Board to decide bus beheader's fate

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

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.

No, the onus is on you here - when using a moral absolutist approach, how are the two acts different? Please tell me.

Is it a jurisdictional issue? ex: a soldier killing in foreign lands is ok because Canada doesn't have jurisdiction over a Canadian soldier in Country X. If so, that would make Vince Li less morally culpable had he killed and beheaded a person in Country X, because Canadian courts couldn't take jurisdiction over the case. Using your logic, of course.

Is it an elements of the offence issue? ex: a soldier killing in foreign lands requires the soldier to contribute to a killing with intention. If so, that would make Vince Li equally culpable only if he also contributed to the killing with intention. Except a Canadian court of law has already found that he did not have the required intention to sustain a conviction for murder. Therefore, a soldier with intent + contribution is more morally culpable than Vince Li with contribution only. Using your logic, of course.

Is it the issue of the victim's role in the killing? ex: a soldier killing a foreign soldier who is a willing combatant on the battlefield. However, by law, consent has nothing to do with this. Both under international humanitarian law (the Geneva Conventions) and domestic criminal law (Criminal Code), a person cannot consent to being murdered. Therefore, a soldier killing on the battlefield is just as morally culpable for claiming a victim of murder as Vince Li is. Using your logic, of course.

So, which is it? How is it different? The exception you are carving out - and you certainly are carving one out - comes from a place of emotion and bias, not rational logic.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

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.

When are you going to educate yourself as opposed to letting your emotions determine what judgement should be handed out.

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.

It has nothing to do with "sympathy" but rather an understanding of why he did what he did and how medical teatment can take away that "threat " he poses to society and more importantly those who work and monitor him. That understanding takes away fear that some people have about Li when he's on an escorted day parole.

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.

Because of people like you, more and more of those suffering from schizophrenia and other mental illnesses will not come forward for treatment. Fear is what keeps them from seeking help. Sad thing is incidents like Li's can be prevented if we can remove the negitive stigma that goes with it.

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.

I'm glad you're not in a position to be handing out sentences. Forcing someone to "rot" for a disease he/she did not ask for is unreasonable and quite sad.

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by VO #23

No, the onus is on you here - when using a moral absolutist approach, how are the two acts different? Please tell me.

Is it a jurisdictional issue? ex: a soldier killing in foreign lands is ok because Canada doesn't have jurisdiction over a Canadian soldier in Country X. If so, that would make Vince Li less morally culpable had he killed and beheaded a person in Country X, because Canadian courts couldn't take jurisdiction over the case. Using your logic, of course.

Is it an elements of the offence issue? ex: a soldier killing in foreign lands requires the soldier to contribute to a killing with intention. If so, that would make Vince Li equally culpable only if he also contributed to the killing with intention. Except a Canadian court of law has already found that he did not have the required intention to sustain a conviction for murder. Therefore, a soldier with intent + contribution is more morally culpable than Vince Li with contribution only. Using your logic, of course.

Is it the issue of the victim's role in the killing? ex: a soldier killing a foreign soldier who is a willing combatant on the battlefield. However, by law, consent has nothing to do with this. Both under international humanitarian law (the Geneva Conventions) and domestic criminal law (Criminal Code), a person cannot consent to being murdered. Therefore, a soldier killing on the battlefield is just as morally culpable for claiming a victim of murder as Vince Li is. Using your logic, of course.

So, which is it? How is it different? The exception you are carving out - and you certainly are carving one out - comes from a place of emotion and bias, not rational logic.

Where did I provide any kind of pretext about how I feel about war or the moral issues associated with it?

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

Where did I provide any kind of pretext about how I feel about war or the moral issues associated with it?

You didn't. But you have made claims from atop Mount Pious throughout this discussion prescribing a specific type of punishment for a specific type of offence, and gave me a 'roll eyes' smiley when I said you were defending an untenable position. So I'm trying to see where exactly the problem lies in applying your punishment for crime based on another set of related facts.

I can only assume from your ducking of my question that you are well aware of your flawed logic but choose to ignore it, even if it undermines your entire position.

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by Dion

When are you going to educate yourself as opposed to letting your emotions determine what judgement should be handed out.



It has nothing to do with "sympathy" but rather an understanding of why he did what he did and how medical teatment can take away that "threat " he poses to society and more importantly those who work and monitor him. That understanding takes away fear that some people have about Li when he's on an escorted day parole.



Because of people like you, more and more of those suffering from schizophrenia and other mental illnesses will not come forward for treatment. Fear is what keeps them from seeking help. Sad thing is incidents like Li's can be prevented if we can remove the negitive stigma that goes with it.



