Board to decide bus beheader's fate

[Captain_Obvious]

I see a lot of posts with people referring to cases and people they knew first or second hand being successfully treated for mental illness.

If someone you know tried to harm themselves (suicide attempt) or broke a window or had a mild episode that's one thing.

This guy cut off someone's head and ate them.

That's not even in the same stratosphere of conversation of anything that's been brought up as a comparison.

It's game over for this guy. That was heinous, violent and 100% unforgivable under any circumstances. We're not talking about a guy who forgot to take his meds, got angry and broke a window.

Whether or not he can be rehabilitated to a point where it's nearly certain he wouldn't do something like that again is completely beside the point. He already did it and deserves the harshest punishment that can be bestowed under our laws. He should be in a facility and should never leave it.

There are no day passes and scenic trips in to town for guys who slay and behead innocent people. Regardless of the circumstances.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

There are no day passes and scenic trips in to town for guys who sleigh, behead and decapitate innocent people. Regardless of the circumstances.

I'm sorry, I know this a serious discussion, but reading this guy's last paragraph had me chuckling pretty hard.

First he uses the word sleigh, as in the thing Santa uses to deliver presents, then follows that up with using the terms "behead" and "decapitate" in succession, as if they're two different terrible things the guy did. If I was his teacher, I'd give that paragraph a C for comedy.

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I'm sorry, I know this a serious discussion, but reading this guy's last paragraph had me chuckling pretty hard.

First he uses the word sleigh, as in the thing Santa uses to deliver presents, then follows that up with using the terms "behead" and "decapitate" in succession, as if they're two different terrible things the guy did. If I was his teacher, I'd give that paragraph a C for comedy.

This is a serious discussion so I will edit my last post to remove any comedic value. For the record, I blame the sentence on the patio.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by krynski

That is insensitive and rude. You probably don't know this because your background in psychological matters is zero to none- and it shows. He probably killed himself because he was depressed. People experiencing psychotic episodes generally don't kill themselves. He was likely medicated and was experiencing a major depressive episode because his psychotic episode had likely affected his life negatively. People that are schizophrenic are likely to be comorbidly diagnosed with major depressive disorder.

I am not the one who brought the subject of someone killing them self up (which IMO means it is now subject matter). His friend was alive and well in a hospital and then was released, at which point he killed himself. Which is my point, although someone is fine and well with doctors monitoring your every move and medication, as soon as you are out all of those safety nets are gone. This is the same for depression and schizophrenia.

Trust me, I am sorry for anyone that has been impacted by these types of things. I just don't think mental illness is a reasonable reason to release someone to the general public (for those that commit violent crimes).

And you cannot say why someone 'probably' did anything if you want a reasonable debate. You have no idea. And you also have no idea what I do or do not know about. Seriously. Think about it. I am happy to explain my thoughts, but this is turning into a group of people just name calling.

[hkstylez]

Could they not send him back to china or w/e and let them deal with him like they did with that one fellow?

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by krynski

T hey are both pretty bad. I think the chain thing would be more fearful, and the cannibalism and murder more traumatic. I suppose it depends on the situation. If someone was running after me with a hunting knife or a chain, they would probably be equally fear inducing.

Are you joking? You would be equally afraid being chased by a dude with a friggen hunting knife as you would being chased by a dude with a bicycle chain? Really??

Personally I would find an old lady with a hunting knife more intimidating then a big bulky gang member with a bike chain, but that's just me. I mean really, what is someone going to do with a bike chain? They're like two feet long (if that) and weigh roughly 350 grams, the leather belt you have on right now is probably a better (and more intimidating) weapon. I guess maybe you could sneak up behind someone with the chain and choke them out with it, piano wire style, but then again if that's the standard then shoe laces need also be feared.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I am not the one who brought the subject of someone killing them self up (which IMO means it is now subject matter). His friend was alive and well in a hospital and then was released, at which point he killed himself. Which is my point, although someone is fine and well with doctors monitoring your every move and medication, as soon as you are out all of those safety nets are gone. This is the same for depression and schizophrenia.

Trust me, I am sorry for anyone that has been impacted by these types of things. I just don't think mental illness is a reasonable reason to release someone to the general public (for those that commit violent crimes).

And you cannot say why someone 'probably' did anything if you want a reasonable debate. You have no idea. And you also have no idea what I do or do not know about. Seriously. Think about it. I am happy to explain my thoughts, but this is turning into a group of people just name calling.

Fine, you didn't bring up the topic of suicide. That doesn't mean you should be completely ignorant of others. What you said was insensitive and rude, and didn't have any truth besides your opinion.

