Man stabbed, then decapitated on grey hound bus

[Dion]

So how do we, as individuals and a community, mediate this turbulent conflict? In 25 plus years as a criminal lawyer I have both prosecuted and defended countless mental disorder cases, and was immersed in the complex intersection of criminal justice and mental health. That experience teaches four lessons.

First we must respect the validity of conflict between reason and emotion. Productive discourse never flows from denigrating understandable emotional reactions we may not share. Nor does productive discourse ever flow from dismissing rational conclusions we dislike for non-rational reasons.

Second, we must not assume the board’s order reveals a broken system. That order can be reviewed by the courts. Every system of adjudication is vulnerable to human error, which is why appeals are always built in, up to the Supreme Court of Canada if necessary. Such appeals occasion sober second thought. And when appeal options exist, but after due reflection are not exercised, that too can speak powerfully to the wisdom of the order made. We must allow these built-in safeguards for sober second thought to unfold before leaping to any conclusions about a flawed system.

Third, we must recognize there are two highly emotional tragedies unfolding in such cases, not just one. Often overlooked is the tragedy of the accused person’s life. A mental disorder neither asked for nor deserved has inflicted upon the accused person severe and long lasting legal consequences. Those consequences are no less severe for being necessary to protect the public. Thus the emotional landscape is itself complicated and contradictory.

Fourth and most importantly, during such turbulent conflicts between emotion and reason we look to the bigger picture. Cases like Mr. Li’s demand criminal justice dispensed for the broadest and highest public good, which includes clear-eyed consideration of mental health dynamics where they are present. This bigger picture teaches us that criminal justice outcomes driven by visceral reactions of the moment rarely withstand scrutiny. Our best criminal law responses to human tragedies must be thoughtful and rational first, and tempered by compassion second.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle17266850/

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

i think a bullet would be the best medicine for Li

Mental sickness or not if I was a family member of the victim I would be pissed this guy is out after 7 years and probably would be thinking about going "hunting" one night.

I think it's disgusting that the authorities are trying so hard to FIX this guy they are forgetting that there should be a punishment for a violent murder and about the feelings of the victims family.

Aren't all violent murderers sick in the head in some way? maybe we should review their cases and let them out after seven years if they show promiss that they won't do it again.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by T@T

Mental sickness or not if I was a family member of the victim I would be pissed this guy is out after 7 years and probably would be thinking about going "hunting" one night.



Aren't all violent murderers sick in the head in some way?

Quoted for irony!

[Coys1882]

I've said it earlier in this thread the last time he hit the news and I still feel the same way. Even though his crime is absolutely horrific in its nature - this guy being released into society with the aid of doctors scares me less than street thugs who shoot up Vietnamese restaurants and such and get out of jail in the same timeframe.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

I've said it earlier in this thread the last time he hit the news and I still feel the same way. Even though his crime is absolutely horrific in its nature - this guy being released into society with the aid of doctors scares me less than street thugs who shoot up Vietnamese restaurants and such and get out of jail in the same timeframe.

At least street thugs who shoot up Vietnamese restaurants have motive and usually don't target others....

This guy is unstable and needs to be medicated the rest of his lift in order to stop voices in his head from telling him to kill random innocent people for no reason.

I don't know how the former scares you more.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Yeah, thugs target anyone who can put them away, or anyone they want for that matter, it's not all noble like it appears in the Godfather where they kill only other gang members and leave "innocents" out of it. Witnesses and innocents are killed frequently for many reasons, some with no motive (or poor motives). Over 80,000 people dead in Mexico since 2010 are not all gang members believe it or not.

The other point is generally thugs are not getting rehabilitated for their crimes. They go to jail, get hooked up with the gangs there, and generally return right to crime within seconds of leaving jail. Prison is holding time for them before they return to the thug life. At least Li, even medicated, will improve. The guys who did the Bolsa murders will be right back in the game killing again the second they are out. So that's why one is more frightening than the other.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

At least street thugs who shoot up Vietnamese restaurants have motive and usually don't target others....

Collateral damage

This guy is unstable and needs to be medicated the rest of his lift in order to stop voices in his head from telling him to kill random innocent people for no reason.

I don't know how the former scares you more.

Can you please provide your credentials which allow you to make this decree?

Also, perhaps give us a rundown on your one on one dealings with Li.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by T@T

Mental sickness or not if I was a family member of the victim I would be pissed this guy is out after 7 years and probably would be thinking about going "hunting" one night.

Got a lot of experience targeting humans do you?

[CaptainCrunch]

I always look at justice as a three sided scale, each side needs to be weighed evenly.

