of this paragraph. Spinner145 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I added that source, it is a legal text book on Chinese Criminal Laws. This particular chapter is on mental illnesses. Towards the end of the page there's a section stating that patients suffering from mania, depression an other non-cognitive-impairments should receive full criminal responsibilities.
- Here's the text: 2.大多数非精神病性精神障碍人。按照我国司法精神病学,非精神病性精神障碍的主要种类有：(1)各种类型的神经官能症,包括癔症,神经衰弱,焦虑症,疑病症,强迫症,恐怖症,神经症性抑郁,人体解体性神经症等 (2)各种人格障碍式变态人格(包括器质性人格障碍);(3)性变态,包括同性恋,露阴癖,窥淫癖,恋物癖,恋童癖,性虐待癖等;(4)情绪反应(未达到精神病程度的反应性精神障碍);(5)未达到精神病程度的成瘾药物中毒与戒断反应;(6)轻躁狂与轻性抑郁症;(7)生理性醉酒与单纯慢性酒精中毒;(8) 脑震荡后遗症、癫痫性心境恶劣以及其他未达到精神病程度的精神疾患;(9)轻微精神发育不全等等。非精神病性精神障碍人,大多数并不因精神障碍使其辨认或者控制自己行为的能力丧失或减弱,而是具有完备的责任能力。因而不能对其行为不负刑事责任,也不能对其行为负减轻的刑事责任,而应在原则上令行为人对其危害行为依法负完全的刑事责任。Kesaer (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Kesaer, my Chinese reading ability is pretty rudimentary but I appreciate you providing the relevant portion for everybody. If that is what it says (and I'm not accusing you of lying, just admitting that I can't verify it), I still have issues with the way the paragraph is composed. First, a textbook is useful but it is not authorative. The paragraph states that "bipolar disorder cannot be used as a defense". At best this statement should be qualified, especially since somebody as eminent as Prof. Cohen reaches a differing conclusion on whether Shaikh's mental state might have exculpated him or mitigated his punishment. Second if bipolar disorder is not mentioned specifically in the textbook, we still face the synthesis problem I mentioned above. Third I know there is that NY Sun article saying that bipolar disorder doesn't affect cognition, but there is also research showing that bipolar disorder could affect cognitive abilities (see http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469460). In sum, this portion still seems to be interpreting both what kind of a disease bipolar disorder is and how Chinese law would treat it to arrive at independent conclusions. Spinner145 (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. A textbook might not be "authorative", but at the very least is a RS. Bipolar disorder is specifically and explicitly mentioned in (6) of the text above - I'm a native speaker of Chinese. :P Blodance (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, however, I don't know much about law... it literally translates as " 'light' manic depressive disorder ". I don't know how "light" and "severe" is defined here. But it does mention "Their mental illness does not affect or deprive them of their ability to recognize and/or control their behavior, thus they should be fully responsible to their behavior."Blodance (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- A Guardian article states that "Philip Alston, a UN special rapporteur, told Radio 4's Today programme that the refusal to allow doctors to assess Shaikh's mental health was "clearly in violation not only of Chinese law but also international law", which would contradict the paragraph above. Laurent (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm now sure "bipolar disorder cannot be used as a defense" is untrue.I've found a previous case where the defendant is acquitted due to her bipolar disorder. A link is here[1](Chinese). However, it must be noted, that the defendant in the case mentioned above was a waitress who killed an official and badly wounded another who tried to rape(or at least, sexually assualt) her, so the public was largely(if not exclusively) sympathic to her. But in this case, most, if not all, people calls for the execution of Akmal Shaikh. Also, it's true that "light" bipolar disorder cannot be used. So I think maybe the issue is about public opinion, rather than bipolar disorder itself. Blodance (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)- Um, after looking into it further, there was two claims: a) the bipolar disorder involved in her case did help in reducing her sentence(so that in the end she was acquitted) b) the bipolar disorder serves absolutely no purpose other than an excuse for the court to acquit her while avoiding to admit the killed/wounded officials' indecent behavior, thus preventing a major embarrassment to the govt. The first claim is usually made by official reports/major media reports, and the second is mostly made by independent parties([2](Chinese) for example, it looks like a blog though). Given that even the local police's report was reworded to make it look less than a sexual assualt incident, I think I have some good reason to believe the reports making the first claim is heavily biased. Maybe it's better for you to decide yourselves which to believe. Btw, the Chinese paragraph above looks like an essay. In my opinion, bipolar disorder only helps in defense when the behavior of defendant in question explicitly shows the characteristics of bipolar disorder - for example, people in a manic state tend to be aggressive, so in the case above the defendant could be acquitted. In Shaikh's case, maybe the court simply judged that his behavior was irrelevant to bipolar disorder whatsoever. Of course, this is original research. Maybe a law expert could help?Blodance (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Another case here:[3](Chinese), a govt worker accused of corruption had his sentence reduced due to his bipolar disorder. It would seem to me that only the "manic"(bipolar disorder is also called "manic depressive disorder") part of bipolar disorder would help.Blodance (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Blodance (and thanks for helping with us non-native Chinese speakers out!) I think then this paragraph that "bipolar disorder cannot be used as a defense" is clearly not merited, as Deng Yujiao's case shows. I agree that there were political overtones in Deng's case, as there were in Shaikh's case, but stating that bipolar disorder cannot be a criminal defense is clearly unsupportable. Actually I'm somewhat familiar with Deng's case as well, as it got a lot of press in HK, too, here's a link to some English language sources--the translated portion from Caijing mentions bipolar disorder http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2009/06/deng-yujiao-convicted-of-intentional-harm-not-guilty-of-murder-charges/). I think a balanced approach would be to mention Prof. Cohens' and Phlipp Alston's position but also mention that the textbook says that 'light' bipolar disorder would not be considered a defense. (Of course we can't know if Shaikh suffered from 'manic bipolar disorder' as the court decided not to do a psychiatric evaluation.) The first sentence of that paragraph should go as the sources cited don't mention this case or bipolar disorder in the context of Chinese law, and they are trying to draw a conclusion that violates Wikipedia:OR and that also is, according to the sources you've provided, incorrect.Spinner145 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I fully agree removing the statements that indicates bipolar disorder cannot be used as a defense. After spending 1hr on looking for relevant sources, I conclude that this is incorrect. Maybe a law expert would clarify this, but for now, let's just get rid of it. :P Blodance (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help on this Blodance. We can reinstate this later if somebody can find a good source saying that bipolar disorder, even if proven, could not have been a defense for Shaikh.Spinner145 (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I fully agree removing the statements that indicates bipolar disorder cannot be used as a defense. After spending 1hr on looking for relevant sources, I conclude that this is incorrect. Maybe a law expert would clarify this, but for now, let's just get rid of it. :P Blodance (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Blodance (and thanks for helping with us non-native Chinese speakers out!) I think then this paragraph that "bipolar disorder cannot be used as a defense" is clearly not merited, as Deng Yujiao's case shows. I agree that there were political overtones in Deng's case, as there were in Shaikh's case, but stating that bipolar disorder cannot be a criminal defense is clearly unsupportable. Actually I'm somewhat familiar with Deng's case as well, as it got a lot of press in HK, too, here's a link to some English language sources--the translated portion from Caijing mentions bipolar disorder http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2009/06/deng-yujiao-convicted-of-intentional-harm-not-guilty-of-murder-charges/). I think a balanced approach would be to mention Prof. Cohens' and Phlipp Alston's position but also mention that the textbook says that 'light' bipolar disorder would not be considered a defense. (Of course we can't know if Shaikh suffered from 'manic bipolar disorder' as the court decided not to do a psychiatric evaluation.) The first sentence of that paragraph should go as the sources cited don't mention this case or bipolar disorder in the context of Chinese law, and they are trying to draw a conclusion that violates Wikipedia:OR and that also is, according to the sources you've provided, incorrect.Spinner145 (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- A Guardian article states that "Philip Alston, a UN special rapporteur, told Radio 4's Today programme that the refusal to allow doctors to assess Shaikh's mental health was "clearly in violation not only of Chinese law but also international law", which would contradict the paragraph above. Laurent (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, however, I don't know much about law... it literally translates as " 'light' manic depressive disorder ". I don't know how "light" and "severe" is defined here. But it does mention "Their mental illness does not affect or deprive them of their ability to recognize and/or control their behavior, thus they should be fully responsible to their behavior."Blodance (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. A textbook might not be "authorative", but at the very least is a RS. Bipolar disorder is specifically and explicitly mentioned in (6) of the text above - I'm a native speaker of Chinese. :P Blodance (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Kesaer, my Chinese reading ability is pretty rudimentary but I appreciate you providing the relevant portion for everybody. If that is what it says (and I'm not accusing you of lying, just admitting that I can't verify it), I still have issues with the way the paragraph is composed. First, a textbook is useful but it is not authorative. The paragraph states that "bipolar disorder cannot be used as a defense". At best this statement should be qualified, especially since somebody as eminent as Prof. Cohen reaches a differing conclusion on whether Shaikh's mental state might have exculpated him or mitigated his punishment. Second if bipolar disorder is not mentioned specifically in the textbook, we still face the synthesis problem I mentioned above. Third I know there is that NY Sun article saying that bipolar disorder doesn't affect cognition, but there is also research showing that bipolar disorder could affect cognitive abilities (see http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469460). In sum, this portion still seems to be interpreting both what kind of a disease bipolar disorder is and how Chinese law would treat it to arrive at independent conclusions. Spinner145 (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Here's the text: 2.