Alright, you got me started. There is a VERY HIGH comorbidity rate of a mood disorder (schizophrenia, bipolar 1) WITH Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Usually, the symptoms are worse. I'm not stating opinion. You can look these up in the diagnostic manual (DSM-4-TR). I honestly don't care what you know or you don't know. What I am saying here, above, is from the diagnostic manual both psychologists and psychiatrists use for mental disorders. Yeah, you're right, I can not say exactly why things happen. What i can say is that there is an extremely high chance of it occurring. I'm not throwing a bunch of "what if" 's around. I'm throwing around quite a bit of observational data that others have collected, data that people have been dedicating their whole lives to.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by krynski

Fine, you didn't bring up the topic of suicide. That doesn't mean you should be completely ignorant of others. What you said was insensitive and rude, and didn't have any truth besides your opinion.

Nothing I have said is insensitive. A topic was brought up in an online forum, I commented on that, and I tried to comment without prejudice. I did make an assumption, and that is that with care someone was safer than without the same standard of care.

Originally Posted by krynski

Alright, you got me started. There is a VERY HIGH comorbidity rate of a mood disorder (schizophrenia, bipolar 1) WITH Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Usually, the symptoms are worse. I'm not stating opinion. You can look these up in the diagnostic manual (DSM-4-TR). I honestly don't care what you know or you don't know. What I am saying here, above, is from the diagnostic manual both psychologists and psychiatrists use for mental disorders. Yeah, you're right, I can not say exactly why things happen. What i can say is that there is an extremely high chance of it occurring. I'm not throwing a bunch of "what if" 's around. I'm throwing around quite a bit of observational data that others have collected, data that people have been dedicating their whole lives to.

I am trying to figure out why you pointed all of this at me? Was there something I wrote that you disagree with?

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Are you joking? You would be equally afraid being chased by a dude with a friggen hunting knife as you would being chased by a dude with a bicycle chain? Really??

You've obviously never seen Cape Fear.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

I see a lot of posts with people referring to cases and people they knew first or second hand being successfully treated for mental illness.

If someone you know tried to harm themselves (suicide attempt) or broke a window or had a mild episode that's one thing.

This guy cut off someone's head and ate them.

That's not even in the same stratosphere of conversation of anything that's been brought up as a comparison.

It's game over for this guy. That was heinous, violent and 100% unforgivable under any circumstances. We're not talking about a guy who forgot to take his meds, got angry and broke a window.

Whether or not he can be rehabilitated to a point where it's nearly certain he wouldn't do something like that again is completely beside the point. He already did it and deserves the harshest punishment that can be bestowed under our laws. He should be in a facility and should never leave it.

There are no day passes and scenic trips in to town for guys who slay and behead innocent people. Regardless of the circumstances.

You are taking a completely moral (and untenable) position here. The intent requirement for murder could not be met here because Li was having a psychotic episode and thus acting without intent. How can you lock him away forever for murder when the justification that he used essentially nullifies the intent requirement for murder?

Do you also get up on soapboxes about taking away the liberty of soldiers for shooting enemy combatants, because they had performed a murderous act (action + intent to kill)? Or similarly for police officers in the line of duty? Really, you could argue that they are more deserving of punishment from a purely moral perspective. However, the law has been designed to carve out exemptions for them. Just like it has been designed to allow for exceptions when the clinically insane (legal term) take a life. Do you know how hard it is to successfully deploy a NCRMD defence? It is very narrow.

Criminal law, both in the trial and sentencing phases, is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. And honestly, you should be thanking your lucky stars every night before you go to sleep that that's the case.

[stacey]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

You've obviously never seen Cape Fear.

Claude Kersek: "You're scared. But that's Ok. I want you to savor that fear. The south was born in fear. Fear of the Indian, fear of the slave, fear of the damn Union. The south has a fine tradition of savoring fear. "

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Nothing I have said is insensitive. A topic was brought up in an online forum, I commented on that, and I tried to comment without prejudice. I did make an assumption, and that is that with care someone was safer than without the same standard of care.



I am trying to figure out why you pointed all of this at me? Was there something I wrote that you disagree with?

Someone shares a story of a friend committing suicide and you respond with "Cool story" and you actually have the nerve to pretend that nothing you have said is insensitive???

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by VO #23

Do you also get up on soapboxes about taking away the liberty of soldiers for shooting enemy combatants, because they had performed a murderous act (action + intent to kill)? Or similarly for police officers in the line of duty? Really, you could argue that they are more deserving of punishment from a purely moral perspective. However, the law has been designed to carve out exemptions for them. Just like it has been designed to allow for exceptions when the clinically insane (legal term) take a life. Do you know how hard it is to successfully deploy a NCRMD defence? It is very narrow.

Criminal law, both in the trial and sentencing phases, is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. And honestly, you should be thanking your lucky stars every night before you go to sleep that that's the case.

If those soldiers and police officers beaheaded someone then ATE THEM, then yeah, I'll get up on that soapbox. Terrible comparison. I've read a lot in this thread about how this guy is not at fault and how he should be allowed to return to society. And frankly that scares me that people think that. I guess it's a good thing I'm not a judge since I would actually dish out sentences that fit the crime and that take into account the victim's suffering.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by valo403

Someone shares a story of a friend committing suicide and you respond with "Cool story" and you actually have the nerve to pretend that nothing you have said is insensitive???

