Stabbing in Brentwood-5 Dead, 1 Arrested

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

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.

Well because most of the people who say they want him locked up keep flip-flopping because they don't want to get tagged with the vengeance label. If you're going with the public safety angle but then rejecting the measures we have in place and the expert opinions that determine whether or not he is a threat to society then you're essentially saying your opinion and the families' should be weighted more heavily than the experts' despite being less scientifically validated, and therefore not really based on rational or objective evidence. If it's not based on rational or objective evidence that he represents a threat to society, then it can only be based on emotion, and what other emotion could you possibly be basing it on than one that seeks vengeance and/or retribution?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

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.

His mental illness made him a menace to society. That mental illness can be treated with medication to a point where he could no longer become a menace to society. The justice system allows for rehabilitaion where possible.

Further to the above I would ask you what good will it do to keep him away from society forever when his medication could possibly remove that threat? Why deny him that opportunity? I think that's a valid question to ask.

I would also add that his freedom is not a certainty and it will depend largely on how he responds to medication and therapy. Even his lawyer suggested he may never get freedom.

It's just my opinion but my take is that the word revenge is used when people, for whatever reason, choose not to look at or want the possibility he could get freedom. We need to let the medical field and others involed in his care to attempt to rehab him before we conclude he should be kept away from society forever.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Dion

His mental illness made him a menace to society. That mental illness can be treated with medication to a point where he could no longer become a menace to society. The justice system allows for rehabilitaion where possible.

This is the other thing. We've speaking as if it's a foregone conclusion that he will get out at some point when there's absolutely no guarantee that he will

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

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.

The concern for me is the anger and sadness the families feel and how it will destroy them emotionaly if they are unable to make peace with what has happened. The NCR defence that is allowed in the justice system doesn't help in their emotional turmoil.

I would argue that no amount of justice is going to take away the anger and sadness they feel. It has to come from within and for that to happen there are no simple or easy answers.

[Mr.Coffee]

I understand what those who argue the mental illness / rehabilitation and "proper application of justice" group is saying here but I think I'm with huntingwhale.

The other (probably unpopular) comment I wanted to make as I consider this, is, as a parent, I think what would I do if I was a parent of a savagely murdered kid? And I think I would be pretty upset. I would hope for possibly some application of vengeance within the system. Maybe these 5 sets of parents don't have as "enlightened" a lens on justice as the resident experts here at CP. And when that doesn't happen, or when it doesn't seem like true justice is happening here (and I'm not personally convinced it has happened so I highly doubt the parents of the murdered would feel it has worked to their satisfaction)- I would probably think hmm, maybe I need to do that myself.

Maybe deGrood is safer by being locked in a facility? I would imagine there's some people pretty pissed off at him, mental illness, societal stigma, conservative "old school" mentality notwithstanding.

Also rube, there's no way you'll ever convince me that we are at less risk of deGrood on medication walking around than everyday people who aren't monitored. That statement was quite simply idiotic. I'm sorry, I can't hold back, that was just such a ridiculous statement.

[DionTheDman]

Public safety is a concern, but De Grood has rights just like anybody else. And since he was never found guilty, if he is determined to no longer be a danger to himself or to others, what's the basis for keeping him?

Frankly, incarcerating YOU would be less risky to me, since there's one less car on the road to potentially hit me as I cross the street. But that's just not how things work.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Also rube, there's no way you'll ever convince me that we are at less risk of deGrood on medication walking around than everyday people who aren't monitored. That statement was quite simply idiotic. I'm sorry, I can't hold back, that was just such a ridiculous statement.

"I think you're wrong" isn't exactly a strong rebuttal. Maybe try demonstrating why I am wrong by pointing to some statistical evidence or case studies that prove as much or where I've erred in my logic?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Public safety is a concern, but De Grood has rights just like anybody else. And since he was never found guilty, if he is determined to no longer be a danger to himself or to others, what's the basis for keeping him?

Frankly, incarcerating YOU would be less risky to me, since there's one less car on the road to potentially hit me as I cross the street. But that's just not how things work.

This is quite false.

Both the crown and the defense agreed that he was guilty as anyone could be....it was admitted as much at the beginning of the trial.

He was found not criminally responsible...but by all means he was still responsible for the deaths of 5 people. That much isn't even in question.

As to those going on andd on about "well he is as safe as anyone else cause he will be on his meds"...sure, as long as he is on those meds.

What happens if one day he simply disappears Dosent show up to where ever he is to report to or leaves where ever his meds are brought to him?

Just that one (very possible) situation alone makes him unlike every other person who doesn't need heavy doses of anti-psychotic meds to live an ordinary enough life.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by rubecube

"I think you're wrong" isn't exactly a strong rebuttal. Maybe try demonstrating why I am wrong by pointing to some statistical evidence or case studies that prove as much or where I've erred in my logic?

