Stabbing in Brentwood-5 Dead, 1 Arrested

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by T@T

OK, Lets do it this way.

Answer a simple question with Yes or No.(please answer honestly and no other comment)

If de Grood is deemed not criminally responsible due to a mental health problems would you support his release in 5 years if the doctors say he's cured?

Not necessarily a release per say but I think that being in a community treatment center in which he received a depot injection of a long acting anti-psychotic medication, in conjunction with monitoring, and strict regular therapy/psychiatric appointments.

It isn't as though someone is just told that they can leave the facility. Plus Alberta Hospital is a miserable place to be and is more prison than hospital.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by peter12

I would actually be a lot more skeptical than many on here.

The more interesting question would be, if he was deemed rehabilitated and he moved next door to you, or in your neighborhood, how would you feel?

Not going to lie, I wouldn't be very happy about that at all. This coming from a guy who suffers from a mental illness and has a family history of it.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

The more interesting question would be, if he was deemed rehabilitated and he moved next door to you, or in your neighborhood, how would you feel?

Not going to lie, I wouldn't be very happy about that at all. This coming from a guy who suffers from a mental illness and has a family history of it.

That may be the case, but punishments aren't subject to the fears (whether rational or irrational) of the public. So really, while I still wouldn't be comfortable with him moving next door, I still support his treatment and eventual release, subject to medical approval. The public's fear shouldn't even be a 0.001% consideration.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

That may be the case, but punishments aren't subject to the fears (whether rational or irrational) of the public. So really, while I still wouldn't be comfortable with him moving next door, I still support his treatment and eventual release, subject to medical approval. The public's fear shouldn't even be a 0.001% consideration.

Not saying it should be a consideration. I'm just saying that I would be looking to sell my house if he moved next door. It would be tough to do that though because it would probably lose 50% of it's value if that happened.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Here's another yes or no question. Would you rather he be sentenced to 25 years, serve every last second of that time, and then be released without ever receiving any of the treatment he otherwise would if found NCR? Because most likely that is your alternative. Short of a dangerous offender designation, these people will be free one day with nothing but a hope that they take their pills.

Sorry, but this is completely wrong and unfortunately a very common misconception of sentencing in Canada. So, not to attack you but to hopefully inform everyone here at least...

In Canada a murder conviction carries an automatic life sentence. A life sentence in Canada truly means you are serving your sentence forever until the day you die.

Parole eligibility is often what gets erroneously reported as the sentence a murderer received. For second degree murder the minimum time in jail before being eligible for parole is 10 years. For first degree murder the minimum is 25 years. And recent amendments allow for multiple murderers to have these amounts of ineligibility stacked up consecutively before being considered for parole (whereas before that was not available). For example:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...kers-1.1706464

Further, many assume that a convicted murderer will routinely get parole on their initial eligibility date. In fact, many do not. More to the point of your post, if the convicted murderer does not take part in their correction plan and make significant progress toward rehabilitation and reducing risk then they will simply be denied parole and never leave prison until they are dead.

Even once paroled, the murderer is still serving his or her life sentence under the conditions and supervision of a parole officer. Upon any reasonable suspicion of a parole violation, you are immediately returned to prison pending a hearing to determine whether you actually did violate. No presumption of innocence and lengthy trial process...because you are still a serving convict who just happened to have been given permission to be outside of the bars.

In the end analysis, the difference between guilty of murder and NCR could be no difference at all (as far as the person's liberty) but the NCR finding locks mentally ill people up in a psychiatric setting to deal with their mental illness and risk and places their potential release largely in the hands of medical professionals...instead of locking them up with killers who knew exactly what they were doing when they killed for the same mandatory minimum time in custody.

[Cube Inmate]

This has been an interesting trial to read about, not least because it was clear from the start that the Crown never expected or intended to get a 1st-Degree conviction out of this. In fact, much of their evidence--the testimony of the officers on the scene--was bolstering the case for NCR.

I can accept that NCR may be the correct finding here. However, it seems somehow wrong that the Crown went about proving the facts of the crime, without attempting in the least to prove mens rea. It seems like they filed a charge, but without the ability to fully prosecute the case.

If the end goal is to get the guy locked up and under appropriate medical care, it just seems like there should have been a more genuine, more direct way of going about it than to hold a trial for Murder 1 but not really push for a conviction.

[united]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

If the end goal is to get the guy locked up and under appropriate medical care, it just seems like there should have been a more genuine, more direct way of going about it than to hold a trial for Murder 1 but not really push for a conviction.

I'm not completely sure of the context so could very well be reading into it wrong, but this quote from the mother of one of the victims makes it seems like she may feel the same way:

Jordan Segura's mother, Patty Segura, told CBC News it has been a "horrible" experience to be in the courtroom for the past week.
"It's just a waste of time, because it's quite obvious what happened, so I don't know why we need to sit in court," she said.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by T@T

OK, Lets do it this way.