大多数非精神病性精神障碍人。按照我国司法精神病学,非精神病性精神障碍的主要种类有：(1)各种类型的神经官能症,包括癔症,神经衰弱,焦虑症,疑病症,强迫症,恐怖症,神经症性抑郁,人体解体性神经症等 (2)各种人格障碍式变态人格(包括器质性人格障碍);(3)性变态,包括同性恋,露阴癖,窥淫癖,恋物癖,恋童癖,性虐待癖等;(4)情绪反应(未达到精神病程度的反应性精神障碍);(5)未达到精神病程度的成瘾药物中毒与戒断反应;(6)轻躁狂与轻性抑郁症;(7)生理性醉酒与单纯慢性酒精中毒;(8) 脑震荡后遗症、癫痫性心境恶劣以及其他未达到精神病程度的精神疾患;(9)轻微精神发育不全等等。非精神病性精神障碍人,大多数并不因精神障碍使其辨认或者控制自己行为的能力丧失或减弱,而是具有完备的责任能力。因而不能对其行为不负刑事责任,也不能对其行为负减轻的刑事责任,而应在原则上令行为人对其危害行为依法负完全的刑事责任。Kesaer (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note that the term 'bipolar disorder' is relatively new, it used to be called 'manic-depression' and still is in many articles. The Chinese criminal law was last amended in 1997, and it's likely that the mental health section was not updated since 1957. Therefore, the lack of specific reference to bipolar disorder (躁郁症) is natural and understandable. However, my main points are: 1) This is definitely a reliable source, it is an official legal textbook used in Chinese universities, and I believe it is much less susceptible to personal bias like those from professor Cohen (please read some of his past works, I smell a China-basher). 2) In reference to point (6) from the source, the severity of mental illness is usually determined by the judges based on his case, and knowing that Shaikh had no previous medical record (bipolar onsets at adolescence, Shaikh didn't get it diagnosed for 30-40 years, it probably means it's not severe) it is likely that the judges did deem his case 'light mania and depression'. 3) Note article (1) from the passage, it refers to all neurotic disorders (神经官能症) which includes bipolar disorder, the list of diseases in point (1) are just examples, note the etc.(等) at the end of the sentence. 4) article (4) mentions mood reactions (情绪反应) which bipolar disorder definitely induces. Therefore I propose that this paragraph be put back base on overwhelming reliable proof from the Chinese criminal code. Besides, I don't think the opinion of a single suspected China-bashing 'legal expert' could be used as the sole reason to disregard clear passages from the Chinese criminal code. And Deng Yujiao's case is quite irrelevant to Shaikh's, she was given diminished sentence not because of her mental state, but because she turned herself in to the police, as well as technicality mistakes made by the police.Kesaer (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
This is in response to Kesaer's post above. First, your ad hominem against one of the top experts in Chinese law notwithstanding, Prof. Cohen is not the only person saying that Chinese courts disregarded their own laws here. Check out the link Laurent provided where two other experts reach the same conclusion. Are they all (and anybody else who disagrees with the decision here) just 'China-bashers' whose opinions can therefore summarily be dismissed? While I agree that a textbook is a reliable source, editors' opinions on how a passage of text might be applied to a given case do not carry the same weight as the published opinions of acknowledged experts' commenting directly on that case. Second, the fact is that we don't know how severe his condition was because requests to conduct an evaluation were denied, and we don't know the reason requests to conduct an examination were declined because no explanation was proffered. Your speculation may or may not be correct, but it is for now only speculation. Wikipedia:OR Your interepretation of that textbook notwithstanding, Deng's case completely undermines your hypothesis that bipolar disorders could not be taken into account. As Caijing notes in the link I provided:
- 'But her “mood disorder” limited her criminal responsibility, Caijing said, citing the court decision...Meanwhile, a report from two evaluating authorities from Hubei Province regarding Deng Yujiao’s mental illness has also come out, with the following conclusion: “Deng Yujiao may have a mood disorder (bipolar), which may have a (limited) contribution to criminal responsibility.”'
At least according to the (Chinese) court in Deng's case, a bipolar disorder can limit criminal responsibility in China. I see no reason to reinstate this paragraph.Spinner145 (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also, other outlets report this same fact. For instnace the Times online reports that "The court found Ms Deng guilty of causing injury with intent but freed her without a sentence on the grounds that a “mood disorder” absolved her of criminal responsibility." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6513750.ece Clearly bipolar disorder was a suitable defense for Ms. Deng, an internet hero in China, but was not worthy of consideration for Mr. Shaikh, a drug smuggler and a foreigner.Spinner145 (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- First of all, Deng Yujiao's case: she received diminished sentencing (for bipolar plus turning herself in plus technicalities) but it is different from insanity defense. She is still guilty whereas a insanity defense would render the suspect not guilty. Whereas I acknowledge (and apologize for) my previous misinformation about bipolar being illegible for diminished responsibility, it still cannot be used as an insanity defense. I do think public opinion interfered with Deng's case but that is no excuse to disregard statements from Chinese legal codes. I believe her case is relevant and should not be used to imply anything in Shaikh's case, wouldn't that be original research?
- While I do respect prof. Cohen and his fellow colleagues' opinion, what I object is to dismiss points stated in Chinese laws base on his comments. I can easily find dozens of Chinese legal experts' opinion stating that Shaikh's case had been judged strictly in accordance to Chinese laws, which in my opinion is more reliable since prof. Cohen, being in the US, has access to much less evidence/material to judge this case than his Chinese counterparts. I don't believe in any so-called experts. I think wikipedia should present facts and only facts, not pre-made opinions, and let the readers form their own opinions on issues.
- Furthermore, the Chinese law also states that if the crime was committed by an individual suffering intermittent mental disorder (like bipolar) during the phase where his cognition was not impaired, criminal responsibility must be borne in full. Hence whether bipolar is eligible for reduced sentencing varies from case to case and is determined by the court base on evidences. In Deng's case her bipolar was taken into account because she was assaulted and probably affected her cognition. In Shaikh's case, the court judged that he was of sound mind when he committed the crime and therefore was not given reduced sentence. I think this explanation is necessary if you wanna mention Deng's case or make any conclusion about Chinese legal response to bipolar as not to mislead the readers into thinking that bipolar is always eligible for reduced sentencing.
- Moreover, Shaikh did not plea for reduced sentencing nor did he plea insanity. Therefore I think it is important to state the Chinese law regarding the issue about bipolar: insanity no, sentence reduction yes.
- Finally, on the necessity of this paragraph. I believe since the legal procedures by China in dealing with Shaikh's case had been the centre of debate, it is important to present relevant passages from the Chinese laws to the readers so that they can judge for themselves. The Chinese judges denied Shaikh his evaluation probably because of public opinion, but it is completely within his capacity as a judge to do so. It may be unfair but it is legal, and it is important to make this clear for the readers. Similarly, bipolar is eligible for diminished sentence, but not always (and never as insanity defense), and it depends on the judges' decision. Again, there's a gap between what seems fair and what is legal, and no legal experts should tell anyone what's the right thing to believe in.
- Whereas I strongly agree with the Chinese decision on Shaikh's execution, I do appreciate other opinions and a good debate, and reaching a middle ground that is acceptable to both side is probably the best result that one can get from online debates, so thank you Spinner145, the saying goes 真理越辩越清, and hope through our continuous argument we could produce a neutral, fact-filled article for the wiki community.Kesaer (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- More on Deng's case, according to article 18 of the Chinese criminal code,"(1)A mentally ill person who causes dangerous consequences at a time when he is unable to recognize or unable to control his own conduct is not to bear criminal responsibility after being established through accreditation of legal procedures;... (2)A person whose mental illness is of an intermittent nature shall bear criminal responsibility if he commits a crime during a period of mental normality. (3)A mentally ill person who commits a crime at a time when he has not yet completely lost his ability to recognize or control his own conduct shall bear criminal responsibility but he may be given a lesser or a mitigated punishment."
