Man stabbed, then decapitated on grey hound bus

[troutman]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Hey! I enjoy the UNbalanced programs on QR. Well, Rutherford.

I listen about once a month by mistake, and the same conversation is going on every time - "The Canadian Justice system is neither justice nor system".

BTW, Rob Anders is holding another "Justice Open House" soon.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

And thats why I have little faith in the justice system. Somehow this guy was allowed to roam around freely as he chooses prior to the murder.

I must have missed the part where they say he gets to roam free. I am pretty sure he's going to be holed up in a hospital for a fairly long time.

[Bobblehead]

He may be out in a few years, or he may be in an institution forever.

I would have liked to see a minimum stay in an institution, but I'm not against the possibility this raises of keeping the crazy guy in an institution forever.

[Azure]

Well, if he does this again down the road, who do we blame? The mental hospital, or the justice system?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, if he does this again down the road, who do we blame? The mental hospital, or the justice system?

God. God has been speaking to him.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by troutman

I listen about once a month by mistake, and the same conversation is going on every time - "The Canadian Justice system is neither justice nor system".

BTW, Rob Anders is holding another "Justice Open House" soon.

High Jack Alert,

I agree QR 77 is slightly better than nuts, but at least they are privatley funded (for the most part), and sitting on the far right, CBC is publicly funded and is also nuts, but sitting on the far left. I think CBC does a poor job presenting views of all canadians (left, right, centre). That is why I hate the CBC more than QR 77, at least they make no bones about their politics. A public government (even an arms lenght) entity, should represent all the population......

Ah better

back to your regular thread.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I must have missed the part where they say he gets to roam free. I am pretty sure he's going to be holed up in a hospital for a fairly long time.

Reading 101 - I said "prior to the murder"...he should be holed up in a jail for a very long time.

[Dion]

If he does get out who will make sure he takes his meds daily?

Yaren said Li began experiencing psychotic episodes around 2003, including a 2005 incident where he was picked up by police walking down Highway 401 in Ontario, believing he was "following the sun" after shedding most of his possessions.

He was briefly hospitalized in Etobicoke, Ont., but received no further followup after refusing to accept he had an illness or take any treatment, court was told.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Wi...119/story.html

If the guy refused treatment back then he should be held criminaly responsible for Mcleans death. If Li had gotten treatment chances are this beheading never would have happened.

For the publics safety Li should never be released again into society.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

Reading 101 - I said "prior to the murder"...he should be holed up in a jail for a very long time.

My bad.


So what you're saying is everyone needs to have their rights infringed and be subject to an exam even if they've shown no signs of mental illness? It was a tragic incident, but it if no one sees the signs of the illness how can anyone forsee something like this?

Edit - Apparently his illness was spotted and nothing was done about it. While they still can't find him guilty (he just doesn't have the capacity for it), something definately screwed up along the way to allow that.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

And thats why I have little faith in the justice system. Somehow this guy was allowed to roam around freely as he chooses prior to the murder.

If he cant be found mentally fit to go to jail then how is allowed free access to society?? Do we need to have a mental competency/fitness test for anyone over 18 to be in a "free" society??

He is absolutely criminally responsible and needs to pay for the crime. I have a very tough time believing any amount of rehab/treatment is going to help this guy.

It is important to ensure we use terms properly. He was found mentally unfit to stand trial. The basis of our system is you have to have the mens rea, or mental intent, to commit the crime, the actus reas.

If he is unfit to stand trial then he is not able to understand the charges against him and provide evidence in his own defence. Essentially that is locking him up without a trial. While many may believe he deserves that, our system says that is not right. We don't lock up kids or people with severe mental disabilities.

However, my understanding is that a mental hospital is a far greater punishment. When I was at Queens my professor was Don Stuart, he literally wrote the text on criminal law, and he said that from his experiences with mental hospitals, it was not something to be contemplated lightly for your client. It was a horrid existence. It he can not be "cured" he will not get out. Period. In essence this is indefinate detention, different from Bernardo and Olsen et al.

Any actual criminal lawyers please step in to correct any errors I may have made.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

My bad.


So what you're saying is everyone needs to have their rights infringed and be subject to an exam even if they've shown no signs of mental illness? It was a tragic incident, but it if no one sees the signs of the illness how can anyone forsee something like this?

Edit - Apparently his illness was spotted and nothing was done about it. While they still can't find him guilty (he just doesn't have the capacity for it), something definately screwed up along the way to allow that.

Again, I had ?? behind that statement. I was not stating that as an opinion, but a question.

I definitely dont want my rights infringed upon. But there has clearly has to be more controls (of some sort) in place to monitor people who may have such severe mental issues that they can lash out like this. Especially for people who want to immigrate here!! By no means do I know or pretend to know the answers, but this was IMO somewhat avoidable.

And he clearly had the capacity for it because it happened. He is Guilty. What the sentence/punishment is can be determined by the psychiatrists + judge.

[FLAMESRULE]

Originally Posted by Titan

It is important to ensure we use terms properly. He was found mentally unfit to stand trial. The basis of our system is you have to have the mens rea, or mental intent, to commit the crime, the actus reas.

If he is unfit to stand trial then he is not able to understand the charges against him and provide evidence in his own defence. Essentially that is locking him up without a trial. While many may believe he deserves that, our system says that is not right. We don't lock up kids or people with severe mental disabilities.

However, my understanding is that a mental hospital is a far greater punishment. When I was at Queens my professor was Don Stuart, he literally wrote the text on criminal law, and he said that from his experiences with mental hospitals, it was not something to be contemplated lightly for your client. It was a horrid existence. It he can not be "cured" he will not get out. Period. In essence this is indefinate detention, different from Bernardo and Olsen et al.