The risk of incident is less with a person who has murdered 5 people but is now being treated for the illness than somebody with no history of violence and no indication of mental illness?

This is your stance?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Public safety is a concern, but De Grood has rights just like anybody else. And since he was never found guilty, if he is determined to no longer be a danger to himself or to others, what's the basis for keeping him?

I have sympathy for this guy and his family, and have no expertise on the subject of schizophrenia, but his rights and determination to no longer hurt himself or others seem kind of trivial, considering the circumstances.

I don't agree that he should be locked up forever and if he can build some sort of normal life for himself, eventually his circumstances should change. But when is that? He could be deemed (and may actually be) "fine" in a few short years.

An extremely simplistic idea: if this young man is rehabilitated, medicated, and deemed no longer a threat, it seems like someone should say "great, you are good, keep it up for 15* years, and then we'll see...".

And though I am sympathetic and believe he is a victim of cruel, awful disease that has ruined his life and I don't think it's his fault, I really wouldn't want him living next door to me, even with all the reassurances in the world. But he's going to have to live next door to someone.

*I don't know what the number is, or even if there is a number

[AltaGuy]

Can you imagine being among the professionals responsible for De Grood's eventual release? I am sure that he will not be released and "living next door" before said professionals are absolutely convinced he presents no threat.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Can you imagine being among the professionals responsible for De Grood's eventual release? I am sure that he will not be released and "living next door" before said professionals are absolutely convinced he presents no threat.

Right but experts can be wrong too, and even if they're right, mistakes can happen (medicine not taken somehow?), and I'd suggest there's inherent risk there that society takes on.

What exactly are we trying to achieve by not having him put into an institution for the rest of his life? Just trying to prove a point to be as liberal as possible is sort of what I gather mainly from this thread. Fact is he DOES pose a risk to society if left untreated so I'm not sure why we would flirt with such lethal danger when he's already demonstrated the effects of such a scenario.

To me, life is so fragile. 5 lives just lost how many years of literally everything? It is tragic all around, I completely agree with this, however as huntingwhale suggests- why are we placing the treatment and needs of this man who tore apart 5 families (well, 6 I guess) and stole somewhere around 300 years of life? What a catastrophic consequence for his actions, criminally responsible or not?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Right but experts can be wrong too, and even if they're right, mistakes can happen (medicine not taken somehow?), and I'd suggest there's inherent risk there that society takes on.

How can medicine not be taken when there is someone monitoring him everyday to make sure he takes his meds? Correct me if i'm wrong but you seem to be sayng the medical team in charge of De Grood is not taking this serious enough.

As for getting it wrong they have a Diagnostic criteria (DSM-5) for determining if a person has Schizophrenia.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/articl...59-overview#a2

What exactly are we trying to achieve by not having him put into an institution for the rest of his life? Just trying to prove a point to be as liberal as possible is sort of what I gather mainly from this thread. Fact is he DOES pose a risk to society if left untreated so I'm not sure why we would flirt with such lethal danger when he's already demonstrated the effects of such a scenario.

Why would he be left untreated? That makes no sense at all.

The horrific acts were the result of a mental disorder he had no control over. We can treat that illness with medication where he can become a non threat to society.

There is also the real possibility that his medical team and review board determine he should not be released into society. To say he's a risk when that has yet to be determined......

To me, life is so fragile. 5 lives just lost how many years of literally everything? It is tragic all around, I completely agree with this, however as huntingwhale suggests- why are we placing the treatment and needs of this man who tore apart 5 families (well, 6 I guess) and stole somewhere around 300 years of life? What a catastrophic consequence for his actions, criminally responsible or not?

Are you suggesting we don't treat De Groot to satisfy the families need for justice?

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This is quite false.

Both the crown and the defense agreed that he was guilty as anyone could be....it was admitted as much at the beginning of the trial.

He was found not criminally responsible...but by all means he was still responsible for the deaths of 5 people. That much isn't even in question.

No, it's right. He's not guilty. Guilt has a very specific legal meaning.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

This is quite false.

Both the crown and the defense agreed that he was guilty as anyone could be....it was admitted as much at the beginning of the trial.

He was found not criminally responsible...but by all means he was still responsible for the deaths of 5 people. That much isn't even in question.

As to those going on andd on about "well he is as safe as anyone else cause he will be on his meds"...sure, as long as he is on those meds.

What happens if one day he simply disappears Dosent show up to where ever he is to report to or leaves where ever his meds are brought to him?

Just that one (very possible) situation alone makes him unlike every other person who doesn't need heavy doses of anti-psychotic meds to live an ordinary enough life.