- This is the difference between insanity defense and reduced sentence. using Deng Yujiao as a precedence, although suffering from bipolar disorder, she was categorized into type (3), as guilty and fully responsible but with sentence reduction.(from Caijing) Which implies that bipolar is only an excuse for sentence reduction, not to remove legal responsibility. So I'd like to apologize for my mistake earlier, the fact should be: if Shaikh has proven his bipolar disorder, he would still have to bear full criminal responsibility, but could be given a sentence reduction at the judge's discretion.
- As for professor Cohen, there are voices from Chinese academic 'experts' criticizing his support for Uighur-independence and anti-China stances (please check if you are interested, google 孔杰荣), it is difficult for me to believe critical comments about China coming from someone like him. Kesaer (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Kesaer, likewise thanks to you for a good debate on this topic. :) I agree that "more debate makes the truth clearer" (I can read a little Chinese, haha).
- As for professor Cohen, there are voices from Chinese academic 'experts' criticizing his support for Uighur-independence and anti-China stances (please check if you are interested, google 孔杰荣), it is difficult for me to believe critical comments about China coming from someone like him. Kesaer (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding Prof. Cohen, I have actually read a number of his articles and have terrific respect for him as a scholar. I've also studied under some of his proteges, including many Mainlanders, who share a similar respect for his work. Disagreeing with some of the policies of China's leadership doesn't make him "anti-China" (whatever that means) and controversial positions don't mean his analysis was flawed. You may not like some of his opinions but he is one of the most respected voices in his field.
- I think that the heart of the issue is that bipolar disorder CAN be a consideration in criminal cases, and some people feel that the court didn't allow a proper investigation into whether it did in fact influence his behavior. The deleted paragraph previously made it sound like Shaikh's condition would never have influenced the outcome of his case. So I'm not sure where that leaves us. I feel like the current paragraph presents both points of view in a fairly neutral tone, but if you have some specific suggestions, I'm happ;y to hear them. :)
- (And since you shared your opinion, I'll share mine. I have no idea whether Shaikh's mental state could have exculpated him, but I deplore the death penalty and I think that, if you're about to take somebody's life, you should give them every possible opportunity to defend themselves. Not that my opinion is worth anything, haha.) 08:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinner145 (talk • contribs)
- (edit conflict)Hmm... Interesting comment, thanks. I'd like to comment that actually, it would be unlikely for Shaikh to receive a reduced sentence in this particular case - considering the public opinion, and the fact he carried 4kg heroin, while 50g is enough for a death penalty. If he cannot plead not guilty based on his mental condition, he would almost certainly face his execution. Additionally, I've never heard of defendants being asked for a previous medical record to initiate an examination of his/her mental condition - it is de jure true, but I don't know it being de facto enforced in any case. Considering that no one succeeded in pleading not guilty based solely on bipolar disorder(none found), maybe the court simply decided to bypass the mental assessment to avoid lengthy judicial process? So that, although not due legal process, it nevertheless would not have changed the outcome. Blodance (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hey Blodance, I agree with you pretty much there. I think that the court (or maybe people who had influence over the court) concluded public opinion in China was so overwhelmingly against Shaikh that his sentence had to be carried out. So with his fate already sealed, they had nothing to gain by conducting a mental evaluation. I also have some doubt over whether his mental state really could have or should have exculpated him, but just letting the opinions of a bunch of angry internet users be the thing that sealed his death is pretty depressing. (btw, this is all Spinner145's opinion, which I admit is not worth much.) Spinner145 (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Hmm... Interesting comment, thanks. I'd like to comment that actually, it would be unlikely for Shaikh to receive a reduced sentence in this particular case - considering the public opinion, and the fact he carried 4kg heroin, while 50g is enough for a death penalty. If he cannot plead not guilty based on his mental condition, he would almost certainly face his execution. Additionally, I've never heard of defendants being asked for a previous medical record to initiate an examination of his/her mental condition - it is de jure true, but I don't know it being de facto enforced in any case. Considering that no one succeeded in pleading not guilty based solely on bipolar disorder(none found), maybe the court simply decided to bypass the mental assessment to avoid lengthy judicial process? So that, although not due legal process, it nevertheless would not have changed the outcome. Blodance (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hey all, so I just reinstated that paragraph with some changes in the wording to reflect what was discussed here, please feel free to make changes where you see fit.Kesaer (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know, bipolar disorder can only be used in pleading guilty, to reduce sentence, not clearing the defendant of his responsibility.
- (In Blodance's opinion, his fate is sealed by the British govt: when they put this issue as a "human right issue" forward, I don't believe they didn't know the consequences. Given the bitter history of Opium War, it would more than certainly provoke a public outcry in China, calling for his execution. And a nation that recently suffered a major catastrophe and two major riots in Tibet and Xinjiang is, of course, in desperate need of restoring public confidence. At this critical moment, the PRC govt won't take the risk of another massive public dissatisfaction. Nor the British govt would. Nor any govt in the whole world would(Check WW2). Seriously, just think about it... A judicial case was closed in a political way. Sad and distasteful fact, but fact nevertheless.) Blodance (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is very true, Blodance, as in Deng Yujiao's case, although her sentence was mitigated (actually no punishment at all) because a) she's a diagnosed bipolar disorder patient, b) she turned herself in and c) her crime was manslaughter in excessive self-defense, which is also eligible for sentence reduction - she still bore the full criminal responsibility and was judged guilty, she just didn't receive any punishment because it was mitigated thrice. In any case, bipolar disorder patients would be guilty of the crime and bear full legal responsibility, just that they have a small chance of reduction of sentence - depend on how good their lawyers are and the mood of the judge :D Kesaer (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I propose to move opinions by individuals not involved in the case to 'response to execution' section. First of all, Prof. Cohen and Philip Alston's opinions are in fact reactions to the execution, and Alston already have a quote in that section, so it'll be better to move all personal opinions and reactions to the namesake section. Mental health issue section should be reserved for legal facts and events during the trial related to mental health sections, aka facts. Moreover, sprinkling opinions of 'experts' all over the article is in my opinion misleading, all opinions should be grouped together and presented simultaneously to maintain neutrality in organization. Kesaer (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I oppose this change as it would make the section non-neutral, a bit similar to a criticism section, where all opinions other than the PRC's one are moved somewhere else. We need to document the position of the PRC but we also definitely need to know what neutral experts think. Laurent (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- This section should contain no personal opinion, only records official proceedings. In addition to Chinese Criminal Laws and textbooks (which are facts, not opinions), various western sources (guardian and Prof. Cohen's article, etc.) that recorded factual events related to mental issues and does not involve personal opinions are preserved. Xinhua News sources are preserved because it is the government's official media and therefore represents the court's view (thus non-personal) on this issue. Besides these, all personal opinions should be moved to appropriate sections. Moreover, Laurent calls Xinhua News propaganda, but I could just as easily claim Philip Alston to be a mudslinging China-basher and find a dozen articles from Chinese academia/news to support my claim and prove that the Chinese court did not bend the law on Shaikh's case. This would just turn into an edit war. Therefore, I reiterate the importance of removing all personal/expert opinions from this section and moving them to the response section. This section should be reserved for facts and facts alone. Kesaer (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- And I'd like to ask Laurent, how could you make a section non-neutral by removing personal opinions? As far as I know, facts are always neutral and opinions are always biased. The China's laws and the judge's decisions are facts, and what so-called neutral experts think about these laws and decisions are opinions. Facts are to stay here, opinions are to go to the opinion section where they truly belong. Simple as that. Kesaer (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think a SPA with a clear pro-PRC bias should be deciding the scope of the article or sections. I don't have time to go through the article but it's clearly becoming more and more biased. It's a well known fact that the PRC doesn't respect its own laws and I'm suprised that every mention of it is removed or discredited as "opinions by so called experts". Laurent (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- And I'd like to ask Laurent, how could you make a section non-neutral by removing personal opinions? As far as I know, facts are always neutral and opinions are always biased. The China's laws and the judge's decisions are facts, and what so-called neutral experts think about these laws and decisions are opinions. Facts are to stay here, opinions are to go to the opinion section where they truly belong. Simple as that. Kesaer (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- are you listening to urself Laurent? "it is a well-known fact that PRC doesn't respect its own laws" you seems to be the one with the anti-PRC bias here. "I don't have time to go through the article but it's clearly becoming more and more biased." How ridiculous is that statement? who are you to judge whether this article, with contributions from so many authors, is bias or not when you don't even have the courtesy of going through it before passing judgment? Moreover, these expert opinions are not removed or discredited , they are just moved to another more appropriate section. There are many Chinese expert opinions defending the Chinese judgment and at least I have the decency of putting them in the 'opinion' section. If you insist on merging them then this section will turn into a debate forum where contradicting expert opinions clash, is that what you wanna see here? a bloody mess of an article? And I cannot emphasize enough that all content of this section at this very moment appears to me at least to be facts presented by both sides. Please look closely at the sources, there are British, American as well as Chinese references supporting these facts. And don't call me a SPA or comment on my political alignment, you don't know Shiite about me. Kesaer (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Even if he was bipolar, how could it be considered an explanation or mitigating factor in this case; smuggling 4kg of heroin? Is the claim from his supporters that his bipolar disorder meant he didn't know the drugs were there, or that he didn't know it was a serious crime to smuggle them? Having a mood disorder does not mean the sufferer cannot feel that much weight in a suitcase, nor affect their knowledge / perception of right and wrong. Where is the (perceived) connection between drug smuggling and bipolar disorder? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The whole "Issues of mental health" section is getting increasingly biased. Kasear, while I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, you are now rearranging the article, moving opinions and reintroducing your own interpretations of Chinese law as fact. The headline for the section "Issues of mental health" has, as a result of your editing, been purged of everything but the official party line coming from Xinhua and the CCP. This is entirely inappropriate; the very title of the section, by mentioning "issues" implies a controversy, and by determinedly removing all opinions that conflict with the official CCP position, you are making this section increasing POV.
