02-22-2006, 01:34 PM
02-22-2006, 02:04 PM
So what will happen when he gets out of jail in three years?
02-22-2006, 02:54 PM
I am posting the full article to point something out -
A Christchurch man with a long history of violence has been jailed for plotting a mass murder, right down to the order in which his eight intended victims would die.
Brendon Douglas Forrest, 22, wrote a letter stating his aim to get a high-powered weapon to kill the eight in what he said would be a bloodbath.
The letter included a plan of the house where the killings were to take place, his intended victims' personal details, the locations where each would die, and he numbered them from one to eight to indicate the order the murders would take place.
The threats, sent to the Christchurch police, prompted one of the victims named by Forrest to sell his business and his home.
Forrest also wrote to three Christchurch solicitors, demanding between $40,000 and $80,000 from each to avert attacks on them, their families, and their co-workers.
Christchurch District Court Judge Michael Crosbie said Forrest had sent the letters from jail, starting within a few months of beginning a 4½ year jail term for offences including setting a car alight while a man was inside.
He agreed with the assessment of the sentencing judge in 2004 that Forrest was "a very dangerous young man", who had previously caused a $200,000 fire that gutted a Nelson restaurant.
The judge said Forrest was not mentally ill but suffered from Asperger's Syndrome – a type of autism – had borderline intellectual functioning, and when in the community did not always take medication for his condition.
"The probation report tells me...you did not intend to carry out your plans. Of course, even if that was true, your victims are not to know that and the dominant feature of this type of offending is the belief of a victim that your threats are real," he said.
"Given your history of violence and dangerous behaviour, there is little scope for any other thought.
"You have real victims, Mr Forrest. The effect on one victim in particular is a profound one. It involves the selling of a business, the selling of a home, the complete alteration of that person's life, as a direct result of what you have done.
"The three lawyers also tell me about the effects on them, on their families, their concerns, the fact that they took them seriously and, even though you were in jail, they felt obliged to take your threats seriously because they are familiar with your pattern of offending and psychological background.
"That is a key factor in this case, Mr Forrest, because these were not people who just knew you casually – they all knew about you and knew what you were capable of."
James Rapley, defending, contended that Forrest showed "a degree of child-like amateurism" and had no ability to make good his threats from prison.
The judge said Forrest admitted he held grudges and had been motivated by a grievance against those who he believed had made unfounded and defamatory comments about him or who had not carried out their obligations professionally.
"You decided to teach them a lesson they were unlikely to forget in a hurry," he said.
"You show social insensitivity with what would appear to be an inability to empathise with the emotional experiences of others. You also, I'm told in the (psychiatric) report, display a tendency to operate by reasonably rigid rules by which you believe that if you perceive others have done wrong to you that you are justified in some form of retribution.
"Overall, your risk of continuing to offend in a similar manner is likely to be significant, according to the psychiatric report. Similar statements are made in the probation report: that should you continue with your fixation or become fixated on another person, then the risk you pose in terms of potential to cause serious harm to that person or persons is very high."
The judge said more prison time was inevitable, with protection of the public and a sentence that would deter others who are tempted to act similarly the primary goals.
Forrest was sentenced to three years jail, to be served cumulative to the term he is already serving.
What on earth was the medication he was supposed to be taking?
A Christchurch man with a long history of violence has been jailed for plotting a mass murder, right down to the order in which his eight intended victims would die.
Brendon Douglas Forrest, 22, wrote a letter stating his aim to get a high-powered weapon to kill the eight in what he said would be a bloodbath.
The letter included a plan of the house where the killings were to take place, his intended victims' personal details, the locations where each would die, and he numbered them from one to eight to indicate the order the murders would take place.
The threats, sent to the Christchurch police, prompted one of the victims named by Forrest to sell his business and his home.
Forrest also wrote to three Christchurch solicitors, demanding between $40,000 and $80,000 from each to avert attacks on them, their families, and their co-workers.
Christchurch District Court Judge Michael Crosbie said Forrest had sent the letters from jail, starting within a few months of beginning a 4½ year jail term for offences including setting a car alight while a man was inside.
He agreed with the assessment of the sentencing judge in 2004 that Forrest was "a very dangerous young man", who had previously caused a $200,000 fire that gutted a Nelson restaurant.
The judge said Forrest was not mentally ill but suffered from Asperger's Syndrome – a type of autism – had borderline intellectual functioning, and when in the community did not always take medication for his condition.
"The probation report tells me...you did not intend to carry out your plans. Of course, even if that was true, your victims are not to know that and the dominant feature of this type of offending is the belief of a victim that your threats are real," he said.
"Given your history of violence and dangerous behaviour, there is little scope for any other thought.
"You have real victims, Mr Forrest. The effect on one victim in particular is a profound one. It involves the selling of a business, the selling of a home, the complete alteration of that person's life, as a direct result of what you have done.
"The three lawyers also tell me about the effects on them, on their families, their concerns, the fact that they took them seriously and, even though you were in jail, they felt obliged to take your threats seriously because they are familiar with your pattern of offending and psychological background.
"That is a key factor in this case, Mr Forrest, because these were not people who just knew you casually – they all knew about you and knew what you were capable of."
James Rapley, defending, contended that Forrest showed "a degree of child-like amateurism" and had no ability to make good his threats from prison.
The judge said Forrest admitted he held grudges and had been motivated by a grievance against those who he believed had made unfounded and defamatory comments about him or who had not carried out their obligations professionally.
