Board to decide bus beheader's fate

[Nuje]

The part that worries me, is that he was already on some sort of medication before it, and was presumably healthy when he decided to stop taking it (allegedly). I know I suck at taking pills, but when they're important, I tend to not forget (such as when I had suffered a bad ulcer). If I knew that pills were keeping me from doing something like that, I would make sure I couldn't possibly ever forget them.

[HPLovecraft]

Schizophrenics take very different pills from what you are likely used to taking. It's not like popping a tylenol. My brother is a schizophrenic, and he has a habit of going off his medication and relapsing because he believes he doesn't need them once he feels better (from taking them) -- not to mention how they change him, personality and physically wise -- and then relapsing. Of course, he's never done anything quite like this guy has done, and I would hope and imagine they would have some sort of system in place after this to make sure he remains on medication.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by 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.

The Crown's mandate is to see that justice is done. They likely aren't opposing the process from moving forward because they believe that justice IS being done in this case - Li is undergoing treatment successfully and should be allowed periodic trips away from the treatment facility.

[Jordan!]

Unreal

[VO #23]

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.

When considering the mens rea and actus reus elements of murder, no, it's a good comparison. And you can't consent to being murdered, which vitiates the soldier-on-soldier element.

As for the pie-in-the-sky "if I were a judge..." talk, you wouldn't be able to take any of that into account. Judges are accountable too, and both statute (the Criminal Code) and common law preclude them from handing out unreasonable sentences. Appeal of sentence and removal of the judge are powerful remedies against those on the bench who abuse their power.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

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

Trust me, I am sure there is. After all, the most heinous criminals (pedos, murderers, etc) still have advocates, and I am not talking about lawyers..

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Trust me, I am sure there is. After all, the most heinous criminals (pedos, murderers, etc) still have advocates, and I am not talking about lawyers..

As a healthy society, we should always be analysing and considering our own practices and beliefs in order to further grow and adapt to our ever changing times. Pedophilia isn't a crime by itself, it's the act, unless you believe in thought crimes. A state sanctioned invasion of another country and the killing of their soldiers and civilians is murder in the eyes of the invaded, and begs the question if it should be considered murder in our eyes, too. Being state sanctioned doesn't, by itself, make it just.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by krynski

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.

Hey, I appreciate someone actually interested in chatting about the subject, so thanks.

I think that we all agree on the actual facts about the case. The point is that some of us don't like how the system worked for this person.

You don't think he serves any threat to the public, but why? I think every person can be a threat, in particular someone who has already chopped a head off. He certainly does have the capacity to be a member of society and under his meds he can do lots of things. I am on the side of the fence that says he has gone to far and must be taken away from society forever.

I actually never meant to even get into the jail vs hospitalization issue, as I personally don't care where he is locked up and put away, as long as he is no longer free. I don't know much about the actual medical facilities that handles these types of people to be honest. When I was writing jail, I meant locked up where ever.

[Flames_Gimp]

just put him down and move on already. jesus

[Flames_Gimp]

I think the victims family should eat him, some sort of ceremonial feast.

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by VO #23

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.

Again, I don't care what the reason was.

He cut off someone's head and cannibalized them.

I couldn't care less that there are legal defenses for instances of clinical insanity.

We're not talking about a soldier or police officer suffering from post traumatic stress.

We're talking about a guy who - on a bus - cut someone's head off with a knife and started eating pieces of them.

"He didn't know what he was doing when he did that" is a horrible excuse. When someone in our society goes that far off the deep end and does something that despicable they should be locked up for good.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

"He didn't know what he was doing when he did that" is a horrible excuse. .

Why is it a horrible excuse?

[krynski]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

Again, I don't care what the reason was.

He cut off someone's head and cannibalized them.

I couldn't care less that there are legal defenses for instances of clinical insanity.

We're not talking about a soldier or police officer suffering from post traumatic stress.

We're talking about a guy who - on a bus - cut someone's head off with a knife and started eating pieces of them.

"He didn't know what he was doing when he did that" is a horrible excuse. When someone in our society goes that far off the deep end and does something that despicable they should be locked up for good.

no its not. There is a reason why insanity exists in the criminal code. I suggest you spend some time with schizophrenics and educate yourself in the matter. Maybe you are "fully" there all the time, that's great. It might do some good to try and understand what can happen to your fellow man.

Maybe look up altered states like:
Psychosis
Mania


What does PTSD have to do with anything?

[Captain_Obvious]

In my opinion, citing mental illness as an excuse for someone who killed, beheaded and ate another human being doesn't fly.

I think it's obvious he wasn't all there. My point is it shouldn't matter.

Again, *in my opinion* this guy and other extreme cases of violent murder, rape etc (regardless of the involvement of mental illness) should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, including not getting supervised day trips.

I realize a few of you think otherwise and wish to continue arguing about it, but I've now said my piece.