Answer a simple question with Yes or No.(please answer honestly and no other comment)

If de Grood is deemed not criminally responsible due to a mental health problems would you support his release in 5 years if the doctors say he's cured?

No.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by MBates

I have been resisting the temptation to refer to this as a 'show trial' but it is extremely difficult for me to accept that everyone has not already concluded NCR will be the outcome.

No legitimate Crown prosecutor would propose on day 2 of a 1st degree murder trial to have a day of family tributes for the victims if he was actually conducting a trial to convict someone and sentence them to life.

No competent defence counsel could even fathom agreeing to such a step if he was not already assured no convictions were being sought.

As for the judge, I am struggling to understand how he permitted it to happen even though it was jointly proposed by the lawyers. Having allowed massively prejudicial and completely invalid information put before him he could not legitimately convict the accused now and have the proceeding withstand appellate scrutiny.

I am not in any way undermining the apparent value of the tributes for the family and friends of the victims or in any way criticizing their conduct or questioning their grief. But the justice system is potentially causing itself serious harm by whatever is going on in that courtroom...because what happened yesterday is completely illegitimate in terms of substantive and procedural Canadian criminal law.

This is a good post. I've been thinking about the "Show Trial" aspect of it.

I can only add that the duty of the Crown is not to get a conviction, but to see that justice is done. Perhaps the Crown thought this was the way for the families to receive some form of justice.

[sun]

Originally Posted by peter12

I find the consensus-based group-think on Calgarypuck absolutely fascinating. The crowd decides what they think, and then, just becomes implacable. There is obviously room for discussion here.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by peter12

You guys do know that psychiatric assessments are very qualitative and without a lot of scientific rigor. An intelligent person doesn't have a lot of trouble fooling the tests. Look at Homolka.

Treading some dangerous ground here...

Homolka made a plea bargain with the Crown who erroneously did so without looking at all the evidence from what I recall. Regardless, the plea bargain went through. During her incarceration she didn't fool anybody and was deemed early on as likely to re-offend and she was made not eligible for early release for this very reason. At the time of release it was stated that she had made rehabilitation progress but some things were still concerning. As such she had several restrictions at time of release (which were subsequently lifted). As far as we know at this time, 11 years later, she has not re-offended.

[Regorium]

I can't really comprehend why the Crown didn't actually try to present a case that de Grood was responsible.

Like we didn't get any insight as to whether he had previous relationships with any of those people. He managed to figure out right and wrong when his friend asked him what he was doing. You'd think if he was completely out of control he'd have killed his friend too.

We still don't know whether he was remorseful for his actions. Only that he is calculated, in immediately telling police that he is not guilty of murder (when he was taken to hospital on the night).

The media presentation of this story, as well as Crown/Defence from the start has been NCR. If the Crown was trying to get justice for the victims, then they have completely and utterly failed in every regard.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I can't really comprehend why the Crown didn't actually try to present a case that de Grood was responsible.

Like we didn't get any insight as to whether he had previous relationships with any of those people. He managed to figure out right and wrong when his friend asked him what he was doing. You'd think if he was completely out of control he'd have killed his friend too.

We still don't know whether he was remorseful for his actions. Only that he is calculated, in immediately telling police that he is not guilty of murder (when he was taken to hospital on the night).

The media presentation of this story, as well as Crown/Defence from the start has been NCR. If the Crown was trying to get justice for the victims, then they have completely and utterly failed in every regard.

These are some pretty big assumptions. How can you apply a rational line of thinking to someone who, as the evidence suggests, thought he was cleansing the party of vampires and other fantastical creatures. How can you assume that he would have seen his friend as one of those. You think he was seeing everyone that way? This is the biggest issue with all of this. Us, the people of rational minds, literally can't comprehend what these people are seeing/hearing in their moment of madness. You can't apply "well I would have done this." or "If he did this, wouldn't he also do this?" No. He might not. Because he hears voices and sees things that we don't understand.

The Crown is to seek justice in general, not specifically for the victims. In this type of case, DeGrood himself is a victim as well. If he was to be tossed in prison with no regard to his illness, he isn't receiving a just ruling either.

It's a very delicate balancing act when we venture into NCR, and not everyone will be happy with, or understand the result. But nothing here is black and white.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I can't really comprehend why the Crown didn't actually try to present a case that de Grood was responsible.

Like we didn't get any insight as to whether he had previous relationships with any of those people. He managed to figure out right and wrong when his friend asked him what he was doing. You'd think if he was completely out of control he'd have killed his friend too.

We still don't know whether he was remorseful for his actions. Only that he is calculated, in immediately telling police that he is not guilty of murder (when he was taken to hospital on the night).

The media presentation of this story, as well as Crown/Defence from the start has been NCR. If the Crown was trying to get justice for the victims, then they have completely and utterly failed in every regard.