I don't understand how you can insist that your own interpretations of the Chinese criminal code deserve mention here but that the opinions of an acknowledged expert (even if you don't like some of his opinions) get moved to 'international reaction'. Just because Cohen and Alston aren't PRC nationals does not invalidate their analyses--their credentials are beyond reproach. Furthermore, their comments are directly on point for a section talking about the courts' decision not to conduct a pshyciatric evaluation of Shaikh (which is what "Issues of mental health" addresses) and properly belong there.
I have made every effort to develop consensus before makng major edits as this is a controversial topic. Please do the same. I am reverting this section to the last agreed-upon form and putting Cohen's and Alston's analyses back where they belong. Please seek consensus here before once again rearranging this portion to remove opinions you don't like.Spinner145 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Chill, dudes. I'd concur Spinner145 - this section does need some balancing statement. User:WikiLaurent, if you don't even have time to go thru the article, please stop making ridiculous comments on things you don't even know. Blodance (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm getting testy Blodance ; I spent hours yesterday trying to reach a consensus on this section and woke up this morning to see that it had been rearranged to read like it came straight from the pages of China Daily despite the discussions on the talk page. I will try to tone down my language though. Anwyay, in the spirit trying to gain consensus, I think that the statement "refusal to allow doctors to assess Shaikh's mental health was 'clearly in violation not only of Chinese law but also international law'." from Philip Alston more properly belongs in the section "Issues of mental health", as this is where we are discussing the court's decision not to conduct a psychiatric evaluation. Cheers. Spinner145 (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Would a compromise solve the problem? That is, moving the Xinhua press release and the expert views into a sub-subsection under the subsection "Issues of mental health". Blodance (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Blodance, I'm generally OK with that proposal. (See also my suggestion above regarding Alston's comments.) Perhaps the first subsection should be title "Courts refuse to conduct psychiatric evaluation" (which I think is really what the section deals with), while the sub-subsection could be titled "Reaction to court's decision". What do people think?Spinner145 (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Would a compromise solve the problem? That is, moving the Xinhua press release and the expert views into a sub-subsection under the subsection "Issues of mental health". Blodance (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, sorry for changing the content without a general consensus, it won't happen again. First of all, I'm not trying to push my own ideas here: it is a FACT that bipolar only deserves consideration of sentence reduction, it is a FACT that those articles are mentioned in the PRC laws used to incriminate Shaikh, it is a FACT that the court initially agreed to do the evaluation (as prof. Cohen's source had suggested) and later refused the request for the reasons Xinhua news stated and it is a FACT that he had anecdotal proves of bipolar disorder but no official diagnosis - so why are these biased? I insist on my believe that facts cannot be biased (wordings maybe, but that's what we are working on to fix), while personal opinions, such as prof. Cohen's or Philip Alston's, no matter how fair and neutral they may seem to you, can never be as 100% free from bias to everyone, and therefore should not be sprinkled here and there to mix in with facts, risking damaging the neutrality of this section.
- Secondly, the sources used in this section is by no means biased: It contains 2 references to Chinese legal texts which is utterly neutral (with all due respect, if you think making reference to legal texts and textbooks in an article about a trial is introducing bias, I see no way of reaching a consensus with you), 1 reference each from China Daily and Xinhua news, which are facts presented by the Chinese side and 1 reference each from Guardian and Prof. Cohen, balancing the Chinese sources with their side of the facts. No information extracted from these sources have personal opinions - just facts, from both sides, about how the trials went and court decisions. I insist on keeping it this way and addition of new facts, from both sides, are always welcomed, just no personal opinions.
- Thirdly, as you can see in the response section, there are Chinese legal expert opinions (as well as British political journalists) defending the integrity and legitimacy of the trial. If you insist on keeping Prof. Cohen and Alston's opinion that the trial was not fair in this section, it can only be fair to include equally valid opinions from the other side in the same section. And what will that leave us? Turning this section into an arena for experts opinions is not what I want to see. Therefore, I propose again to move all opinions to another section, new or existing, and leave the facts here in this one.
- As for Blodance's suggestion, I partially agree. I like the idea of creating a new section or subsection under "reactions" to put all expert opinions in and let them battle it out, but since much of existing opinions in the reactions section are actually related to the trial, it will be easier to just merge them, perhaps renaming "reactions to execution" to "reactions to trial and execution". But I disagree with moving Xinhua news out. Since Xinhua is China's official media, its stance represents the government/court stance on the issue and as THE most important party in this trial, their side of the story must be included. Who can present the court's decision and motive better than themselves? As a compromise, Xinhua as a source had already been explicitly mentioned in the article, letting readers know that this is the Chinese side of the story, I think that is sufficient.
- Once again, debate is good, and all opinions are welcomed - just that mine is the only correct one, lol, take it easy Kesaer (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Kasear, I think we need to be systematic about our approach here, as this is turning into a bit of a rambling and unmanageable debate. You and I have both stated our opinions ad nauseam, and I propose that we both step back and let other editors weigh in on the proper approach. Below are the issues on which I see disagreement on this section, would other editors please let us know their opinions?
- 1) Does the following paragraph belong? "Under Chinese law, suspects suffering from bipolar disorder are considered under the category of "...mentally ill person who commits a crime at a time when he has not yet completely lost his ability to recognize or control his own conduct" and, in accordance to article 18 of Chinese Criminal Law, shall bear full criminal responsibility but may be given a lesser or a mitigated punishment, at the judge's discretion."
- 2) Do the conclusions of Prof. Cohen, Philip Alston, and the two Chinese professors belong in this section?
- 3) Do editors feel that the section, as currently composed, is unfairly biased to a particular POV?
- 4) Should the section be sub-divided to create a sub-subsection dealing with third-party analyses of the court's decisions in this case?
- I propose that both Kasear and I both step back and allow other editors to weigh in on these issues before either of us make any further edits to this section. Agreed? Spinner145 (talk) 05:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think there's another one.
- Question: Does "Public reaction" include law experts discussing judicial issues regarding the court's decision on this incident?
- I'll say not exactly, therefore I oppose moving the experts' opinions into the public reaction section. I'm still with the idea that a new sub-subsection be created so that we can seperate the fact and opinions, but not neccessarily moving the opinions into another section.Blodance (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think there's another one.