Any actual criminal lawyers please step in to correct any errors I may have made.

Thanks Titan.

I guess my point is that there needs to be a separation from being able to stand trial (IMO anyone who breaks the law should stand trial) and what the penalty is. Why should anyone be declared unfit to stand trial?? There should be no exclusions for a free democracy to be able to skip the trial portion. He murdered someone. Fact. He is Guilty of murder, by definition of the law. I believe he is criminally responsible regardless of his mental condition.

Now how he is sentenced can be left up to those that know best (judges, lawyers, psychiatrists, etc.). Clearly someone who is suffers from some mental disease or is not compus mentus (sp??) should not face the same penalty. This would ideally allow those that may be able to get rehabilitation to be a benefit and positive to society.

My first point is that this was likley preventable. People knew he was unstable so how was he allowed to stay in Canada (IIRC he was from the Far East, but dont know for how long)?? And if people knew how unstable he was, why wasnt he monitored more closely? I doubt anyone here knows the answers, I certainly cant.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

My first point is that this was likley preventable. People knew he was unstable so how was he allowed to stay in Canada (IIRC he was from the Far East, but dont know for how long)?? And if people knew how unstable he was, why wasnt he monitored more closely? I doubt anyone here knows the answers, I certainly cant.

The Mental Health act in Alberta (not sure about other provinces) allows doctors to hospitalise people only if they are a threat to themselves or others. Once a person is no longer deemed a threat they are released. The problem arises after the release as there is no way to make sure said person is taking thier meds or continuing thier treatment.

If Li is released i would hope that a part of his condition of release is that he has to report to a shrink regularly so they can check to see if he is taking his meds.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by Dion

The Mental Health act in Alberta (not sure about other provinces) allows doctors to hospitalise people only if they are a threat to themselves or others. Once a person is no longer deemed a threat they are released. The problem arises after the release as there is no way to make sure said person is taking thier meds or continuing thier treatment.

If Li is released i would hope that a part of his condition of release is that he has to report to a shrink regularly so they can check to see if he is taking his meds.

seems like he was a threat

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Titan

It is important to ensure we use terms properly. He was found mentally unfit to stand trial. The basis of our system is you have to have the mens rea, or mental intent, to commit the crime, the actus reas.

If he is unfit to stand trial then he is not able to understand the charges against him and provide evidence in his own defence. Essentially that is locking him up without a trial. While many may believe he deserves that, our system says that is not right. We don't lock up kids or people with severe mental disabilities.

However, my understanding is that a mental hospital is a far greater punishment. When I was at Queens my professor was Don Stuart, he literally wrote the text on criminal law, and he said that from his experiences with mental hospitals, it was not something to be contemplated lightly for your client. It was a horrid existence. It he can not be "cured" he will not get out. Period. In essence this is indefinate detention, different from Bernardo and Olsen et al.

Any actual criminal lawyers please step in to correct any errors I may have made.

Must've been interesting to study under Professor Stuart.

I read that Li was found "not criminally responsible." That's a bit different than being found unfit to stand trial. Being unfit to stand trial means means unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so, and, in particular, unable on account of mental disorder to

(a) understand the nature or object of the proceedings,
(b) understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or
(c) communicate with counsel;

On the other hand no person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.


You can appreciate the nature and quality of your act and know that it is wrong when you commit the crime but when it comes time for trial be suffering from a condition that renders you unfit to stand trial. You can also be perfectly able to understand the nature and object of proceedings and be able to properly communicate with counsel at trial but be found not criminally responsible because at the time the crime occurred you were unable to appreciate the nature and consequences of your actions.

[Flames_Gimp]

can we please just bring back capital punishment?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

can we please just bring back capital punishment?

If they did, they still would not execute the criminally insane.

[mikey_the_redneck]

If I ran the country-side, this guy would be shot military style in the back of the head, in front of an open pit to which Li's dead body would slump into. No trial, no muss, no fuss.
Psychos like that running around is the reason I keep my shotgun handy in my truck.
Can't we just exterminate all psychos??

[troutman]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If I ran the country-side, this guy would be shot military style in the back of the head, in front of an open pit to which Li's dead body would slump into. No trial, no muss, no fuss.
Psychos like that running around is the reason I keep my shotgun handy in my truck.
Can't we just exterminate all psychos??

1 in 4 people have a mental illness.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c...ull/41/17/25-a

Patients with severe mental illness commit approximately 1 in 20 violent crimes, according to a study of mental illness and violence in Sweden.

[Titan]

Originally Posted by FLAMESRULE

Thanks Titan.

There should be no exclusions for a free democracy to be able to skip the trial portion. He murdered someone. Fact. He is Guilty of murder, by definition of the law. I believe he is criminally responsible regardless of his mental condition.

Not to quibble but murder is an offence created in the criminal code. The component parts must be proven before it can be said he "murdered" someone. Did he kill someone? Yes. Is he "criminally responsible?" In this case? No.

He will be locked up, likely forever. However, our system must be sure to only try and convict people that can understand what is happening. The easiest example is a 4 year old child. They play with matches. The resulting fire burns down an apartment building and kills 100 people. Do we put a 4 year old on trial? No. Does that 4 year old get convicted and go to jail? No. Li is the same if he has been judged to be no more than a 4 year old mentally (I don't know the facts but just as an example) Is it any more fair to try him and send him to prison? Again, most would say no. The difference is that Li is a danger to himself or others. That is where the state steps in and separates him, just on an entirely different basis. If he can be "cured" great. If not he stays in the mental hospital forever.

The rest of your points are very valid and come down to the government's lack of allocation of funds to agencies that actually deal with people with mental illness. As a society it is pretty shameful and as Li has shown, can end in disaster.