"You decided to teach them a lesson they were unlikely to forget in a hurry," he said.
"You show social insensitivity with what would appear to be an inability to empathise with the emotional experiences of others. You also, I'm told in the (psychiatric) report, display a tendency to operate by reasonably rigid rules by which you believe that if you perceive others have done wrong to you that you are justified in some form of retribution.
"Overall, your risk of continuing to offend in a similar manner is likely to be significant, according to the psychiatric report. Similar statements are made in the probation report: that should you continue with your fixation or become fixated on another person, then the risk you pose in terms of potential to cause serious harm to that person or persons is very high."
The judge said more prison time was inevitable, with protection of the public and a sentence that would deter others who are tempted to act similarly the primary goals.
Forrest was sentenced to three years jail, to be served cumulative to the term he is already serving.
What on earth was the medication he was supposed to be taking?
02-22-2006, 05:46 PM
A guess - and only a guess - from a quick trawl through the literature - would be one of the anti-psychotic drugs like risperidone.
There are quite a few papers on the use of risperidone in ASD - see for example:
Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Jul;162(7):1361-9.
Risperidone treatment of autistic disorder: longer-term benefits and blinded discontinuation after 6 months.
Research Units on Pediatric Psychopharmacology Autism Network
[b]OBJECTIVE: Risperidone is effective for short-term treatment of aggression, temper outbursts, and self-injurious behavior in children with autism. Because these behaviors may be chronic, there is a need to establish the efficacy and safety of longer-term treatment with this agent.
METHOD: The authors conducted a multisite, two-part study of risperidone in children ages 5 to 17 years with autism accompanied by severe tantrums, aggression, and/or self-injurious behavior who showed a positive response in an earlier 8-week trial. Part I consisted of 4-month open-label treatment with risperidone, starting at the established optimal dose; part II was an 8-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-substitution study of risperidone withdrawal. Primary outcome measures were the Aberrant Behavior Checklist irritability subscale and the Clinical Global Impression improvement scale.
RESULTS: Part I included 63 children. The mean risperidone dose was 1.96 mg/day at entry and remained stable over 16 weeks of open treatment. The change on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist irritability subscale was small and clinically insignificant. Reasons for discontinuation of part I included loss of efficacy (N=5) and adverse effects (N=1). The subjects gained an average of 5.1 kg. Part II included 32 patients. The relapse rates were 62.5% for gradual placebo substitution and 12.5% for continued risperidone; this difference was statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone showed persistent efficacy and good tolerability for intermediate-length treatment of children with autism characterized by tantrums, aggression, and/or self-injurious behavior. Discontinuation after 6 months was associated with a rapid return of disruptive and aggressive behavior in most subjects.
Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
PMID: 15994720
There are quite a few papers on the use of risperidone in ASD - see for example:
Am J Psychiatry. 2005 Jul;162(7):1361-9.
Risperidone treatment of autistic disorder: longer-term benefits and blinded discontinuation after 6 months.
Research Units on Pediatric Psychopharmacology Autism Network
[b]OBJECTIVE: Risperidone is effective for short-term treatment of aggression, temper outbursts, and self-injurious behavior in children with autism. Because these behaviors may be chronic, there is a need to establish the efficacy and safety of longer-term treatment with this agent.
METHOD: The authors conducted a multisite, two-part study of risperidone in children ages 5 to 17 years with autism accompanied by severe tantrums, aggression, and/or self-injurious behavior who showed a positive response in an earlier 8-week trial. Part I consisted of 4-month open-label treatment with risperidone, starting at the established optimal dose; part II was an 8-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-substitution study of risperidone withdrawal. Primary outcome measures were the Aberrant Behavior Checklist irritability subscale and the Clinical Global Impression improvement scale.
RESULTS: Part I included 63 children. The mean risperidone dose was 1.96 mg/day at entry and remained stable over 16 weeks of open treatment. The change on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist irritability subscale was small and clinically insignificant. Reasons for discontinuation of part I included loss of efficacy (N=5) and adverse effects (N=1). The subjects gained an average of 5.1 kg. Part II included 32 patients. The relapse rates were 62.5% for gradual placebo substitution and 12.5% for continued risperidone; this difference was statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone showed persistent efficacy and good tolerability for intermediate-length treatment of children with autism characterized by tantrums, aggression, and/or self-injurious behavior. Discontinuation after 6 months was associated with a rapid return of disruptive and aggressive behavior in most subjects.
Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
PMID: 15994720
02-22-2006, 06:12 PM
What does 'blinded' refer to?
02-22-2006, 06:19 PM
Are they referring to the study being "double-blind." In a double-blind experiment, both the subjects and the researchers do not know who is given the real thing and who is given a placebo.
02-22-2006, 06:20 PM
I don't know what "blinded discontinuation" would mean.
02-22-2006, 06:55 PM
In this case "blinded discontinuation" means that the patients in the study were kept unaware (i.e. blind) that their risperidone doses were being replaced by the "gradual placebo substitution" referred to.
02-22-2006, 06:56 PM
Ah, so they could really monitor the effects.
02-22-2006, 07:02 PM
Yes. Though when I read it through, and thought about it, I wondered just how ethical that was, but didn't want to divert the thread.
02-22-2006, 07:05 PM
I suppose the parents knew about it and gave their permission. certainly for the very young..five year olds being tested... :shock:
02-22-2006, 07:09 PM
Let's hope so, Amy. I've noticed a trend for this kind of clinical trial to take place in a residential care setting, so the quality of informed consent is often none too clear.