Quote:
Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll
The Crown does a decent job of explaining it inna few of the news articles. Basically a high risk designation pushes reviews back to three year intervals instead of one year and puts a conditional or absolute discharge into the community in front of an additional judge.
As a society we've decided that taking someone's freedom has to be regulated and thus the need to apply for and prove the requirement for additional restrictions. How many people who are demanding more stringent restricts be automatic in this case were complaining about mandatory minimums a year or two ago?
|
Wow I don't even where to begin?
So is there any situation where you think those restrictions are "unfair" or "too harsh" for someone who killed somebody in a psychotic episode?
Are you really going to compare people complaining about mandatory minimums for petty crimes like Possession to people demanding strict regulations on the reintegration and assessment of someone who ####ing killed an innocent person?!
Also, MMF, my "hysteria" about this person not being treated with the highest potential for risk has nothing to do with my level empathy for people with mental illness. As I said, I understand that he's not being held criminally responsible for his actions and that he's got a horrible, unfair and devastating disease and that if he can be cured he could be a productive member of society. None of that makes me feel any differently about anyone who has taken an innocent life automatically being labelled with the maximum level of risk and the rules and restrictions placed on that persons eventual reintegration into society.