Stabbing in Brentwood-5 Dead, 1 Arrested

[Coach]

Yeah, I dunno rube.

There are a lot of assumptions being thrown around here that the vast majority of us have no business making, both about de Groode's situation, and the people on either side of the argument going on here. And that is one of them.

[T@T]

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.

Depends on the crime and whether your guilty, highly doubt OJ would have got off with just a judge.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah, I dunno rube.

There are a lot of assumptions being thrown around here that the vast majority of us have no business making. And that is one of them.

Take the Vincent Li (bus beheader) case where he was granted the right to live alone.

Even living on his own, he would be subject to several conditions that would include daily monitoring, regular check-ins with mental health professionals and random drug tests.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02...=1464296861218

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

To be honest, I don't even know what "Justice for the family" means. Can you quantify that?

Before you guys all jump on me for participating in this circle jerk, I also don't think that he should ever be released, but that's because there is no way to ensure he doesn't do this again.

IMO justice in this case would be the certainty that DeGrood would not ever be free again. Doesn't mean I want him locked away in a maximum security cell rotting away. It doesn't mean I have a desire to see him suffer. But if it means he can never leave a psychiatric facility again, then so be it.

I can't speak on behalf of the family. But I think they see him never being free is what little justice they can get after these horrible events. For them to know that there is even a remote possibility of DeGrood being released because he in deemed well enough and on his meds, to them that must certainly feel like an injustice towards them.

[Ne7en]

^well said.

[Red Potato Standing By]

so would have he been locked away forever if he was found to not have a mental illness?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

IMO justice in this case would be the certainty that DeGrood would not ever be free again. Doesn't mean I want him locked away in a maximum security cell rotting away. It doesn't mean I have a desire to see him suffer. But if it means he can never leave a psychiatric facility again, then so be it.

I can't speak on behalf of the family. But I think they see him never being free is what little justice they can get after these horrible events. For them to know that there is even a remote possibility of DeGrood being released because he in deemed well enough and on his meds, to them that must certainly feel like an injustice towards them.

I think it's important to remember that we don't know how the future is going to play out. If he has a review every year or 3 that doesn't mean he is going to be out in the public.

I know the family is angry/upset/many other emotions that he will be having regular hearings on his progress, but that is how the justice system works. Unfortunately there have been/are many people in the same position as them, but it's the best system we have at the moment. I'm sure we all could have a long debate about the justice system in general, but in this case it's not like he is getting special treatment.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Dion

Take the Vincent Li (bus beheader) case where he was granted the right to live alone.



http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02...=1464296861218

Lots of parallels between this and Li.

What were peoples' opinions of Li not being criminally responsible?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

IMO justice in this case would be the certainty that DeGrood would not ever be free again. Doesn't mean I want him locked away in a maximum security cell rotting away. It doesn't mean I have a desire to see him suffer. But if it means he can never leave a psychiatric facility again, then so be it.

I can't speak on behalf of the family. But I think they see him never being free is what little justice they can get after these horrible events. For them to know that there is even a remote possibility of DeGrood being released because he in deemed well enough and on his meds, to them that must certainly feel like an injustice towards them.

I am sure that may be justice for many, family included perhaps. For some it might be the death penalty. But for me, this is still confusing justice with vengeance. I just don't see how it would be just for someone that has been determined to be not criminally responsible, to then be locked up forever.

I can see how the family might feel that way, but as hard as it is for some to hear this: criminal justice is not meted by the family or the victims in this society. It is the responsibility of the state, and I think that is a good thing.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Lots of parallels between this and Li.

What were peoples' opinions of Li not being criminally responsible?

Most are understanding of it now a days, not so much a few years ago. I imagine just like the parallels between the cases themselves the parallels between how people feel about the rehabilitation process will soften as well.

Some things just take time. I wasnt happy with a lot of responses in this thread in the last couple days but one poster pointed out that it's natural for people to vent and seek justice especially when things are fresh, so I think it's important to let that happen and not attack the opinions or posters too much.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

so would have he been locked away forever if he was found to not have a mental illness?

Likely, he would have gotten 1st degree murder with no parole eligibility for at least 25 years and I believe that they could apply to have the parole eligibility be non-concurrent or pursued dangerous offender status resulting in him likely not being released.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Most are understanding of it now a days, not so much a few years ago. I imagine just like the parallels between the cases themselves the parallels between how people feel about the rehabilitation process will soften as well.

Some things just take time. I wasnt happy with a lot of responses in this thread in the last couple days but one poster pointed out that it's natural for people to vent and seek justice especially when things are fresh, so I think it's important to let that happen and not attack the opinions or posters too much.

Could you be any more condescending?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

Lots of parallels between this and Li.

What were peoples' opinions of Li not being criminally responsible?

The problem with these cases are they are utterly inexplicable, which tends to scare the bejusus out of us, fairly brutal and strange, which gets them a crap load of press and really really rare.