- Agreed, I shall take a step back as well, but I think this section is getting too long, no one new will have the patience or initiative to read through all the debates to understand the bases of this whole argument. Let's wait for some time and if there are no worthy suggestions, we can continue our discussions in a more systematic approach. BTW, my answers to the four points you mentioned are 1-yes 2-no 3-neutral but lacks facts 4-a difficult yes. For arguments please refer to my previous rambling. Cheers, Kesaer (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, ohconfucius really made some big changes there, but he cited the wrong article in the law, as per discussion above. Should we bring him into this discussion before he make more changes to the section? Kesaer (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't noticed any source mentioning what his plea was. My reading is that he pleaded 'not guilty', and not 'guilty but with diminished responsibility'. This may be what denied him the psych evaluation, but I'm only speculating here. The Deng Yujiao incident, and the subsequent trial, were highly politicised; this one is too as it involves a foreign national and the death penalty. I believe the problem may be that the Chinese legal system is completely intertwined with the political apparatus, thus unlike anything known in the west. Judgements, and how they are arrived at are frequently opaque, and it appears that few conclusions can be drawn from precedent - remember that China is not based on case law. I will comment once again once I have spent more time looking at that part of the article's sources and re-reading the discussion above. BTW, I'm done with the radical changes for now. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, on the Deng case - I understand that she pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but sought mitigation due to diminished responsibility. In the west, the classic response would have been 'self defence', and chances are shw would have won in the western system. Anyone who has gone through the ordeal she had would probably suffer mood swings for quite some months, even with counselling and therapy. Bi-polar? Just convenient, IMHO. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- That was my point - maybe insanity defense requires prior evidence, diminished capacity does not. Considering he "denies all knowledge" of the heroin, I think it's quite safe to assume he pleaded not guilty.
- Deng pleaded guilty to "manslaughter by excessive self-defense", although I'm astonished at the fact that a girl stabbing two men who tried(violence/physical contact has already taken place) to rape her is called "excessive", the situation is attributed to "self-defense" nonetheless. They are prolly not that dependent on political situation - or Deng would likely have been found not guilty. Blodance (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I put back Philip Alston comment (for the fourth time). As an international law expert and human rights practitioner, his opinion is completely relevant to the section so please don't remove it again. Laurent (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- His comment is relevant to this article - the reason he is mentioned in the Clemency Campaign section - but not nessecarily here. Brief mentions of experts' opinion are enough for this section, and I think there's nothing unbalanced if we include one on each side. Why insist inserting Alston's comment here? It really should go to the Clemency Campaign section. I'm not making this edit now, rather than that, I prefer forming a clear consensus before doing edits when contested. Blodance (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- This was a judicial execution, and quite how the United Nations' special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions' opinion on this matter is relevant, I have problems understanding. In any event, I have a feeling that he's being overcited – 4 times at various points in the article, when the only one which should really matter is his official (ie UN) capacity view. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- and I must object to the insistence on reinserting this "for the fourth time", as if that belligerence somehow justifies it. All it means is that yo risk falling foul of WP:3RR – and you can take this as an official warning before you get reported to AN3.
Saying something many times, or SHOUTING LOUDLY doesn't make you right either.It's not very civil; you don't own the article, either. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)- Ohconfucius, what are you talking about? Beyond resinserting this statement, which I reckon I should have discussed here first, I didn't shout anywhere nor used uppercase, and how could I own the article when I barely made any edits on it? Are you confusing me with another user? Laurent (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm on another computer, so I'm not logged in. Ownership does not necessarily correlate with the number of edits. What I meant was your insistence that something had to be included by reinserting it the fourth time. Sorry for the confusion, perhaps if it wasn't an assertion of ownership, it could still be considered making a point. I just wanted you to bring you back to the table, and refrain from edit warring, that was all. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ohconfucius, what are you talking about? Beyond resinserting this statement, which I reckon I should have discussed here first, I didn't shout anywhere nor used uppercase, and how could I own the article when I barely made any edits on it? Are you confusing me with another user? Laurent (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- His comment is relevant to this article - the reason he is mentioned in the Clemency Campaign section - but not nessecarily here. Brief mentions of experts' opinion are enough for this section, and I think there's nothing unbalanced if we include one on each side. Why insist inserting Alston's comment here? It really should go to the Clemency Campaign section. I'm not making this edit now, rather than that, I prefer forming a clear consensus before doing edits when contested. Blodance (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I put back Philip Alston comment (for the fourth time). As an international law expert and human rights practitioner, his opinion is completely relevant to the section so please don't remove it again. Laurent (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi all, I'm not here to comment about the section, just to clarify Deng's case cuz I did some background research earlier. Her lawyers pleaded NOT guilty on basis of legitimate self defense (which means no punishment, no criminal responsibility), but the court ruled her guilty but due to excessive self defense (full criminal responsibility, possibility of mitigated sentence). Considering she turned her self in to the police (full criminal responsibility, possibility of mitigated sentence) and she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder,(the disputed paragraph:"...mentally ill person who commits a crime at a time when he has not yet completely lost his ability to recognize or control his own conduct" was cited in her final judgment, and again, full criminal responsibility, possibility of mitigated sentence) she ended up guilty (of violent attack and manslaughter), bearing full criminal responsibility, but her punishment was mitigated thrice to zero. I'm really glad to see new ideas been put into the discussion, keep up the good work guys! Kesaer (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- The section is getting much better now. The only issue in my opinion is its title which restricts the content in a non-neutral way (since it allows including only those POV that question the validity of Shaikh's defense). Also the use of a question mark is not very encyclopedic and remind me of sensationalistic headlines. I would suggest perhaps to rename it to something like "Legality of the execution" since that's really what the section is about. It would then allow integrating both the PRC's POV and the alternative ones, and give each of them an equal weight. What do you think? Laurent (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I have no objection to changing the title. I put it there as a stopgap when I moved the subsection. An alternative would be to remove the heading altogether. I'm open to discussion. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- The section is getting much better now. The only issue in my opinion is its title which restricts the content in a non-neutral way (since it allows including only those POV that question the validity of Shaikh's defense). Also the use of a question mark is not very encyclopedic and remind me of sensationalistic headlines. I would suggest perhaps to rename it to something like "Legality of the execution" since that's really what the section is about. It would then allow integrating both the PRC's POV and the alternative ones, and give each of them an equal weight. What do you think? Laurent (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi all, just 2 comments about the section's current content,
- A) I feel the first sentence of paragraph 2, "The law of the People's Republic of China 'exempts from criminal responsibility someone unable to recognize or control his misconduct.'" is misinformation since as clearly stated in other sources (non-Xinhua but Chinese news, and Chinese legal textbooks) that bipolar disorder belongs to a different category of mental illnesses under Chinese laws. Although factual, citing this more or less irrelevant passage from the criminal law in this section IMHO tend to mislead the readers into thinking that bipolar disorder is eligible for criminal responsibility exemption, whereas in reality, it is only eligible for mitigated sentence. If a reference must be made (and I think it is necessary) to relevant Chinese laws, I propose to reinstate the controversial paragraph removed earlier, "Under Chinese law, suspects suffering from bipolar disorder are considered under the category of "...mentally ill person who commits a crime at a time when he has not yet completely lost his ability to recognize or control his own conduct" and, in accordance to article 18 of Chinese Criminal Law, shall bear full criminal responsibility but may be given a lesser or a mitigated punishment, at the judge's discretion." with suitable changes in wording if necessary. I believe this is less misleading and more informative than the current sentence.
- B) As for the order of the expert opinions, I think it'll be better to move prof. Cohen's opinion before those of his Chinese counterparts since he is the one that raises the question on the legitimacy of the sentence first, while the Chinese experts are defending court decisions against his accusation. A change of order is both more logical and easier for readers to follow.
- Please tell me what do you think Kesaer (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary sub-section break
Thanks to everybody for the comments and their work on the section, I think it has improved. I've stayed on the sidelines for the last 24 hours, so I wanted to come back in and comment on a couple of points that have been raise since then. I agree the section is getting much better also, thanks to everybody who's been working on it.
- First, in response to the conversation between Laurent and Ohconfucius on Alston's comments, Alston is the rapporteur on "extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions". I think his opinion is relevant because he is commenting that the failure to conduct a psychiatric evaluation made this an arbitrary execution--a judicial execution can still be an arbitrary one. Secondly, I understand your concern about overciting, but I think that he is the person who has commented most directly on the point we are discussing here when he said "Consistent efforts to persuade the Chinese courts to obtain expert medical evidence on this were rejected and that is clearly in violation not only of Chinese law but also international law. Chinese law provides very clearly that one can plead the equivalent of insanity, both as a defence and as something that should be taken into account in mitigating the sentence." http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Gordon-Brown39s-anger-as-Chinese.5944640.jp I actually feel like his opinion is more on point that Prof. Cohen's, and is an appropriate balance to the opinions of the two Chinese professors who are quoted.
- Second, I'm indifferent to Kasear's proposal to move switch the order of the opinions of the cited legal experts so long as both sides are fairly represented.
