Mentally ill B.C. man who killed his three children granted escorted outings

[EldrickOnIce]

Yes, this again.
My heart goes out to the remaining family.

A British Columbia father who killed his three children while suffering psychosis will be allowed escorted outings, a decision the mother of the dead calls a travesty that she has been dreading.

Allan Schoenborn received the B.C. Review Board’s approval despite a earlier warning from the Crown to panel members to heed new Conservative government legislation empowering them to hold mentally ill offenders indefinitely.

Darcie Clarke said her family will still work with Crown to potentially apply to the B.C. Supreme Court to label her 47-year-old former husband a “high-risk” offender.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle24705962/

[GGG]

Seems like a very reasonable approach to balance public safety and the humane treatment of a very mentally ill person.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by GGG

Seems like a very reasonable approach to balance public safety and the humane treatment of a very mentally ill person.

So I am assuming if it was your three children he slaughtered, you would be taking this exact same stance.

Gotcha.

[Street Pharmacist]

Obviously, this is not going over well around here

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by pylon

So I am assuming if it was your three children he slaughtered, you would be taking this exact same stance.

Gotcha.

No, he's saying that experts in mental illness and criminal behavior should decide who gets released, not emotional victims and people on the internet who feel they can decide a man's fate based on a single article.

[Flames_Gimp]

F this!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by pylon

So I am assuming if it was your three children he slaughtered, you would be taking this exact same stance.

Gotcha.

Probably not, which is why we make laws rationally and not emotionally. Although I would hope overtime I could get to the point where I was rational.

The only reason to disagree with supervised escorts is punishment and revenge. Society found him not criminally responsible so you want to punish someone for something they did not control.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by GGG

Probably not, which is why we make laws rationally and not emotionally. Although I would hope overtime I could get to the point where I was rational.

The only reason to disagree with supervised escorts is punishment and revenge. Society found him not criminally responsible so you want to punish someone for something they did not control.

Just because that is what the courts and experts found, it does not necessarily make it true. Experts make mistakes all the time, and our justice system seems more interested in catering to the sensibilities of the perpetrator, not the victims.

The victims wishes 100% should come first in a scenario like this. This woman had 3 children butchered by this maniac. My parents lost a child and a grandchild (the child of my sister that passed away, who they raised from 5 years old.) and I can tell you, the most painful thing any parent has to go through is losing a child. Both deaths in my family were entirely different circumstances, dealing with someone slaughtering them... I can't imagine what that woman is dealing with.

The first person who should be taken into consideration in this scenario is the mother. If she finds it within herself to forgive him, then fine, let him taste some freedom. But now, if you read the article, she has to live in terror of this person again. She is being re-victimized by this monster, and she shouldn't be.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by pylon

So I am assuming if it was your three children he slaughtered, you would be taking this exact same stance.

Gotcha.

If the mother was allowed to decide this case Schoenborn would be put to death. We can't allow emotions to decide a persons fate.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Dion

If the mother was allowed to decide this case Schoenborn would be put to death. We can't allow emotions to decide a persons fate.

holy crap a dion post I can really get behind.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by pylon

Just because that is what the courts and experts found, it does not necessarily make it true. Experts make mistakes all the time, and our justice system seems more interested in catering to the sensibilities of the perpetrator, not the victims.

The victims wishes 100% should come first in a scenario like this. This woman had 3 children butchered by this maniac. My parents lost a child and a grandchild (the child of my sister that passed away, who they raised from 5 years old.) and I can tell you, the most painful thing any parent has to go through is losing a child. Both deaths in my family were entirely different circumstances, dealing with someone slaughtering them... I can't imagine what that woman is dealing with.

The first person who should be taken into consideration in this scenario is the mother. If she finds it within herself to forgive him, then fine, let him taste some freedom. But now, if you read the article, she has to live in terror of this person again. She is being re-victimized by this monster, and she shouldn't be.

His release is dependant on weather the wife and mother forgives him is exactly why she should never be allowed to decide his fate.

It's my understanding that she has fears of bumping into him in the community while he's on his escorted day pass. The decision by the parole board has been a huge set back for her emotionaly as she has recently been able to leave her home. She doesn't want to live in constant fear. All that I understand and have great empathy for what she is going through.