1) The need for rehabilitation - There are crimes that I feel the perpetrator cannot be fixed, either they're damaged, or they enjoy it, or its a shall I say condition. Pedophiles, I don't believe that they can be fixed unless there's a surgery or drug that not only stops the physical urges, but their mental urges as well. Multiple time violent offenders, serial killers, serial rapists. I don't think that the majority of them can be fixed.

In terms of this case, it seems like he can as long as he continues to make medication for the rest of his life without fail.

2) The need for public safety - Sometimes you should lock people away because they're going to re-offend or because they are dangerous, or because they don't care, personally I think that this is where the justice system does have systematic failure because the people judging the risk of re-offending are rational people living within a irrational theory that because they couldn't possibly see themselves doing evil that nobody can do evil.

I don't believe that Li wants to go out and cut people's heads off and eat their flesh. I believe that he wants to atone for what he did, and I believe given the right set of circumstances that he can be a productive member of society.

However I believe that when you have a condition that requires you to take daily medication to prevent you from descending into violent madness, that you take caution over any other course. I don't believe that you can trust Mr Li to take his medication and keep himself sane so to speak. I believe that he should never be un-supervised, I agree with a post above where I've known people who are on medication for physical ailments, and I know people who are on medication for mental illness, and they fail like every other human, they get busy, they forget, they feel like they're cured and they stop taking their medication.

In the case of Mr Li, there is no safety net, his past has shown it, and you can't really trust him un-supervised.

2) the need to help the victim - We have to separate the need for revenge from the need for justice disguised as the above two points. I can't possibly put myself in the shoes of the victims family, but this is something that eats away at them and everytime they hear that Li is going for ice cream or getting approved for absences it eats at them a little more. However I do believe that the victim has to have value, we've seen too many cases where a short sentence is put in place and the question is asked, "What about the value of the victim? he's worth more then the criminals freedom".

I believe that this case is different as are a lot of other cases of victims of mental illness, we can't treat it like a straight up criminal case. Mr Li wasn't in control of his brain or his body that day. Anything in him that was rational and human had been tucked away in a closet in his brain and the door was locked.

But I believe that victims have rights, and the right to confront the nightmare of a lost one, and I think that the justice system has to look at that when they look at the timeline of Li's progress and they have to be sure.

But ultimately Justice isn't just about creating a sense of revenge, which is where Justice originally came from.

I have problems with Li being given the benefit of the doubt, ever. However I don't think that running him through the criminal justice system serves anything but a need for revenge. I think that the mental health community though needs to look at two of the three things above and ask themselves, what's best for the community, what's best for victim rights, and then they have to tack on, what's best for Li.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by T@T

Mental sickness or not if I was a family member of the victim I would be pissed this guy is out after 7 years and probably would be thinking about going "hunting" one night.

I think it's disgusting that the authorities are trying so hard to FIX this guy they are forgetting that there should be a punishment for a violent murder and about the feelings of the victims family.

Aren't all violent murderers sick in the head in some way? maybe we should review their cases and let them out after seven years if they show promiss that they won't do it again.

I'll let the first bit of silliness in this post go as it's already been quoted on below your post and instead focus on the bolded part.

As has been quoted in this thread and others already, only in roughly 1% of murder cases does the defendant use the mental illness/insanity defense, and it's successful in less than half. So no, despite the big and weird and violent cases that get all the press, it's not used a lot, and all violent murderers are not 'sick in the head'. Not at least based on our current medical knowledge or justice system.

It's very easy for a layman to use their own morals and viewpoint of the world to make blanket statements like 'anyone who commits murder is sick' whether they are arguing for or against tougher penalties (while obviously you are using it here sarcastically to argue for tougher penalties, other people have used is seriously for more leniency) but these are nothing more than ill informed and non educated statements based on ones moral code and personal viewpoints.

The actual rules used for mental illness and how it pertains to defense in the justice system are very defined and scrutinized and far less applicable than most think. And as recent proof of this, there is the recent case of Luka Magnotta who decided to use the mental illness defense SPECIFICALLY citing schizophrenia, and was found guilty.

So no, your assertion is about as false as false gets.

[polak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Collateral damage



Can you please provide your credentials which allow you to make this decree?

Also, perhaps give us a rundown on your one on one dealings with Li.

Doctors have said he needs to be medicated the rest of his life. Multiple people on here have shared stories about people they know dealing with the same issues as Li feeling like their "better" and not taking their medication anymore and then having more issues. Last time he had an
"episode" he brutally killed someone.

I think my business degree is even good enough to tell you that's a messed up situation and that I don't think letting him roam around town unsupervised is a good idea.