Have the victim's families indicated they are unhappy with the NCR submission such that they don't think justice has been served?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Have the victim's families indicated they are unhappy with the NCR submission such that they don't think justice has been served?

Just this:

Jordan Segura's mother, Patty Segura, told CBC News it has been a "horrible" experience to be in the courtroom for the past week.

"It's just a waste of time, because it's quite obvious what happened, so I don't know why we need to sit in court," she said.

Could be interpreted either way though.

[Coach]

If she thought the court was a waste of time from the beginning, I think it's pretty obvious she realized how the case was going to go, and accepts that. Whether she agrees with it or not is kind of beside the point. There will almost always be people who have issues with NCR, be they victims or court-case spectators.

It doesn;t change that this is how the justice system does (and should) operate for issues like this. As I said, nothing here is black and white.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by MattyC

These are some pretty big assumptions. How can you apply a rational line of thinking to someone who, as the evidence suggests, thought he was cleansing the party of vampires and other fantastical creatures. How can you assume that he would have seen his friend as one of those. You think he was seeing everyone that way? This is the biggest issue with all of this. Us, the people of rational minds, literally can't comprehend what these people are seeing/hearing in their moment of madness. You can't apply "well I would have done this." or "If he did this, wouldn't he also do this?" No. He might not. Because he hears voices and sees things that we don't understand.

The Crown is to seek justice in general, not specifically for the victims. In this type of case, DeGrood himself is a victim as well. If he was to be tossed in prison with no regard to his illness, he isn't receiving a just ruling either.

It's a very delicate balancing act when we venture into NCR, and not everyone will be happy with, or understand the result. But nothing here is black and white.

Well no, I'm just saying that as the prosecution, you would present that case. You would craft a story for the rational minds to help understand the irrational. You would bring in experts that could explain what happened. A tougher cross examination on the psychiatrist that examined him, for instance, could have given a lot more insight to his mind.

Rather, as presented in the closing statements, the Crown was extremely willing to accept NCR as the only plausible reason. I'm not sure why a trial even happened in this case if that's all the Crown was willing to do - and perhaps that's what the victim's parent was thinking (with regards to the waste of time).

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Well no, I'm just saying that as the prosecution, you would present that case. You would craft a story for the rational minds to help understand the irrational. You would bring in experts that could explain what happened. A tougher cross examination on the psychiatrist that examined him, for instance, could have given a lot more insight to his mind.

Rather, as presented in the closing statements, the Crown was extremely willing to accept NCR as the only plausible reason. I'm not sure why a trial even happened in this case if that's all the Crown was willing to do.

Your first paragraph, yeah maybe. I didn't read much in depth after the first little bit of the trial and it became obvious pretty quickly that this guy had some serious issues happening.

For the perspective that the Crown "accepted" NCR as the only plausible explanation, why not? If all their evidence points this way, why would they try to fight for something that they don't believe to be the case (Murder 1)?

Isn't this pretty much as clean as a case like this could go? If they tried to fight for a murder verdict that they didn't believe in the first place, this could have been a terrible mess and a blemish on the face of the Crown for trying to prosecute someone as sound mind who so clearly wasn't.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MattyC

If she thought the court was a waste of time from the beginning, I think it's pretty obvious she realized how the case was going to go, and accepts that. Whether she agrees with it or not is kind of beside the point. There will almost always be people who have issues with NCR, be they victims or court-case spectators.

It doesn;t change that this is how the justice system does (and should) operate for issues like this. As I said, nothing here is black and white.

Here's what i don't understand..

If this was always going to be the decision in the case, why in the name of all things good, did the crown give a blow by blow of what happened that night including pictures that the families/friends in the courtroom were subjected too.

Seems pointless (if not cruel) to those most affected by the demonstration when none of it was necessary to an agreement between the crown and the defense that deGrood was NCR.

I have a feeling we will hear from some more family members and their thoughts on thhis may not be very complimentary to the crown or towards any sort of "justice" being served.

Maybe i am out to lunch on this but damn it seems really iffy to me.

[Regorium]

No doubt that the dude has issues.

I'm just thinking to other cases where there's clear mental illness, but it becomes debatable whether it actually leads to NCR. For example, this case shows that both the defence and the Crown agrees that the accused has PTSD, but there is disagreement on the various actions that were performed. The man ended up being found guility, which does highlight that even though mental illness is involved, it's possible that there is still criminal responsibility.

I had thought there was some cause for doubt in this case. For example, the friend, the destroyed cell phone, running away from police, the premediation from the entire day (garlic, facebook, texts etc.). No doubt he was deteriorating, but the psychotic break started a long time before the party - he was ready with everything before he actually did it.

Either way, the trial is almost over, and as you said nothing is black and white. As a spectator, I have a lot of unanswered questions, but maybe the people involved (ie. victims' families and such) didn't really want to go any further than this. As always I really do trust our judges, so I'm sure he will make the right call in his verdict.