The issue for me is how best do we deal with her fears on a rational level. The logical choice would be moving him to another community and facility where she doesn't have to fear bumping into him. Her fears are delt where she can work further on her recovery process.

[btimbit]

I won't pretend to be an expert on mental illness, I don't even understand what goes on in my own head half the time. I'd be up in arms if this was a healthy individual being let out on these field trips, but it's not. Maybe these outings can help him.

Absolutely brutal for the mother though. I hope she's getting enough help.

[Kavvy]

Don't blame the mother for hating this, that's human. If it was me, I bet I would never get over it.

I really dislike that the "Crown" warned the panel that they didn't have to do this. Let the experts do their job.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Kavvy

Don't blame the mother for hating this, that's human. If it was me, I bet I would never get over it.

I really dislike that the "Crown" warned the panel that they didn't have to do this. Let the experts do their job.

Yeah, thats the crown playing politics - distancing themselves from the decision.

[T@T]

Allan Schoenborn never should have been in a mental institution in the first place, he murdered his kids because his wife dumped him for being a looser, I still shake my head that the judge bought his crazy story.

He should be in jail for life with all the other murderers, not out eating ice cream 8 years later.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by T@T

Allan Schoenborn never should have been in a mental institution in the first place, he murdered his kids because his wife dumped him for being a looser, I still shake my head that the judge bought his crazy story.

He should be in jail for life with all the other murderers, not out eating ice cream 8 years later.

Fear and ignorance are the greatest barriers to discovering the truth.

Should we do away with mental health treatment and those involved for the vengence you seek?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by T@T

Allan Schoenborn never should have been in a mental institution in the first place, he murdered his kids because his wife dumped him for being a looser, I still shake my head that the judge bought his crazy story.

He should be in jail for life with all the other murderers, not out eating ice cream 8 years later.

Pretty chilling:

Mr. Schoenborn said he "probably" would not have killed the children if his wife had come home from her mother's nearby apartment.

"If Darcie had come home, I'm sure things would have turned out differently."

Ms. Clarke has testified she considered Mr. Schoenborn a good father despite issues in the marriage.

Mr. Schoenborn has told the court he separated the children so they would not interrupt him, then murdered them.

He yesterday said he took a 15-minute break after killing his daughter and before moving on to his boys and smoked a cigarette, but became loudly indignant when Mr. Kelt pressed him on the point.

"The cigarettes mean nothing. The cigarettes mean absolutely nothing," he said loudly. "Having a cigarette is an addiction. I'll argue that. Don't think I was calm about anything."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1203791/

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by pylon

So I am assuming if it was your three children he slaughtered, you would be taking this exact same stance.

Gotcha.

This kind of logic is the worst. If you're going to start a sentence with so I am assuming just stop and walk away from the computer, go play some bongos or drink some tea. Any thing but finishing the sentence that comes after so I assume.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by pylon

Just because that is what the courts and experts found, it does not necessarily make it true. Experts make mistakes all the time, and our justice system seems more interested in catering to the sensibilities of the perpetrator, not the victims.

The victims wishes 100% should come first in a scenario like this. This woman had 3 children butchered by this maniac. My parents lost a child and a grandchild (the child of my sister that passed away, who they raised from 5 years old.) and I can tell you, the most painful thing any parent has to go through is losing a child. Both deaths in my family were entirely different circumstances, dealing with someone slaughtering them... I can't imagine what that woman is dealing with.

The first person who should be taken into consideration in this scenario is the mother. If she finds it within herself to forgive him, then fine, let him taste some freedom. But now, if you read the article, she has to live in terror of this person again. She is being re-victimized by this monster, and she shouldn't be.

This guy butchered his own kids, not sure about this guy but the greyhound bus guy seems pretty horrified about what he did while not on meds. So presuming the mental health officials got it right and presuming that he is getting healthier he would be as horrified as she is.

If you don't believe in not criminally responsible we can have a debate but what you propose here for victims doing the sentencing leads to heads, hands and dicks being chopped off.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Dion

Fear and ignorance are the greatest barriers to discovering the truth.

Should we do away with mental health treatment and those involved for the vengence you seek?

No we should be more careful on who gets off with murder claiming mental health problems. I have a friend who knows this guy. he called him a jealous meathead idiot and couldn't believe he claimed what he did and got away with it.