Again, what if in his last episode, instead of killing 1 person, he killed 25? Then would we deem him unfit for society even if he showed progress like he has?

I just don't get how we keep people who HAVEN'T killed anyone locked up in mental institutions cause they're unfit for unsupervised living yet this guy, who cut someones ####ing head off, gets a pass cause well he looks like he should be alright as long as he takes all of his meds.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

Doctors have said he needs to be medicated the rest of his life. Multiple people on here have shared stories about people they know dealing with the same issues as Li feeling like their "better" and not taking their medication anymore and then having more issues. Last time he had an
"episode" he brutally killed someone.

You know this was his first episode, right? He didn't have a history of mental illness.

I think my business degree is even good enough to tell you that's a messed up situation and that I don't think letting him roam around town unsupervised is a good idea.

Edit:

To be clear I was one of the people on here that shared a story about a good friend's wife.

[nik-]

Man ... I'm super torn on this. On one hand, I want to live in a country where the mentally ill can legitimately be rehabilitated. However, on the other hand, this guy's mental illness triggered something pretty awful. Knowing that's lying under the surface suppressed by pharmaceuticals is a little scary.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by nik-

Man ... I'm super torn on this. On one hand, I want to live in a country where the mentally ill can legitimately be rehabilitated. However, on the other hand, this guy's mental illness triggered something pretty awful. Knowing that's lying under the surface suppressed by pharmaceuticals is a little scary.

I think we all are scared by it, normal to be sacred by it. But in these situations I can only trust in the people making decisions. After all they live in the same society as I do, the same society Mr Li would be entering....

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that the mental health community though needs to look at two of the three things above and ask themselves, what's best for the community, what's best for victim rights, and then they have to tack on, what's best for Li.

What do you mean what's best for victims rights?

As harsh as it may sound for the family the process is not about them or their rights. It is about doing what is best in the public interest.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Bagor

What do you mean what's best for victims rights?

As harsh as it may sound for the family the process is not about them or their rights. It is about doing what is best in the public interest.

Pfft.
Too me it sounds like your argument is to do what is best for the killer.

Are you going to tell me that releasing a mentally ill person who has to be medicated for the rest of his life, routinely visit medical specialists, live in publically funded housing, eat under public dime and who probably won't be able to hold down any type of meaningful work due to the public nature of his crime is better than keeping him off the streets and not having any risk of him killing someone else?

Face it, releasing him is more than likely going cost society nearly as much as keeping him under lock and key and he's probably not going to be able to contribute much to society as a whole. There's pretty much no "good for society" in this scenerio. The only good that would come out of this is the hope that one mentally ill man is better. Too bad it comes at such risk.

At least observe him for more than a few years before letting him walk go out unsupervised. Why can't he serve a normal sentence under supervision? That would give us tons of reassurance that he's indeed safe before you set him free.

[Flamenspiel]

What happened to bill -c-14, i thought it was passed but can't really confirm if it came in too late for this case:

"Bill C-14 will create a designation of “high-risk accused” for the most dangerous cases. They must be detained in hospital under guard. A high-risk accused will not be allowed to leave unescorted. He will not be able to obtain a pass to leave with or without an escort, except in rare circumstances and with due regard for public safety"

Can any of the lawyers speak to this?

[Flames_Gimp]

I don't want society to rehabilitate murderers, societies garbage should be properly disposed of not recycled.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by polak

I think my business degree is even good enough to tell you that's a messed up situation and that I don't think letting him roam around town unsupervised is a good idea.

.

I have two degrees, work in healthcare, and I have several friends in law enforcement. Clearly I'm more qualified than you to make definitive judgements on this case!

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by polak

Pfft.
Too me it sounds like your argument is to do what is best for the killer.

Are you going to tell me that releasing a mentally ill person who has to be medicated for the rest of his life, routinely visit medical specialists, live in publically funded housing, eat under public dime and who probably won't be able to hold down any type of meaningful work due to the public nature of his crime is better than keeping him off the streets and not having any risk of him killing someone else?

Face it, releasing him is more than likely going cost society nearly as much as keeping him under lock and key and he's probably not going to be able to contribute much to society as a whole. There's pretty much no "good for society" in this scenerio. The only good that would come out of this is the hope that one mentally ill man is better. Too bad it comes at such risk.

At least observe him for more than a few years before letting him walk go out unsupervised. Why can't he serve a normal sentence under supervision? That would give us tons of reassurance that he's indeed safe before you set him free.

It wasn't an argument for anything, was just a statement of fact.

I don't have a business degree am simply prepared to put my trust in the appropriate health professionals and their expertise.