While this is going on we tend not to worry about the vastly higher rates of deaths by drunk driving or over prescription of pain killers or badly built cars.

And yes pretty much any utterly random gruesome murder where the offender appears to make no attempt to evade capture and appears to have little connection to the victim and nothing to gain is probably a psychotic break.

The one case that really annoyed me was the little scumbag that killed his kids out in Kamloops whilst in a separation with his wife, then ran away, how he managed to be found NCR absolutely astounds me, he was clearly trying to hurt his wife for kicking him out, he then hid out in the bush so clearly knew he was doing something wrong.

[Matt Reeeeead]

I would like (not that necessarily matters) to see the argument framed like this:

How could justice be obtained for the 5 slaughtered kids?

The reason that I think that question is important is because I think a lot of the arguments here are getting messed up over a few issues.

Firstly, there is an argument about whether he should be allowed back in society ever, or if allowing him back in is going to endanger society. To me, that is a completely different issue. For him to be released back into society in some way, we know that he is going to have to reviewed, monitored, and rehabilitated to the point that he isn't going to be able to walk one step when he has missed a dosage, let alone go down a dark path for days/weeks/months, etc. that would result in the kind of destruction his illness caused last time. If his illness is so bad that he will have people killing inducing spells at the drop of a missed dosage, then the doctors are going to identify that, and he wont see the light of day. The research I have read suggests that protocol followed anywhere close to adequately, he is not going to be a significantly greater threat to society than the average person.

Secondly, we talk about getting justice for the families. Not be crude or condescending towards what happened, but justice for what exactly? Yes, 5 people died. But let's link back to the causes. We cant put mental illness in jail and lock it away. Locking up Matthew De Grood also wont bring back their children, or avenge their deaths by preventing future mental disorder cases from harming others. Unfortunately with this path, justice is off the table. It's not something that is obtainable. We can be mad and sad all day long, and unfortunately, that is what the families are stuck with regardless of him being locked up.

How do I see justice being obtained?

In my mind, the best justice I could see if I were a family member would be to try and use this incident as a platform to improve society's education and understanding of mental disorders.

The only way this particular case could have prevented if those close with De Grood could have identified he was struggling with a mental disorder sooner, and had the courage to act bluntly on it. Its been established that the families saw signs and thought about acting on it. But there are ramifications from going down that step, and if they knew and understood the gravity of the situation they may have sought help weeks prior to the fatal incident.

I could feel that some form justice has been obtained for these 5 kids if we began seeing annual mental illness related deaths begin to decline. If this incident could be used as a platform to increased education, we could feel some small comfort that their deaths perhaps helped prevent other future needless deaths.

Perhaps even eventually at some point when things have cooled down and he was released into society at some point that De Grood and his family could be part of a platform such as that, and that he himself could become a spokesperson for mental health. That would be awfully powerful to see someone who killed 5 people have the courage to face a society that lacks education on these matters and try to improve that. I could see someone that lacked education on the matter finding that pretty thought provoking.

There's a lot of grey area in the discussion. What I would like to see is other people explain in this instance, what does justice mean to them? And if you think locking him away forever, I would like to hear why that will solve anything, and if treated/managed correctly, why he would pose to be such a significant threat (with some helpful examples).

I'd be interested to learn other viewpoints and evidence I may not have considered.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

If you accept the experts analysis that he committed these acts because of his mental illness and that any repeat incidents can be prevented with regular medication, and you accept the idea that he's going to be forced to take his medication for the rest of his life then there really isn't a reason to see him as more of a risk than someone who isn't subject to such intense scrutiny. In other words he's a known variable as opposed to someone walking around undiagnosed, or say someone that's predisposed to being violent. DeGrood isn't prone to violence, his disease is. If the disease is kept in check then he's no more of a threat than the average person.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

IMO justice in this case would be the certainty that DeGrood would not ever be free again. Doesn't mean I want him locked away in a maximum security cell rotting away. It doesn't mean I have a desire to see him suffer. But if it means he can never leave a psychiatric facility again, then so be it.

I can't speak on behalf of the family. But I think they see him never being free is what little justice they can get after these horrible events. For them to know that there is even a remote possibility of DeGrood being released because he in deemed well enough and on his meds, to them that must certainly feel like an injustice towards them.

So then vengeance? You're not asking him to be kept away for public safety reasons or as a means of deterring others. You're asking for him to be locked up forever so that the victims families can have their pound of flesh. That's "justice" to some I guess, but it sounds like vengeance to most.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The problem with these cases are they are utterly inexplicable, which tends to scare the bejusus out of us, fairly brutal and strange, which gets them a crap load of press and really really rare.

While this is going on we tend not to worry about the vastly higher rates of deaths by drunk driving or over prescription of pain killers or badly built cars.

And yes pretty much any utterly random gruesome murder where the offender appears to make no attempt to evade capture and appears to have little connection to the victim and nothing to gain is probably a psychotic break.

