[Locke]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So Locke's opinion that deferring to experts is not valid...unless it's under a different set of arbitrary conditions that he set up.

Ignoring the fact that I can assure you Mr. Li has been evaluated by multiple professionals, why is there a belief that being evaluated by only one institute is invalid? Why would it require two? Or three? Has Locke or you have any proof to support the fact that the Manitoba Criminal Review Board has been deficient with it's current policy and that a second independent review is necessary? Any at all?

I mean, imagine if it took two trials of being proclaimed innocent with two separate independent experts testifying on your behave. What a travesty of injustice that would be. Fortunately it's not required.

Again, present some evidence other than "feelings" or the need for punishment as to why Li should remain locked up indefinitely, or else I think deferring to the experts is the most obvious solution. And anecdotal, but Li will probably not be granted unconditional release this time, he'll get it next year if everything goes well which just coincidentally lines up with the 10 year parole eligibility of second-degree murder.

No....but its an option.

Like...you know, appealing? And then having a whole different group of people presiding over your trial and looking at things differently?

Yeah, that would be a travesty of injustice. Thankfully we dont live in a world like that.