- Third, still opposed to reintroducing the paragraph Kasear propose (I don't think anybody is surprised). But I do agree that the lead paragraph maybe is a bit prejudicial. I think he has stated a good case that bipolar disorder may be a mitigating factor although probably not exculpatory. I think a more concise way to state the situation may be to say that "in China bipolar disorder can mitigate criminal responsibility." I don't think we should over-analyze it.
- Fourth, I propose to rework the following sentence to read "Shaikh did not claim to be suffering from mental disorder or attempt to plea for insanity defence throughout the trials and although he had never been diagnosed of mental disorder by a psychiatrist before the arrest, Peter Schaapveld, a London-based consultant clinical and forensic psychologist, said that from accounts of Shaikh's behavior he deduced with "99 per cent certainty" that Shaikh was suffering from a mental disorder, possibly bipolar or schizophrenia."http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/Gordon-Brown39s-anger-as-Chinese.5944640.jp
Please let me know what you think. Spinner145 (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- My problem is Philip Alston's statement is already described in the
Clemency CampaignExecution section. Is he really so important that he has to be repeated twice? Blodance (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)- Honestly I don't think that two citations of him is Undue Weight. He holds a fairly important position, but more importantly he's stating a significant viewpoint and is (in my opinion) the person who has most directly addressed the issues raised in that paragraph. Spinner145 (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- My problem is Philip Alston's statement is already described in the
- Glad to hear from spinner again. I agree that Alston's opinion is relevant and should be included in the section to maintain neutrality (so long as it is not redundant and over-cited in other parts of the article), but we should make it more concise (no over-elaboration on details of alleged violation, Prof. Cohen had already made the point). As for the citing of Chinese law, I do agree that the disputed paragraph is too wordy and a bit over-analyzed, but 2 points must be included no matter how the wording change : 1)Bipolar is eligible for mitigated sentence 2) it is not eligible for criminal responsibility exemption. As for whether to quote passages and articles from the law book itself, I'm indifferent.
- As for Dr. Shaapveld, I oppose the inclusion of his opinion in this section. He may be a expert psychiatrist, but since he has no access to Shaikh for a full diagnosis, his opinion is no different from any other anecdotal proves that Shaikh is mentally ill. If his opinion must be cited, then why not the Chinese judge's insistence that Shaikh had demonstrated no signs of mental disorder? They are equally valid since Schaapveld has no access to Shaikh and the judge has no professional knowledge, and you need both for a reliable diagnosis.
- One more thing, if we were to include reprieve and Shaikh's family's claim that he 'appeared' to be mentally ill, should we include claims from his acquaintances that he was sane? I found in a daily mail article a statement from his former solicitor that he appeared sane as of 2003 - which contradicts his family's claim that he'd been crazy since 2001. And what about anecdotal evidences of his sanity presented in the same article? (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1238829/Akmal-Shaikh-Is-late-save-Briton-death-Chinese-firing-squad.html)
- And finally, on a point that is probably irrelevant now, I still insist that opinions be separated from facts, perhaps into a subsection. To me, neutrality is like a balanced tug-o-war, it can be achieved either by pulling equally hard on both sides (by presenting powerful opposing opinions from both sides) or by not pulling it at all (by presenting only facts and no opinions) and IMHO the latter is much easier to maintain and less vulnerable to disputes. It is still not too late to reorganize the section into: "Mental health issue during trial" and subsection "response to the trial (public and expert)".
- Great input of ideas everyone! Kesaer (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think we must be extremely careful when citing "armchair experts", especially the psychiatrists who may have made statements based on biased, misleading, false, or other information which cannot be substantiated. This is exactly the case with the psychiatrists brought in by the family/Reprieve which made me arrive at my evaluation in the 'rework' section below. What there is already in the article, to the effect that 'his family and reprieve claim to have evidence that he suffering from Bipolar disorder' is utterly sufficient,and must not be overegged. The legal experts are in a slightly different situation, and I feel may be cited, subject to the same proviso above. I am totally OK when it is to establish to points of law; we must try not to go directly to legal texts because they are primary sources, the fact that they are also all in Chinese, and the lack of any direct links between the law cited and the case itself - a triple problem from a WP perspective, if you will. Opinions from Chinese experts would be as relevant as foreign experts in Chinese law who may have different interpretations, and we should attempt to balance the 'the authorities were wrong' with 'the authorities were right' in terms of stature and number of arguments, provided these are all based narrowly on points of law. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ohconfucius, while I understand the concern about "armchair experts", the portion on his mental health says that Shaikh "had never been diagnosed of mental disorder by a psychiatrist before the arrest.[10]" Reference 10 is to the Guardian article, and the full paragraph reads "Though he has never been assessed by a psychiatrist, Foreign Office officials were eventually allowed to spend 15 minutes with Shaikh. From their description of Shaikh's behaviour, Dr Peter Schaapveld, a London-based consultant clinical and forensic psychologist, compiled a medical report in which he was able to deduce with "99% certainty" that he was suffering from a mental disorder that could either be bipolar or schizophrenia." First saying he had never been diagnosed is not the same as saying he'd never been assessed. Second, the overall tone of this passage is very different from how we've quoted it in the article and seems very much to have been cherry-picked.Spinner145 (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- True that some expert issued what is referred to as a "medical report", but he's still an armchair expert as far as this case is concerned, and his assessment only has the weight of a claim, because it's not scientific and still based on hearsay, via only in a short interview and not over a sustained period. Furthermore, the expert is totally partisan, as being bought and paid for by the defense (Reprieve?). Thus, there is sufficient 'distance' to render this only subjective and not an "expert's opinion". If all agree this belongs, we will need to find a way to include this without it beginning to appear as confirmation that this guy was indeed a few bricks short of a full load. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ohconfucius, while I understand the concern about "armchair experts", the portion on his mental health says that Shaikh "had never been diagnosed of mental disorder by a psychiatrist before the arrest.[10]" Reference 10 is to the Guardian article, and the full paragraph reads "Though he has never been assessed by a psychiatrist, Foreign Office officials were eventually allowed to spend 15 minutes with Shaikh. From their description of Shaikh's behaviour, Dr Peter Schaapveld, a London-based consultant clinical and forensic psychologist, compiled a medical report in which he was able to deduce with "99% certainty" that he was suffering from a mental disorder that could either be bipolar or schizophrenia." First saying he had never been diagnosed is not the same as saying he'd never been assessed. Second, the overall tone of this passage is very different from how we've quoted it in the article and seems very much to have been cherry-picked.Spinner145 (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it just occurred to me that some of the source articles from Xinhua cite all the relevant sections/chapters that were considered when arriving at the judgement, so I think we need to locate the relevant law in an English text. However, I suspect it won't include anything about mitigation for mental disease in criminal cases. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you need English translations of Chinese laws, you could look in the history and there was a source I once posted now removed from colaw.cn which contains semi-official translations of the PRC Criminal Law into English. I checked it before and the quality is quite good and some of the technical terms are aptly translated. If I remember correctly, article 18 is related to mental illnesses and another article 347 was on drugs, both of which were cited by the court. Hope it is useful Kesaer (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think we must be extremely careful when citing "armchair experts", especially the psychiatrists who may have made statements based on biased, misleading, false, or other information which cannot be substantiated. This is exactly the case with the psychiatrists brought in by the family/Reprieve which made me arrive at my evaluation in the 'rework' section below. What there is already in the article, to the effect that 'his family and reprieve claim to have evidence that he suffering from Bipolar disorder' is utterly sufficient,and must not be overegged. The legal experts are in a slightly different situation, and I feel may be cited, subject to the same proviso above. I am totally OK when it is to establish to points of law; we must try not to go directly to legal texts because they are primary sources, the fact that they are also all in Chinese, and the lack of any direct links between the law cited and the case itself - a triple problem from a WP perspective, if you will. Opinions from Chinese experts would be as relevant as foreign experts in Chinese law who may have different interpretations, and we should attempt to balance the 'the authorities were wrong' with 'the authorities were right' in terms of stature and number of arguments, provided these are all based narrowly on points of law. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Ohconfucius, I believe it was you who placed a "reliable source?" tag on the cite to the Cohen article. Could you please explain the purpose of the tag and perhaps we can resolve any issues you see? Spinner145 (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did. We usually regard blogs with some scepticism as to their notability and reliability. This one's credentials are not all that clear to me. As most of the text cited was from an article written by Cohen published in the South China, it is perhaps more appropriate to cite the journal directly. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, Spinner145, was it you who quote China Daily on the intellectually challenged part (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-12/31/content_9249434.htm)? I think if you want to quote that line which was meant to be rhetorical in the original context to imply that Shaikh is not insane, then you should at least include the next part of that article saying Shaikh is of completely sound mind when he was arrested - or it'll seem to me pretty close to cherry-picking. The entire article was trying to show that Shaikh was not mentally ill and is not eligible for the diminished sentence, and I think it is just wrong to quote the one rhetoric that may mislead the readers into thinking the exact opposite. Kesaer (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did make the change but I honestly wasn't trying to imply anything at all by the quotes. The only reason for those was that the choice of words in the China Daily article--"intellectually challenged"--seemed extremely odd, so I thought that the quotation marks would make clear that this was the word choice of the article itself and not of us editors. Spinner145 (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I replaced what was there before with a direct quote from the source article. I felt that, being a rather delicate, an accurate sentence about chapter and verse was desirable. I am less sure about the shortening; I feel the same about paraphrasing Cohen, because it actually changes what he did and did not actually say. The exact quote was "one might have expected the Supreme People's Court to comply with Chinese law and international legal standards by requiring a thorough mental evaluation of Shaikh before rendering a final judgment." This is quite different from saying 'that by not conducting a mental evaluation Chinese courts failed to comply with Chinese law and international legal standards.' The changes to the Cohen text, which have rendered an implied statement into an express statement. In general, concise is good, but not when it's at the expense of clarity. Abridging the sentence directly lifted from China Daily (with its peculiar construction) is certainly detrimental to the clarity of the explanation. I propose we reverted that change, and make clear that it came from a China Daily source. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I see your point about having the interpretation of Chinese law attributed to the China Daily and retaining direct quotes (odd verbiage included). I'd further suggest that it say something to the effect "Commenting on the case, China Daily stated that..." so it's clearly that the "intellectually challenged" phrase was meant to relate to allegations that Shaikh did not bear full responsibility for his crime. As to the verifiability of the Cohen quote, the South China Morning Post doesn't provide free online content. I'm reasonably comfortable with a professor at a respected university who has posted the article with Prof. Cohen's express permission. It's not like this is some anonymous blogger. As to the text itself, I disagree with your analysis. The subtitle of the article itself is "Ignoring its own laws, China is set to execute a Briton...". True I summarized more directly than his actual quote, but I don't feel the summary is inaccurate. But in any case, Alston also says the same thing and says it more directly and perhaps it would be better for clarity to use Alston instead of Cohen if you're worried about mischaracterizing the position of people who have criticized the court's decision. Spinner145 (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I replaced what was there before with a direct quote from the source article. I felt that, being a rather delicate, an accurate sentence about chapter and verse was desirable. I am less sure about the shortening; I feel the same about paraphrasing Cohen, because it actually changes what he did and did not actually say. The exact quote was "one might have expected the Supreme People's Court to comply with Chinese law and international legal standards by requiring a thorough mental evaluation of Shaikh before rendering a final judgment." This is quite different from saying 'that by not conducting a mental evaluation Chinese courts failed to comply with Chinese law and international legal standards.' The changes to the Cohen text, which have rendered an implied statement into an express statement. In general, concise is good, but not when it's at the expense of clarity. Abridging the sentence directly lifted from China Daily (with its peculiar construction) is certainly detrimental to the clarity of the explanation. I propose we reverted that change, and make clear that it came from a China Daily source. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did make the change but I honestly wasn't trying to imply anything at all by the quotes. The only reason for those was that the choice of words in the China Daily article--"intellectually challenged"--seemed extremely odd, so I thought that the quotation marks would make clear that this was the word choice of the article itself and not of us editors. Spinner145 (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with ohconfucius in dealing with the China Daily quote, but I really think we shouldn't include any misleading facts about 'mentally ill patients do not bear criminal responsibility' - it is a fact, but let's face it, Shaikh's bipolar disorder is not under that category (not according to the court, which is the only relevant opinion in this case IMHO) and I propose to replace that with more relevant facts about sentence reduction - perhaps the paragraph that Spinner145 and I have been debating over revised by another editor. As to the quotation arguments: why don't we just create a subsection to put all the quotes in without abridging? That way, readers can read the full opinions of experts and judge for themselves and editors don't have to argue about how to paraphrase, win-win! Kesaer (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just a comment about the "Ignoring its own laws, China is set to execute a Briton..." subtitle, care should be taken as this is editorialising, and may be somewhat removed from the actual opinion expressed by Cohen. Also, there is nothing to prevent us from using a source which is not online, so citing the SCMP directly would be fine; I still have reservations about posting this blog as a citation. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with ohconfucius in dealing with the China Daily quote, but I really think we shouldn't include any misleading facts about 'mentally ill patients do not bear criminal responsibility' - it is a fact, but let's face it, Shaikh's bipolar disorder is not under that category (not according to the court, which is the only relevant opinion in this case IMHO) and I propose to replace that with more relevant facts about sentence reduction - perhaps the paragraph that Spinner145 and I have been debating over revised by another editor. As to the quotation arguments: why don't we just create a subsection to put all the quotes in without abridging? That way, readers can read the full opinions of experts and judge for themselves and editors don't have to argue about how to paraphrase, win-win! Kesaer (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- In regards to "intellectually challenged", I think it is just a politically-correct way of saying "mad", as in "vertically-challenged" for "short", and I think we are over-analyzing it - it is quite irrelevant to the case and the article was not referring to Shaikh when using this phrase. ( I still can't believe the Chinese gov is buying into that PC crap which is ruining Europe) I strongly oppose the inclusion of that sentence as it is right now, and propose to remove it ASAP before misleading more readers into thinking Shaikh is eligible for a pardon, we can always come up with a suitable replacement later after a consensus is made but I personally cannot allow that kind of misinformation to remain in the article any longer than it already has. As for how to abridge Cohen's statement, why don't Spinner and OhConfucius each come up with a version of his/her own and everyone could discuss together to see which one is more closely adhered to what we perceive as Cohen's original thought. Kesaer (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- The equivalent Chinese article gives: 中国刑法的第18条款规定，精神病人只有在犯罪时对自己的行为没有控制能力的情况下，才可以免除罪责。So, yes, they did mean to say "mad". Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- In regards to "intellectually challenged", I think it is just a politically-correct way of saying "mad", as in "vertically-challenged" for "short", and I think we are over-analyzing it - it is quite irrelevant to the case and the article was not referring to Shaikh when using this phrase. ( I still can't believe the Chinese gov is buying into that PC crap which is ruining Europe) I strongly oppose the inclusion of that sentence as it is right now, and propose to remove it ASAP before misleading more readers into thinking Shaikh is eligible for a pardon, we can always come up with a suitable replacement later after a consensus is made but I personally cannot allow that kind of misinformation to remain in the article any longer than it already has. As for how to abridge Cohen's statement, why don't Spinner and OhConfucius each come up with a version of his/her own and everyone could discuss together to see which one is more closely adhered to what we perceive as Cohen's original thought. Kesaer (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this sentence is currently really accurate: "Chinese state media asserted that Shaikh's mental state was perfectly sound at the time of his arrest on 12 September 2007, and showed no signs of it in jail. It further asserted that the claims of his family were contradicted by Shaikh himself, who denied having a history of mental disorder."
First, the artice doesn't say he showed no signs of mental illness in jail, it says "the court had no reason not to consider the plaintiff's alleged mental illness if he showed any signs of suffering from it while he was in jail." I think we need to stay closer to what China Daily is saying, as their editorial is defending the court's decision by assuming its correctness, and the article then takes this assumption and reports it as fact.
Second, it only says that Shaikh "reportedly ruled out the possibility of (or any of his family members) having a history of mental disorder". http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-12/31/content_9249434.htm We need to include that caveat unless we can get find out where that report emanated from.
