Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion
You citing mental illness as an excuse for someone who killed, beheaded and ate another human being doesn't fly, speaks of ignorance to me.
|
1. That sentence doesn't make sense...
2. Ignorance is defined as Lack of knowledge or information.
I stated outright that I understand he was suffering from mental illness and didn't understand what he did was wrong.
Regardless of that, after what he did I still feel he should be permanently confined to his mental health facility and unable to leave it.
What they're talking about is releasing him for 30 minute -to- day long trips into Selkirk with an aide and a peace officer (with cell phone).
I think after what he did, he shouldn't have the opportunity to do even that. Both because of the (what they feel to be remote) chance he may re-offend, and the severity of the first crime being so egregious.
I get that you feel differently, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I just disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dion
His doctors have said Li is on medication and not experiencing any symptoms or hallucinations. Li is considered to have a 0.8 per cent chance of reoffending violently in the next seven years, according to doctors. If he's on a 30 minute escoted pass into the community, how is he a threat to the public.
|
Hey Dion,
A schizophrenic cannibalistic murder is going to be walking around downtown tomorrow when your wife and kids are out and about but don't worry there's only a 0.8% chance he might do something like that again and there's a doctor and a guy with a cell phone watching over him so it's all good.
You feel me now? Again, I understand the ruling and read the same articles you did. I just disagree with it... and the above is one of the biggest reasons why.
You can disagree, but how can you call anyone who might have a problem with that "ignorant"?