The comment was in regards to the fact the story was meant to support the posters in this thread that think mentally ill people that commit violent crimes should be released because they are now treated.
I feel that they are at a higher risk once the safety net is gone, and the story about a suicide supported that. Yet the poster somehow proposed the story did the opposite. Instead the story has been used as a backdrop to insult and condemn other posters. At least that is the way I thought it unfolded. Unfortunately, posting to a forum a story like that in a thread like this that is already divided is making people very emotional. I was not even close to reading it in that light.
Do I have to repeatedly state I feel terrible about stories like that? If Breivik committed his crimes in Canada how many of these same posters would be hoping for his release? Same story in Norway (I think) - the doctors claim he is mentally ill. Treat and release?

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by VO #23

Do you also get up on soapboxes about taking away the liberty of soldiers for shooting enemy combatants, because they had performed a murderous act (action + intent to kill)? Or similarly for police officers in the line of duty? Really, you could argue that they are more deserving of punishment from a purely moral perspective. However, the law has been designed to carve out exemptions for them. Just like it has been designed to allow for exceptions when the clinically insane (legal term) take a life. Do you know how hard it is to successfully deploy a NCRMD defence? It is very narrow.

Comparing soldiers and police officers to murderers is a little silly. Yes we know there are laws differentiating the two. We just don't all agree on letting murderers out of jail because their mental illness is treated. I would be all for changing the rules (of which I know little about) to not allow someone like Li out of jail.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Comparing soldiers and police officers to murderers is a little silly.

Not silly at all, actually. There is plenty of very serious literature on the topic.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

The comment was in regards to the fact the story was meant to support the posters in this thread that think mentally ill people that commit violent crimes should be released because they are now treated.
I feel that they are at a higher risk once the safety net is gone, and the story about a suicide supported that. Yet the poster somehow proposed the story did the opposite. Instead the story has been used as a backdrop to insult and condemn other posters. At least that is the way I thought it unfolded. Unfortunately, posting to a forum a story like that in a thread like this that is already divided is making people very emotional. I was not even close to reading it in that light.
Do I have to repeatedly state I feel terrible about stories like that? If Breivik committed his crimes in Canada how many of these same posters would be hoping for his release? Same story in Norway (I think) - the doctors claim he is mentally ill. Treat and release?

I don't think anyone here is arguing for a complete, 100% release. A) He was not found criminally responsible (deemed "insane")- correct? B) Psychotic episodes are severely impairing depending on the degree of the psychosis. Under these grounds, i don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to live a somewhat normal life. I don`t think he will get absolute full release. I don`t think he serves any threat to the public and I believe under the right amount of out-patient/in-patient care, he has the capacity to be a semi-functioning member of society.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Comparing soldiers and police officers to murderers is a little silly. Yes we know there are laws differentiating the two. We just don't all agree on letting murderers out of jail because their mental illness is treated. I would be all for changing the rules (of which I know little about) to not allow someone like Li out of jail.

Just FYI, he's likely not in jail. He is likely in a medical facility. Jails are not equipped for this kind of psychiatric care. I believe that under an insanity ruling, several psychiatric assessments are done and he is sent to a medical facility, not a jail. A jail would be terrible. A jail would not allow proper treatment.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

If those soldiers and police officers beaheaded someone then ATE THEM, then yeah, I'll get up on that soapbox. Terrible comparison. I've read a lot in this thread about how this guy is not at fault and how he should be allowed to return to society. And frankly that scares me that people think that. I guess it's a good thing I'm not a judge since I would actually dish out sentences that fit the crime and that take into account the victim's suffering.

That is not what I am arguing for, and I don't think a lot of others are either. I am of the belief that you can not compare Li's situation to someone else who would have committed the same crime.

While I agree that they should both be afforded the same treatment under the justice system, in other words, right to legal representation, right to a fair trial.....anything along those lines, I think it pretty well ends there if the person is found guilty on the grounds of mental insanity.

After that, I don't think that person should be incarcerated in a regular prison. They should be put in some mental facility that addresses those type of problems.

I also do not think that when the crime is as severe as the one Li committed, that they should ever be out in the public without supervision. Yes, the system failed him, yes he has received treatment, yes he has responded, but there is no guarantee with schiphronics that they will continue to take their medicine regularily without supervision.

There are times when the rights of the individual do not supercede the rights of society at large.

And by the way, what really scares me are comments that the police should just have shot Li. Just because a heinous crime has occurred does not mean that one should take the law into their own hands. If one does, does that make one any better than Li? In fact, it could be argued that it would be worse, because the police officer or whomever would have shot Li would have been of sane mind and totally responsible for their actions, something that Li was not.

[krynski]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05...nce-li-passes/

"“His risk of reoffending is very low. Vince is not a criminal, he’s a patient. Patients get better, and Vince has been an ideal patient,”

He is not a criminal, deemed by Law. I really don't see a problem here. Even the Crown can't come up with anything to prevent such a process from moving forward.