You are missing the point of psychosis, he may stop taking his med's but it's not like probation where he sneaks off to 'get away' with doing crime.
First his med's will be monitored, this means he is watched while he takes them, he refuses, as is his right, it's back to the hospital with him.
Even if his med's weren't monitored, his behaviour makes it immediately apparent to everyone around him that he is mentally ill, it's not something that can be hid, nor do they particularly want to.

You are seeing the mentality ill as the same as criminals who are on probation and are trying to get away with something.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

The risk of incident is less with a person who has murdered 5 people but is now being treated for the illness than somebody with no history of violence and no indication of mental illness?

This is your stance?

If we know that his psychotic episodes are the only known variables that make him more violent than the average person, and his psychotic episodes are subdued by medication, what remains to suggest he's more violent than any other person? What other variables are we to consider. His history is irrelevant to the current equation because he was not on medication.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Right but experts can be wrong too, and even if they're right, mistakes can happen (medicine not taken somehow?), and I'd suggest there's inherent risk there that society takes on.

What exactly are we trying to achieve by not having him put into an institution for the rest of his life? Just trying to prove a point to be as liberal as possible is sort of what I gather mainly from this thread. Fact is he DOES pose a risk to society if left untreated so I'm not sure why we would flirt with such lethal danger when he's already demonstrated the effects of such a scenario.

To me, life is so fragile. 5 lives just lost how many years of literally everything? It is tragic all around, I completely agree with this, however as huntingwhale suggests- why are we placing the treatment and needs of this man who tore apart 5 families (well, 6 I guess) and stole somewhere around 300 years of life? What a catastrophic consequence for his actions, criminally responsible or not?

An interesting study released this year found a serious violent offence rescidivism rate of just 0.6% for persons found to be NCR and then eventually discharged.

Source: http://ontario.cmha.ca/news/landmark.../#.V0g47tSs-rU

So, there is certainly some risk but much less risk than I think most people presume.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Makarov

An interesting study released this year found a serious violent offence rescidivism rate of just 0.6% for persons found to be NCR and then eventually discharged.

Source: http://ontario.cmha.ca/news/landmark.../#.V0g47tSs-rU

So, there is certainly some risk but much less risk than I think most people presume.

Pfft stats. Typical liberal, PC BS.

So you're saying that treating the underlying problem tends to remove the harmful symptoms and that people who've spent years studying and treating these illnesses might know what they're talking about more than random people on the internet? That's just ridiculous and idiotic and I can't hold back saying it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

there's no way you'll ever convince me that we are at less risk of deGrood on medication walking around than everyday people who aren't monitored. That statement was quite simply idiotic. I'm sorry, I can't hold back, that was just such a ridiculous statement.

I think this is the stance of a lot of people. Rube isn't the only idiot (sorry Rube ) that believes that.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

The risk of incident is less with a person who has murdered 5 people but is now being treated for the illness than somebody with no history of violence and no indication of mental illness?



This is your stance?

Generally speaking, yes.

The person you're speaking of "no history of violence and no indication of mental illness" was deGrood approx. 1 month before he killed five people. What differentiates deGrood a month before the killings and you?

Do you think people are born killers? They aren't. Some people experienced traumatic upbringings or are engaged in an already deeply criminal lifestyle, but in this case, it is an example where a normal, well adjusted young man had a wire come loose and the consequences were extreme.

You are just as dangerous as a medicated DeGrood. So am I. So is rube. That's a fact. There is nothing that guarantees you won't have a mental breakdown of similar significance and murder your whole family.

Do you we propose we just start monitoring everyone? Mandatory psychological testing every month?

[Hockeyguy15]

From Miles Hong's facebook

To be clear, there is no outcome of Matthew Degrood's trial that would be better or less painful for me.
Please do NOT tell me he "got off easy" or "won the trial"- it's really not comforting. There are no winners here; five people are still gone, one man still killed them and he's still sick. The families and friends of these six people will deal with the repercussions the rest of our lives.
Please do NOT malign mental illness or disparage the mentally ill. I do not have the energy to respond when people say something along those lines, other than I believe he is truly sick and hope he gets the treatment he needs.
Please do become more informed about our justice system. NCR is still imprisonment, offenders are held and treated at the psychiatric unit of the correctional centres in Spy Hill with annual reviews. I would hope it is recognized how dangerous he became so quickly and High Risk NCR is a consideration. For my own peace of mind I have to trust the Crown and health professionals in adhering to their mandate of keeping everyone safe including him.
In the end the most important part for me is that the lives of my brother, Lawrence and Kaiti, Jordan, Josh and Zack be valued and remembered.