I'm glad you're not in a position to be handing out sentences. Forcing someone to "rot" for a disease he/she did not ask for is unreasonable and quite sad.

Sorry, I'm not buying an ounce of what you're selling, and find your entire stance to reek of self righteousness.

I have no emotional feelings invested in the case or the judgement / sentencing.

I just happen to think that in crimes that are particularly heinous and abhorrent the punishment should be as harsh as possible regardless of the circumstances.

I get that you had an eye opening experience at some point in regards to mental illness, but again, we're talking about a guy who murdered, beheaded and ate another human being.

Speaking of those emotionally invested in the case, Id' love to hear you drop your casual education on the subject to the immediate family of Tim McLean. You can tell them all about the wide spread ignorance on mental illness and talk to them about their emotional involvement in the judgement.

In the grand scheme of things I'm all for eradicating the stigma surrounding mental illness... but in this case I'm more concerned about the stigma of grossly exaggerating the long term comfort of a monstrous killer.

And FYI your "people like me" comment couldn't have been more ignorant. You just grouped me with teenagers at a school who belittle suicide attempts for not feeling sympathy for a brutal murderer.

If I were to use the same level of ignorance I'd point out that because of "people like you"... the guy who beheaded and ate someone is going to get leisurely day passes to stroll about town while the guy he killed and partially ate remains dead and gone.

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by VO #23

You didn't. But you have made claims from atop Mount Pious throughout this discussion prescribing a specific type of punishment for a specific type of offence, and gave me a 'roll eyes' smiley when I said you were defending an untenable position. So I'm trying to see where exactly the problem lies in applying your punishment for crime based on another set of related facts.

I can only assume from your ducking of my question that you are well aware of your flawed logic but choose to ignore it, even if it undermines your entire position.

If my simple point wasn't clear enough before you attempted to derail the discussion with absurdities and legalese let me make it again:

*In my opinion* (which I've said several times now)... mental illness shouldn't excuse an act that heinous.

Whether this guy can be treated to the point where he can effectively leave the facility he should be confined to for brief leisurely periods is - in my opinion - beside the point.

As far as I'm concerned, when you kill and cannibalize another human being you should lose your 'day pass' privileges.

Sorry if my moral high chair atop my moral mountain rubs you the wrong way... but this is a forum and this is an ongoing discussion.

I have already said several times that those opposing my view are entitled to their opinion that the pre-existing mental illness should invoke some sympathy and or an effort to rehabilitate this murder to the point where he can mingle back with society under supervision...

I just think it stinks.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

I just happen to think that in crimes that are particularly heinous and abhorrent the punishment should be as harsh as possible regardless of the circumstances.

...and this is why we have a judicial process, that does factor in circumstance, rather than people like you sentencing criminals.

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by flameswin

...and this is why we have a judicial process, that does factor in circumstance, rather than people like you sentencing criminals.

That's a great point that begs the question... why are we even discussing this then? It's not like there could be any problems with our judicial system.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

That's a great point that begs the question... why are we even discussing this then? It's not like there could be any problems with our judicial system.

Haha, yep, sorry that was a jackass comment on my part. But in this case, I prefer to go with the experts that made a determination on this guy, than you guys on the internet.

[Flames_Gimp]

put him down like a rabid dog.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

If my simple point wasn't clear enough before you attempted to derail the discussion with absurdities and legalese let me make it again:

*In my opinion* (which I've said several times now)... mental illness shouldn't excuse an act that heinous.

Whether this guy can be treated to the point where he can effectively leave the facility he should be confined to for brief leisurely periods is - in my opinion - beside the point.

As far as I'm concerned, when you kill and cannibalize another human being you should lose your 'day pass' privileges.

Sorry if my moral high chair atop my moral mountain rubs you the wrong way... but this is a forum and this is an ongoing discussion.

I have already said several times that those opposing my view are entitled to their opinion that the pre-existing mental illness should invoke some sympathy and or an effort to rehabilitate this murder to the point where he can mingle back with society under supervision...

I just think it stinks.

I'm just glad you've finally tacitly acknowledged that your position is based on emotion and 'gut feeling', not rationalism or logic, and that you are happy to selectively apply when contextual factors should be taken into account.

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by VO #23

I'm just glad you've finally tacitly acknowledged that your position is based on emotion and 'gut feeling', not rationalism or logic, and that you are happy to selectively apply when contextual factors should be taken into account.

The funny thing is I've been saying the same thing all along and it was never difficult to follow. You made a horrible and presumtious attempt to drive off topic and failed.