I understand the guy was completely out of it for one reason or another. That goes without saying.

What I'm saying is that regardless of the circumstances, when you commit a crime that heinous... you should be shut away regardless of the circumstances.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by krynski

no its not. There is a reason why insanity exists in the criminal code. I suggest you spend some time with schizophrenics and educate yourself in the matter. Maybe you are "fully" there all the time, that's great. It might do some good to try and understand what can happen to your fellow man.

Maybe look up altered states like:
Psychosis
Mania


What does PTSD have to do with anything?

You're dealing with people who have great ignorance when it comes to schizophrenia. Emotions about the killing seem to over ride ones ability to educate themselves on the issue. It's no wonder there is a negitive stigma involving mental illness with the affected people not coming forward for help.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

Again, I don't care what the reason was.

He cut off someone's head and cannibalized them.

I couldn't care less that there are legal defenses for instances of clinical insanity.

We're not talking about a soldier or police officer suffering from post traumatic stress.

We're talking about a guy who - on a bus - cut someone's head off with a knife and started eating pieces of them.

"He didn't know what he was doing when he did that" is a horrible excuse. When someone in our society goes that far off the deep end and does something that despicable they should be locked up for good.

In my example, I'm not talking about PTSD soldiers after the fact - I'm talking about soldiers in the act of war being just as morally culpable for crimes (including murder) than Vince Li is for his. This is based on your very own logic.

We get that you are a moral absolutist. I'm just showing you the absurd lengths to which your one-size-fits-all approach to criminal law and sentencing can be taken. But for some reason you are now trying to allow for exceptions in one case, and not the other, when you don't really have a logical leg to stand on.

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by VO #23

In my example, I'm not talking about PTSD soldiers after the fact - I'm talking about soldiers in the act of war being just as morally culpable for crimes (including murder) than Vince Li is for his. This is based on your very own logic.

We get that you are a moral absolutist. I'm just showing you the absurd lengths to which your one-size-fits-all approach to criminal law and sentencing can be taken. But for some reason you are now trying to allow for exceptions in one case, and not the other, when you don't really have a logical leg to stand on.

I'm sorry, maybe you can elaborate on the point you think you're making.

You're comparing war related killings on the battlefield on foreign soil to a heinous act of murder and cannibalism on a public bus in our own country?

Yea, it's my logic that doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Dion

You're dealing with people who have great ignorance when it comes to schizophrenia. Emotions about the killing seem to over ride ones ability to educate themselves on the issue. It's no wonder there is a negitive stigma involving mental illness with the affected people not coming forward for help.

I haven't read the thread and the link in the OP is dead so I might be a bit behind here, but the problem for me is that the non compliance rates for medications for schizophrenics is extremely high and this guy isn't just a schizophrenic, he's proven to be a extremely dangerous one.

Do I believe with proper medication his symptoms can be controlled and he's not a danger? Possibly.

Do I believe without strict supervision he will follow his medication protocol as perscribed? Not a chance in hell.

From my perspective he's going to need someone checking in on him every day for the rest of his life to make sure he's taking his meds and just as importantly, that they're still effective.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Dan02

I haven't read the thread and the link in the OP is dead so I might be a bit behind here, but the problem for me is that the non compliance rates for medications for schizophrenics is extremely high and this guy isn't just a schizophrenic, he's proven to be a extremely dangerous one.

Do I believe with proper medication his symptoms can be controlled and he's not a danger? Possibly.

Do I believe without strict supervision he will follow his medication protocol as perscribed? Not a chance in hell.

From my perspective he's going to need someone checking in on him every day for the rest of his life to make sure he's taking his meds and just as importantly, that they're still effective.

I could be wrong, but I think that's what's happening here. I think he's getting a few "day passes" here and there, with supervision to make sure he stays on his meds. Or I cuold be wrong, I didn't really read the article.

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by Dion

You're dealing with people who have great ignorance when it comes to schizophrenia. Emotions about the killing seem to over ride ones ability to educate themselves on the issue. It's no wonder there is a negitive stigma involving mental illness with the affected people not coming forward for help.

It's got nothing to do with ignorance, and it's quite pompous of you to suggest that continuously when you've already admitted you were ignorant to it yourself before something close to you opened your eyes on the subject.

If someone suffering from schizophrenia or any other mental illness tries to hurt themselves or someone else in a fairly minor incident, that's one thing.

Again: public bus + beheading + murder + cannibalism.

Maybe your recent casual expertise on the subject of mental illness cranks up your sympathy level *for this particular case* a few nothces. If that's so, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not telling you you're wrong or ignorant.

I don't care whether it was malice, mental illness or demons that made this guy do it. It was one of the more horrific crimes in recent memory and I don't think those who lack empathy for this guy and feel he should rot is an unreasonable position on this particular case.

You might not share that opinion, but stop acting like you're above it because of some higher level of casual education on the subject.