It seems like we've gone beyond what China Daily actually asserted in its defense of this execution. Spinner145 (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, in response to your second point, the Chinese equivalent of this article (as posted by ohconfucius earlier) had this translation: "事实上阿克毛本人从来没有承认自己有精神病史" (In fact Akmal himself never admitted to having any history of mental illness), so I think that 'reportedly' is just a word introduced during the translation, it wasn't implying anything. You can change the reference to the Chinese article if you like. And the fact that his family had no history of mental illness had been cited by many Chinese media, so I wouldn't dismiss it just because of one suspicious word in this article. I do think you have a point in the first part though, however, I recall seeing other sources citing the same thing, so we should do some more research, if none was found, then that part of the sentence should be removed as suggested. Kesaer (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for that Kesaer. I will try to formulate something for the first point, on the second point I guess it's fine although you also point out a seeming inconsistency between "没有承认" in the Chinese becoming "ruled out the possibility of" in the English. The two don't seem equivalent. Any thoughts on that issue? Our article currently says "denied" which is also not quite equivalent to 没有承认.Spinner145 (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Spinner, just found a new article from Sina covering Shaikh's case, it has the answer to all your doubts as well as statements from his lawyer and court officials for the first time. I've made the appropriate changes to the article, and looks like there's a lot of new information. You should take a look too (http://news.sina.com.cn/s/2010-01-11/112319443163.shtml) Kesaer (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- The source seems to have some useful information, but consider that with these recent edits you have now added a very large volume of new material, all from a single source (which being in Chinese will be very hard for many other editors to verify) and all supporting to the PRC position without making any attempt whatsoever to balance it. I think there may be some useful information there but you have really moved the article POV with those edits, IMO. Unfortunately I really don't have the time to keep fighting these battles, as I need to pay some attention to my day job. Spinner145 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- From the point of view of WP:V and WP:RS, I have no great concerns. Although we should in general avoid using foreign language sources where possible, there is no prohibition to limited use as in the case here. However, by taking such a substantial chunk may violate WP:UNDUE. In addition, I am more than a little surprised at the content of the disclosures by the defence lawyer: I do not know about China, but I think it likely that some of the disclosures would be considered 'privileged' in the west. Perhaps we ought to understand whether it is yet more politicisation of the judiciary to fight to 'nationalist' cause. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- The source seems to have some useful information, but consider that with these recent edits you have now added a very large volume of new material, all from a single source (which being in Chinese will be very hard for many other editors to verify) and all supporting to the PRC position without making any attempt whatsoever to balance it. I think there may be some useful information there but you have really moved the article POV with those edits, IMO. Unfortunately I really don't have the time to keep fighting these battles, as I need to pay some attention to my day job. Spinner145 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- The direct equivalent of "没有承认" is "did not admit". "ruled out the possibility of" would be "排除...的可能性" in Chinese. Frankly I don't like citing too much Chinese sources - they are at best very unlikely to be neutral. Also, Reprieve and his family's claim that "Shaikh should not be required to provide evidence of his own mental state" negates the point of citing these stuff.(By negates the point, I mean negates the point, they won't counterbalance each other) I think a single sentence mentioning he did not admit he had mental issues will be pretty enough. Spinner - we arent "fighting" at all, feel the WikiLove here ;) Cheers, Blodance (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Akmal Shaikh convicted in British court, August 26, 2004
Can someone consider these facts and incorporated them into the article?
http://bbs.huanqiu.com/zongluntianxia/thread-294918-1-1.html (chinese)
http://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/2004%20archive/260804/n260804_5.htm
That this was the same Akmal Shaikh was verified by another news report in Daily Mail,
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1238829/Akmal-Shaikh-Is-late-save-Briton-death-Chinese-firing-squad.html
Convicted for sexual harrasment in 2004. Apparently no psychiatric examination was necessary. for if there was one, the British should have mentioned and produced it. Facts showed that he was very scheming, had the ability to seduce his (Polish) secretary and married her, capable of operating a business and employing people, employed many young attractive women in succession and seduced them, sacked his lady employee while witholding payment of salary, able to delay the delivery of justice, able to sell his business and avoid paying court-awarded damages by an act disappearance.
Akmal Shaikh's was caught for drug trafficking in September 2007.
"He felt that he could change his identity or just disappear and that it did not matter. Even today his former wife and Leilla's mother will not talk about those times and refuses to have her name used in the campaign to stop his death sentence."
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1238829/Akmal-Shaikh-Is-late-save-Briton-death-Chinese-firing-squad.html
"As his daughter Leilla points out: 'There was always instability with his finances. He didn't understand the seriousness of having to pay off the big loans he took out. 'He felt that he could change his identity or just disappear and that it did not matter.' Even today his former wife and Leilla's mother will not talk about those times and refuses to have her name used in the campaign to stop his death sentence. Her attitude is not, perhaps, surprising. For after Akmal's marriage began to fall apart, he was hauled before an employment tribunal by a 24-year-old female employee at Teksi, who successfully claimed that he had sexually hounded her. ... Bizarrely, he had hired her after instructing a recruitment agency to send him only the CVs of well-groomed women under 25. When she asked him to stop his behaviour, he complained he had not had sex in seven months and told her he was divorcing his wife. Then he sacked her. The tribunal ordered him to pay her £10,255.97 in damages and unpaid wages. But the money was never forthcoming from Akmal. ... As there was a vacancy for a secretary, Akmal employed a succession of pretty young ladies, mostly Poles, who were glad of the chance of work. It is rumoured that he had affairs with a handful of them on his return trips to London. ... So is he mad, or did he carry the suitcase of heroin into China as part of another one of his grandiose schemes to make money quickly? Certainly Akmal's former solicitor says that as recently as 2003 his client was sane."
Mental illness???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yewhock (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 January 2010
- There seems to be no suggestion by any party in either the sexual harrassment case in the UK, the drink-driving case in Poland or the 7/7 related investigation that Shaikh may have been mentally ill. If Shaikh showed signs of mental illness, wouldn't he have been assessed by a psychiatrist or psychologist? Maybe he was mentally ill, but if he was it was probably a mild case. It would be unusual for a person to become bipolar at around age 50; it has a strong hereditary component and typically has significant negative effects in early adulthood and often earlier. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, bipolar disorder typically onsets at adolescence. If he can live through 30-40 years of his life, 2 trials/hearings and a terrorism investigation without any diagnosis or doubt of bipolar disorder then IMHO it means either A) His case of bipolar is very mild and not noteworthy even in the British system (let alone Chinese, lol) or B) He faked it with the Chinese. However, including this directly in the article would constitute original research so I guess we'll have to wait for some 'experts' to realize and publish this before we can use this piece of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesaer (talk • contribs) 02:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I can't find any evidence that prior to his imprisonment in China, Shaikh was ever thought to be mentally ill, nor seen by any mental health professionals. If there is a ref stating he was or wasn't assessed by a psychiatrist / psychologist in the first 50 years of his life, then that info should be in the article. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, bipolar disorder typically onsets at adolescence. If he can live through 30-40 years of his life, 2 trials/hearings and a terrorism investigation without any diagnosis or doubt of bipolar disorder then IMHO it means either A) His case of bipolar is very mild and not noteworthy even in the British system (let alone Chinese, lol) or B) He faked it with the Chinese. However, including this directly in the article would constitute original research so I guess we'll have to wait for some 'experts' to realize and publish this before we can use this piece of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesaer (talk • contribs) 02:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Rework of 8 January
I have today completely reworked the article, looking closely at how the text matches the sources, who said what, who quoted whom, etc. etc. Although I believe I have neutralised the article, I have nevertheless left the {{NPOV}} tag in place, as I would prefer other editors be the judge if any such concerns remain.
After reading through the all of the sources, I take my hat off to Reprieve, who have done a remarkable job at lobbying. They successfully turned this guy into someone non compos mentis based on a few shards of observations and comments from family. Britain is full of eccentrics, and nothing in the article's sources indicates that he is not just one of those. Reprieve also tapped the emotional stream of the country (and the western world) that the political leaders laid into the PRC for its "inhumane act" when all the time the proof that he may have been diminished is flimsy at best (and I am not commenting at all on the adequacies of China's political or criminal justice systems, or whether capital punishment should exist.) I noticed that the press started off by being very circumspect with their quotes and attribution, and it was easy to tell most of the info available on the guy was fed by Reprieve. Towards the end, and after the execution, the press seemed to conclude that he did indeed have bipolar disorder. Thus is the power of media manipulation by lobbyists. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
As a latecomer to this article, I would like to ask if there is a preference for the placement of references. I have inserted most of mine after the punctuation, but I notice there is a bit of both in the article. The placement issue needs to be addressed, as they need to be made uniform. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Ohconfucius, I appreciate your effort in trying to remove bias and 100% agree with you in terms of Reprieve's lobbying. This section formally known as 'mental health issue' is under much debate in the discussion section "bipolar as defense" above this one. I cordially invite you to join this debate to produce a quality article. Both myself and Spinner145 will step back from that debate for a while, so if you could check out the previous arguments from all sides and present your ideas it will be greatly appreciated. In the mean time, may I ask you to please refrain from making any changes to the section before a general consensus could be reached. Well, thank you and I await your opinion, cheers Kesaer (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)