Perhaps instead of fixating on my very simple and easy to understand view point (that I am entitled to regardless of the fact you don't like it) you could present your own feelings on the subject being discussed.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

Sorry, I'm not buying an ounce of what you're selling, and find your entire stance to reek of self righteousness.

Judging by your hard line stance on this issue I wouldn't expect you to agree with what i'm saying. There seems to be a line drawn in the sand on this issue with no one changing thier views. If offering up my understanding is self righousness - you're free to believe what you want.

I have no emotional feelings invested in the case or the judgement / sentencing.

I just happen to think that in crimes that are particularly heinous and abhorrent the punishment should be as harsh as possible regardless of the circumstances.

What part of the judgemnt handed down by the court do you disagree with?

I get that you had an eye opening experience at some point in regards to mental illness, but again, we're talking about a guy who murdered, beheaded and ate another human being.

My views don't change based on the seriousness of the act. It repulses me that he did what he did, but at the same time he has a disease that needs to be treated. He is where he should be.

Speaking of those emotionally invested in the case, Id' love to hear you drop your casual education on the subject to the immediate family of Tim McLean. You can tell them all about the wide spread ignorance on mental illness and talk to them about their emotional involvement in the judgement.

I'm sure some have tried if the family has reached out for grief support. I hope and pray they are able to make peace with what has happened and be able to move on.

In the grand scheme of things I'm all for eradicating the stigma surrounding mental illness... but in this case I'm more concerned about the stigma of grossly exaggerating the long term comfort of a monstrous killer.

I'm sure a mental hospital for the criminaly insane is no country club.

And FYI your "people like me" comment couldn't have been more ignorant. You just grouped me with teenagers at a school who belittle suicide attempts for not feeling sympathy for a brutal murderer.

I didn't ask you to feel sympathy for a brutal murder.

If I were to use the same level of ignorance I'd point out that because of "people like you"... the guy who beheaded and ate someone is going to get leisurely day passes to stroll about town while the guy he killed and partially ate remains dead and gone.

I'm quite aware of what he did and who is dead. I'm just not a person who is hell bent on revenge or one who wants an eye for an eye type punishment - not saying you are. His treatment has made him a non threat to the other people in the hospital or his shrink and workers who watch over him. If were going to keep him in a hospital setting for the rest of his life, it only makes sense that we take away the threat.

[VO #23]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

The funny thing is I've been saying the same thing all along and it was never difficult to follow. You made a horrible and presumtious attempt to drive off topic and failed.

Perhaps instead of fixating on my very simple and easy to understand view point (that I am entitled to regardless of the fact you don't like it) you could present your own feelings on the subject being discussed.

I didn't try to derail the thread at all. I entered the discussion at a time when the inherent logic of the criminal justice system (specifically, valid defences and sentencing) was under attack, and I pretty clearly demonstrated that your position of moral absolutism is untenable and hypocritical, regardless of if you think I failed or not.

As for my own feelings on the subject, if Vince Li has satisfied the conditions set forth by mental health professionals to be granted limited, supervised off-site visits then I don't have a problem with it. He was not convicted of murder, and I agreed with the result found at trial.

You can tell a lot about a case by watching how the Crown proceeds, and it has been deferential in a lot of instances so far. I'm on the same page as them, from what I can tell. This makes me happy as a soon-to-be law school grad still very much trying to grapple with the justice system and its component parts.

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by Dion

Judging by your hard line stance on this issue I wouldn't expect you to agree with what i'm saying. There seems to be a line drawn in the sand on this issue with no one changing thier views. If offering up my understanding is self righousness - you're free to believe what you want.

The self righteous comment was directly related to you calling people who disagree with your stance here "ignorant about mental illness" as well as you using the phrase "people like you" telling me my view point on this specific issue will stop mentally ill people from seeking treatment.

Go back and read what you wrote and look at how that comes across.

The part I disagree with is the update to the case that bumped this thread.
The fact he is going to potentially be allowed to leave his facility.

That is what spurred this part of the discussion.

[Dion]

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.

He will never be granted parole. We have nothing in place that will ensure he takes his medication and continues his treatment. Chances are very high he would go off his meds and reoffend if he was released unescorted into society.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

The self righteous comment was directly related to you calling people who disagree with your stance here "ignorant about mental illness" as well as you using the phrase "people like you" telling me my view point on this specific issue will stop mentally ill people from seeking treatment.

Go back and read what you wrote and look at how that comes across.

You citing mental illness as an excuse for someone who killed, beheaded and ate another human being doesn't fly, speaks of ignorance to me. It isn't an excuse but a medical reason for what he did what he did. Having voices from God telling Li that McLean was an evil threat that needed to be eliminated, is not normal.

