Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
The person you're speaking of "no history of violence and no indication of mental illness" was deGrood approx. 1 month before he killed five people. What differentiates deGrood a month before the killings and you?
Do you think people are born killers? They aren't. Some people experienced traumatic upbringings or are engaged in an already deeply criminal lifestyle, but in this case, it is an example where a normal, well adjusted young man had a wire come loose and the consequences were extreme.
You are just as dangerous as a medicated DeGrood. So am I. So is rube. That's a fact. There is nothing that guarantees you won't have a mental breakdown of similar significance and murder your whole family.
Do you we propose we just start monitoring everyone? Mandatory psychological testing every month?
|
I'm not quite sure I follow why we are comparing DeGrood in the past to me today. As of today and looking forward into the future, which should be what we are concerned about, DeGrood has murdered 5 people and I have not, I would argue this means that DeGrood is more capable than I am to kill.
I think what rube and others are saying is that if he's medicated he is safer than the statistical average of people in society that may erupt into psychotic outbreaks and I seriously doubt that is the case. I probably came on a little strong saying his statement was idiotic but at first the statement he made sounded so ridiculous for me.
"
Some doubts have been raised about the long-term effectiveness of antipsychotics because two large international World Health Organization studies found individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia tend to have better long-term outcomes in developing countries (where there is lower availability and use of antipsychotics) than in developed countries. The reasons for the differences are not clear, however, and various explanations have been suggested.
Some argue that the evidence for antipsychotics from withdrawal-relapse studies may be flawed because they do not take into account that antipsychotics may sensitize the brain and provoke psychosis if discontinued. Evidence from comparison studies indicates that at least some individuals recover from psychosis without taking antipsychotics and may do better than those that do take antipsychotics. Some argue that, overall, the evidence suggests that antipsychotics only help if they are used selectively and are gradually withdrawn as soon as possible."
http://www.healthyplace.com/thought-...schizophrenia/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...test-1.3068059
Seems like it's likely that DeGrood will be released to some kind of group home in the future once he's treated and that, if like Li, he will be allowed unsupervised passes to go wherever he wants so long as he takes his meds. Who ensures he takes his meds?
Is there a chance Li or DeGrood could stop taking their meds? I think that ultimately is the question. But further, even on their meds, is it known with 100% certainty, not 99.9 but 100% certainty, that he is not a violent person or could relapse? I am suggesting that the science needs to be at a point where it is 100% unequivocal about the process, medication and certainty that people that murder several people are not capable of re offending and I'm not sure that is the case. I am suggesting that these people lose the presumption of innocence like I have, or the rest of people in society have because we have not murdered 5 people with a knife.