This pretty much sums it up. The notion that some evil ####### stabbed a bunch of fellow-students to death at a party because he's an evil #######? Awful, but it fits into our understanding of the world. Evil ####### does evil things, we catch and punish him for being so evil. But an otherwise fairly normal young man rapidly descends into psychosis and brutally stabs five people to death more or less at random? That's horrifying. Horrifying in a way that we have no real narrative for. So we recoil from that horror and try to fit it into category A. Malevolence is easier to cope with than random madness.

[rubecube]

I honestly think that the fundamental difference between those of us who want to see him rehabilitated vs. those who think he should be locked up isn't that those who want him locked forever think he was faking it. It's that they think he could have still controlled himself enough to prevent killing people. That, yes he was sick, but that there still should have been that voice of reasons somewhere hidden deep in his mind telling him it wasn't real or not to do it. Either that or they think he had some deep murderous rage that isn't universal that his disease unlocked. I've seen some posts that reflect this line of thought. "Well other people have the disease, and they don't kill people."

Now, in theory, this could be the case. He could be just a complete psychopath regardless of his illness, but that doesn't seem to be what the expert analysis says. However the idea that everyone in this thread doesn't have the same murderous capabilities is completely ludicrous. Those of you with kids, if you felt like your kids were in life-threatening danger and you couldn't go to the authorities for help, would you not kill the people responsible for putting them in danger if you thought there was no other alternative? I don't even think it has to be kids either. Wives, parents, siblings, etc., not to mention yourself. Fear is one of the easiest ways to incite violence. So imagine your brain has you convinced that these people are in life-threatening danger and you're being flooded with all those emotions, and all that adrenaline is pumping through your body. Do you honestly think you'd actually react differently than DeGrood did?

Which brings me back to my first point about maybe believing that he knew his mind was creating these illusions and he could have tried to stop them. That's not how mental illness works, especially if you have no prior experience with it. A Beautiful Mind did a pretty piss poor job of accurately portraying schizophrenia but there's a great line in the movie where Christopher Plummer tells Russell Crowe "You can't reason your way out of this because your mind is where the problem is in the first place!" Now there are a number of cognitive treatment methods that some people employ with varying degrees of success but you have to realize you're sick in the first place, and it's hard to realize you're sick when everything feels normal to you.

Mental illness literally hijacks your brain and then uses your entire body against you and the people you care about. If you're depressed you think that all the depressing thoughts you think must be true because you've thought them and you've reasoned them out. It's amazing how many times I've had talks with friends where at least at some point I've said something along the lines of "Oh, I thought everyone had thought like this." "Fortunately" my warped thoughts really only have a chance of hurting me. This isn't DeGrood producing these thoughts of wanting to kill vampires and werewolves consciously or failing to do anything about them, they're literally the realities being created for him and putting absolute terror into his body in a way he feels he has to act. That's an absolute nightmare but I don't think it's something he deserves to be punished for.

In my opinion, wanting to punish DeGrood for these killings is like wanting to punish the airplanes for 9/11.

[MBates]

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.

This is plain nonsense.

First, judges are all humans. Humans mess stuff up all the time, judge or not. Second, there is no "legal smarts" test you have to pass to get appointed to the bench by a politician. Sure, you have to be a lawyer for 10 years, but you can do ten years of writing wills and then literally a week later be judging a serious criminal trial and have pretty much no idea what you are doing.

Even if one accepts your assertions that "the general public is stupid, easily manipulated and do not understand the nuance of law" that would be exactly why you would pick a jury for certain cases.

With the right case, you can essentially get on the stand, tell the jury you are guilty, but make them feel really bad for you and walk away with an acquittal:

http://www.thecourt.ca/2007/01/r-v-k...tive-mens-rea/

Crown has no appeal from that jury verdict. Even if you somehow get the judge to ignore the law completely that will be overturned and you start over.

And in my experience jurors are often not stupid, extremely hard to manipulate and are every bit as capable as a judge of getting the law if you explain it to them.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So then vengeance? You're not asking him to be kept away for public safety reasons or as a means of deterring others. You're asking for him to be locked up forever so that the victims families can have their pound of flesh. That's "justice" to some I guess, but it sounds like vengeance to most.

Funny how every time it's been mentioned in this thread that he shouldn't be allowed to walk free, it's automatically seen as revenge by some. I don't consider it revenge and I don't mean for it to come across that way. I've made it clear before that I would want him locked away because he's a menace to society. He proved it by butchering 5 people. Mental illness or not, he's proven to be capable of it and has acted upon it. Nothing is going to bring those kids back. Not rehabilitation, not prison for life, and not the death penalty.

So I don't know why every time it's brought up he's a threat to society and he should be locked away that it's automatically viewed as an act of vengeance. Then the argument of justice vs revenge stars all over again of which there is no end.

It's a legitimate debate as to why he shouldn't be allowed freedom and his mental illness does not exclude him from being apart from that conversation, no matter what some people think. To me, and most likely the family's of the victims, they would view it as some sort of justice if DeGrood wasn't allowed to be free.