The part I disagree with is the update to the case that bumped this thread.
The fact he is going to potentially be allowed to leave his facility.

That is what spurred this part of the discussion.

His doctors have said Li is on medication and not experiencing any symptoms or hallucinations. Li is considered to have a 0.8 per cent chance of reoffending violently in the next seven years, according to doctors. If he's on a 30 minute escoted pass into the community, how is he a threat to the public.

[Dion]

For Tim's mother, the issue is safety

She wants his mentally ill killer confined for life

Li was found not criminally responsible for the slaying. He has schizophrenia and was not receiving treatment when he killed Carol de Delley's boy. The verdict didn't sit well with many who don't buy mental illness as a reason for not doing time for crime. Carol de Delley was never part of that crowd.

"I'm not fear-mongering. It's (the calls for violence against Li) that are frightening. I have nothing but empathy and sympathy for people who are suffering from a mental illness," the 51-year-old said Friday afternoon.

"They want to take care of Vince Li and treat him humanely. Fine. No wonder he's showing vast improvements. Compared to what he was like, no kidding. (But) he needs to be kept there. He needs to be in a secure locked facility for the rest of his life."

The debate has sent shivers through the mental-health community. Even as Manitoba opened its first mental-health court to divert non-violent offenders from the traditional justice system, the decision to give Li additional freedoms has led to online calls for his death.

Again, Tim McLean's mother is not among that number. But her son's murder has exposed the fear and mistrust many feel toward those with a mental illness, no matter how treatable.

"I think we have all had experiences with mental illnesses. It's common. But our experiences weren't violent," she says. "Schizophrenia is not curable, it's treatable."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bre...152136265.html

[Captain_Obvious]

Originally Posted by Dion

You citing mental illness as an excuse for someone who killed, beheaded and ate another human being doesn't fly, speaks of ignorance to me.

1. That sentence doesn't make sense...

2. Ignorance is defined as Lack of knowledge or information.

I stated outright that I understand he was suffering from mental illness and didn't understand what he did was wrong.

Regardless of that, after what he did I still feel he should be permanently confined to his mental health facility and unable to leave it.

What they're talking about is releasing him for 30 minute -to- day long trips into Selkirk with an aide and a peace officer (with cell phone).

I think after what he did, he shouldn't have the opportunity to do even that. Both because of the (what they feel to be remote) chance he may re-offend, and the severity of the first crime being so egregious.

I get that you feel differently, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I just disagree.

Originally Posted by Dion

His doctors have said Li is on medication and not experiencing any symptoms or hallucinations. Li is considered to have a 0.8 per cent chance of reoffending violently in the next seven years, according to doctors. If he's on a 30 minute escoted pass into the community, how is he a threat to the public.

Hey Dion,

A schizophrenic cannibalistic murder is going to be walking around downtown tomorrow when your wife and kids are out and about but don't worry there's only a 0.8% chance he might do something like that again and there's a doctor and a guy with a cell phone watching over him so it's all good.

You feel me now? Again, I understand the ruling and read the same articles you did. I just disagree with it... and the above is one of the biggest reasons why.

You can disagree, but how can you call anyone who might have a problem with that "ignorant"?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Captain_Obvious

1. That sentence doesn't make sense...

2. Ignorance is defined as Lack of knowledge or information.

I stated outright that I understand he was suffering from mental illness and didn't understand what he did was wrong.

I reread my sentence and agree it doesn't make sense. i misread what you stated.

Okay, so ignorance is not the right term.

Regardless of that, after what he did I still feel he should be permanently confined to his mental health facility and unable to leave it.

What they're talking about is releasing him for 30 minute -to- day long trips into Selkirk with an aide and a peace officer (with cell phone).

I think after what he did, he shouldn't have the opportunity to do even that. Both because of the (what they feel to be remote) chance he may re-offend, and the severity of the first crime being so egregious.

I get that you feel differently, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant. I just disagree.

The only way I see him reoffending is if he was granted unescorted parole. And I hope to god it never happens.

Hey Dion,

A schizophrenic cannibalistic murder is going to be walking around downtown tomorrow when your wife and kids are out and about but don't worry there's only a 0.8% chance he might do something like that again and there's a doctor and a guy with a cell phone watching over him so it's all good.

You feel me now? Again, I understand the ruling and read the same articles you did. I just disagree with it... and the above is one of the biggest reasons why.

You can disagree, but how can you call anyone who might have a problem with that "ignorant"?

Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree on wether fear is warrented.