Stabbing in Brentwood-5 Dead, 1 Arrested

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Regorium

If I was charged with a crime, I would NEVER choose a jury trial. The general public is stupid, easily manipulated and do not understand the nuance of law. The judge would be the only way I could guarantee myself that a professional with years of experience would decide my fate.

In this case, I'm disappointed with the ruling, but I trust that the judge made the right decision.

No kidding. Considering how the average person showing up for jury duty probably only understands the law as far as TV shows take them and that most people will determine guilt based off Facebook, you'd have to be stupid to choose a jury trial.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

IMO justice for the family should be the absolute #1 priority in cases like this. The rehabilitation of the perpetrator should be down the list. But god forbid I say something like that because now the NCR crowd will be all over me because suddenly I'm not sympathetic towards the thousands of people with schizophrenia or mental illness.

But what does this mean? What is going to give them justice? Just the idea that this guy is behind bars the rest of his life regardless? I've never lost anyone that is very close to me so I'm not sure what would make me feel better about their death.

And for the record, when you have people coming in here and claiming those who consider the mental health aspect to be playing a role somehow means they have complete disregard for the families and their struggles is what is causing the harsh backlash right now. I haven't seen anyone on either side display little empathy for the families.

[llwhiteoutll]

So for all those why think NCR and psychology is BS, should we toss out the YCJA as well and hold all people to the same standard?

If the argument is that there is to be no concession for reduced mental capacity and a lack of moral understanding, then the same standard should apply to all, correct?

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I'm curious about what people the people who are claiming a "lack of empathy for the families", or want to see "justice" for the families want to see from the people discussing the issues around the case? Should every post just be "RIP those kids!!"? What do you think would give them justice or closure? Would locking de Groode up and throwing away the key without any effort to rehabilitate him really make them feel better about losing their child?

According to the fathers statement in the video I posted, they have a lifelong battle ahead of them attending mental reviews for DeGrood to ensure he never gets released. Sounds like its pretty clear what he wants.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

IMO justice for the family should be the absolute #1 priority in cases like this.

Justice should be the absolute #1 priority at all times. What you're advocating isn't justice though, I would argue in this case it's not even revenge, although that would be a far more apt word.

Justice should be looking at the facts and evidence, and determining the verdict and sentence from that. In this case the evidence all pointed out to DeGrood being mentally unstable at the time of the murders to the point he could not be held responsible for them. Mens rea is not some new political correct fad. It's a concept that is older than the Canadian justice system itself.

[Coach]

Forgive my ignorance, but why do the victim's families need to attend de Groode's mental reviews?

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by MattyC

But what does this mean? What is going to give them justice? Just the idea that this guy is behind bars the rest of his life regardless? I've never lost anyone that is very close to me so I'm not sure what would make me feel better about their death.

And for the record, when you have people coming in here and claiming those who consider the mental health aspect to be playing a role somehow means they have complete disregard for the families and their struggles is what is causing the harsh backlash right now. I haven't seen anyone on either side display little empathy for the families.

Nothing is going to make them feel better about their deaths. But what I do know won't give them justice is the notion that they might have to sit through potential hearing after hearing deciding if he should be released. And that is certainly a possibility. What would justice be for those families? Maybe it's knowing that it's NOT a possibility. Seeing those days marked on your calender knowing full well there is even a remote chance that your kid's killer might be granted freedom? That's gut wrenching.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by T@T

Fairly certain most have at least a clue about schizophrenia and most realize 99.9% of people who suffer from it wouldn't slaughter 5 school mates either.



Story's of him being somewhat a social misfit, his acting normal at work just a couple of hours earlier, his psychology background and even his relationship with his dad have people suspicious.

I might be mistaken, but weren't the reports saying that he wasn't behaving normally at all at work?

[Wiggum_PI]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Forgive my ignorance, but why do the victim's families need to attend de Groode's mental reviews?

The families will get an opportunity to provide victim impact statements at the mental health reviews, which can help convince the review board not to release De Grood.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Forgive my ignorance, but why do the victim's families need to attend de Groode's mental reviews?

I believe to argue against him being given more 'freedoms'.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I might be mistaken, but weren't the reports saying that he wasn't behaving normally at all at work?

