Quote:
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 why not three? Has Locke or you have any proof to support the fact that the Manitoba Criminal Review Board has been deficient with its 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. |
I have no 'feelings' or need for punishment which results in locking him up indefinitely. Please stop projecting whatever baseless narrative your mind has concocted onto me. Thanks