Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
We strive to be a rational society that leverages scientific knowledge to make good choices.
|
But we should pride ourselves more on a society that isn't barbaric and locks up, or unduly infringes on the rights of innocent people.
It's the presumption of innocence that our very Justice System is based on. And it's probably the most important aspect of our society.
Mr. Li has already been fighting an uphill battle trying to prove he is not a threat (and of course that's warranted given the situation) but he's now at the point that he's no longer being deemed a significant threat to society by those who have evaluated him over the near decade with expert evidence to back it up. There needs to be some actual evidence to argue that he still is for those who keep arguing that he is.
I see two arguments when it comes to Mr. Li's detractors:
- He's responsible for his actions and therefore requires punishment - this is an archaic and barbaric belief. Literally. We've had laws in place regarding those mentally unfit for over a century. Not criminally responsible is not a new concept. I would say this comes from the stigmatization of mental illness and lack of scientific knowledge. Some people just don't have the ability to control their actions or thoughts, temporarily or permanent, at the time. Trying to punish someone who, no fault of their own, did something is disgusting attitude.
- He's still a threat to society - well, let's see some type of evidence for that. It's an emotional plea, people are scared. I get it. It was a gruesome and traumatic event. But there need to be some actual evidence he is remains a significant threat. There really hasn't been any presented in this thread.
Morally and legally, Mr. Li should have the right for an unconditional release at some point, if he can is no longer deemed a significant threat. He's an innocent person.