This is correct, They said he wasn't himself, didn't interact with others and left early without telling anyone.

[Coach]

Hmm. I don't like that (the mental review). Why do the victims need to show up and "convince" people that his release would make them sad/feel unsafe? Shouldn't that go without saying? Shouldn't the only time a victim speaks at the convicted's hearing is if they believe they SHOULD be released?

Just seems like a weird and unnecessary thing to go through.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Hmm. I don't like that (the mental review). Why do the victims need to show up and "convince" people that his release would make them sad/feel unsafe? Shouldn't that go without saying? Shouldn't the only time a victim speaks at the convicted's hearing is if they believe they SHOULD be released?

Just seems like a weird and unnecessary thing to go through.

Maybe to see how he reacts to the stress of seeing the victims families? If you are going to even consider giving someone more freedoms he has to be put in uncomfortable situations and see how his mind reacts.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

No kidding. Considering how the average person showing up for jury duty probably only understands the law as far as TV shows take them and that most people will determine guilt based off Facebook, you'd have to be stupid to choose a jury trial.

It's a double-edged sword. If I was innocent, I would lean towards a judge but it would depend on the facts of the case and how emotional it was. If I was guilty, I would choose jury because the defense can manipulate 12 jurors easier than they can a judge. There would be different scenarios when I would choose one or the other I guess is what I'm trying to say.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by pylon

I realize it is entirely anecdotal. But the only 2 people I know on a personal level, that would even have a remotely qualified opinion on this, believe the guy should be committed for life.

Summarily, not one person on this board, myself included, has a qualified opinion either. Unless of course they are a Psychiatrist, or Psychologist. I may be wrong in thinking he is never fit for release, but those that fell he is, may be equally wrong. However those that feel he should be, seem to think they are right and everyone else who doesn't share their opinion is a misinformed, slack jawed, buffoon.

I don't think anyone here says he should be released full stop. Anyone who thinks he should be released is saying follow current medical best practice and when the experts deem he is not a risk then release him.

One side of the arguement is making a definitive statement without expertise the other side is saying trust the experts in the field.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Hmm. I don't like that (the mental review). Why do the victims need to show up and "convince" people that his release would make them sad/feel unsafe? Shouldn't that go without saying? Shouldn't the only time a victim speaks at the convicted's hearing is if they believe they SHOULD be released?

Just seems like a weird and unnecessary thing to go through.

To be fair I only heard one family member say that, yet I keep reading references to it being all the families or even families plural.

That one dad feels like he needs to show up every year to keep De Grood from being released and frankly I don't blame him for feeling angry about his child dying. Perhaps with time he will realize that De Grood didn't do it intentionally and with malice. He was legit crazy at the time.

The families or family doesn't have to show up to the hearing but I certainly wouldn't blame any of them for wanting to keep De Grood in a facility where he can get constant supervision. If many of us are weary about people like him being released with only some supervision then imagine how someone who has had a family member murdered feels.

[Hockeyguy15]

Even if they didn't go to the hearings it's going to be a very public thing and it will bring up all the feelings they have/had.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by T@T

Story's of him being somewhat a social misfit, his acting normal at work just a couple of hours earlier, his psychology background and even his relationship with his dad have people suspicious.

Social misfit? Heard he was socially awkward but not a misfit... whatever that means exactly.

Acting normal at work? Co-workers testified the exact opposite on stand

Psychology background? He was planning on attending Law School. Did he take a Psych 101 course in university prior? That would mean 90% of us have a background in psychology.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Social misfit? Heard he was socially awkward but not a misfit... whatever that means exactly.

Acting normal at work? Co-workers testified the exact opposite on stand

Psychology background? He was planning on attending Law School. Did he take a Psych 101 course in university prior? That would mean 90% of us have a background in psychology.

Yeah, the tests are sensitive to pre-knowledge, but now that sensitive. I believe all three assessments took special measures to try and trip him up.

[calgaryblood]

I wonder if his Facebook status prior to the murders were brought up in court. He posted lyrics to a song which in the song some of the lyrics were

What if I do get caught? What if there is no judgment?
If I'm right I lose nothing, if you're right I lose it all
I ought to get caught because I'm doing something wicked
I'm guilty haunted by my fear and the only consequences
Are Dread and the Fugitive Mind