Stabbing in Brentwood-5 Dead, 1 Arrested

[northcrunk]

NCR inmates are usually at a higher risk of assault and suicide as well. He would probably have gotten off easy by spending a few years at a regular jail then spending a non-disclosed amount of years in a mental health facility. If he is deemed high risk he may never be released.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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.

No.,obviously.
What it is saying is that 6 in 1000 extremely violent NCR individuals will kill again, and about 100 of 1000 with commit violent crimes again. It also says this is probably half in comparison to other recidivism rates.

What it doesn't say it is those numbers are still multiple times higher than the general population.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

What it doesn't say it is those numbers are still multiple times higher than the general population.

Source? I was actually trying to find some stats on what they estimate the number of violent criminals are as a percentage of the general population.

EDIT: Either way that still doesn't refute my original point. If I know that DeGrood is on his meds then I have no reason to fear him more than the average person. Now if I can't be guaranteed that he's on his meds then it's a different story.

[ken0042]

For the general population, the rate is about 9 out of every 1000 people; according to Wikipedia. (Using to get a general idea, not as hard evidence.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

However that seems to be a rate per year. Somebody with better statistical knowledge can tell me that if the rate is 9/1000 per year translates to about the same as 100/1000 over a lifetime.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by ken0042

For the general population, the rate is about 9 out of every 1000 people; according to Wikipedia. (Using to get a general idea, not as hard evidence.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada

However that seems to be a rate per year. Somebody with better statistical knowledge can tell me that if the rate is 9/1000 per year translates to about the same as 100/1000 over a lifetime.

I'm in no way a stats wiz, and it probably depends on how you define "extreme violence," but yeah, doesn't seem NCRs are more violent upon release than the general population.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

No.,obviously.
What it is saying is that 6 in 1000 extremely violent NCR individuals will kill again, and about 100 of 1000 with commit violent crimes again. It also says this is probably half in comparison to other recidivism rates.

What it doesn't say it is those numbers are still multiple times higher than the general population.

No, if you read the study only 4/1800 murdered again <.2% over a 5yr period. It does not state of any what kind of monitoring these people were under or state what the initial offense was. So lots of variables in there

http://publications.cpa-apc.org/media.php?mid=1862

Canada has a murder rate of 1.5 / 100k. So over a five year period we'd expect 9/100k. Or about 1/10k compared with a rate from the study of about 20/10k.

So on balance people who are NCRd at trial have a murder rate about 20 times the national average. However still missing is a comparison between NCR individuals and the average mentally ill person. And NCR recidivism rates on people being monitored for medication compliance.

[peter12]

Well, this discussion has flown off the rails. Amateur statistical analysis! Armchair psychiatrists!

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, this discussion has flown off the rails. Amateur statistical analysis! Armchair psychiatrists!

Yeah, but what do his Corsi numbers look like?

[peter12]

Oh man, let me be clear. I can read a statistical chart. That is it. I don't know nothing!

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't know nothing!

I'm saving this for posterity.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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?

I'm not quite sure I follow why we are comparing DeGrood in the past to me today. As of today and looking forward into the future, which should be what we are concerned about, DeGrood has murdered 5 people and I have not, I would argue this means that DeGrood is more capable than I am to kill.

I think what rube and others are saying is that if he's medicated he is safer than the statistical average of people in society that may erupt into psychotic outbreaks and I seriously doubt that is the case. I probably came on a little strong saying his statement was idiotic but at first the statement he made sounded so ridiculous for me.

"Some doubts have been raised about the long-term effectiveness of antipsychotics because two large international World Health Organization studies found individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia tend to have better long-term outcomes in developing countries (where there is lower availability and use of antipsychotics) than in developed countries. The reasons for the differences are not clear, however, and various explanations have been suggested.

Some argue that the evidence for antipsychotics from withdrawal-relapse studies may be flawed because they do not take into account that antipsychotics may sensitize the brain and provoke psychosis if discontinued. Evidence from comparison studies indicates that at least some individuals recover from psychosis without taking antipsychotics and may do better than those that do take antipsychotics. Some argue that, overall, the evidence suggests that antipsychotics only help if they are used selectively and are gradually withdrawn as soon as possible."

http://www.healthyplace.com/thought-...schizophrenia/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...test-1.3068059

Seems like it's likely that DeGrood will be released to some kind of group home in the future once he's treated and that, if like Li, he will be allowed unsupervised passes to go wherever he wants so long as he takes his meds. Who ensures he takes his meds?

Is there a chance Li or DeGrood could stop taking their meds? I think that ultimately is the question. But further, even on their meds, is it known with 100% certainty, not 99.9 but 100% certainty, that he is not a violent person or could relapse? I am suggesting that the science needs to be at a point where it is 100% unequivocal about the process, medication and certainty that people that murder several people are not capable of re offending and I'm not sure that is the case. I am suggesting that these people lose the presumption of innocence like I have, or the rest of people in society have because we have not murdered 5 people with a knife.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Dion

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



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......



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

I'm not saying they've misdiagnosed him I'm saying they have to ensure that the treatment is 100% conclusive that it will work. I highly doubt they have those numbers but could be pleasantly surprised. I think that regardless if I am pleasantly surprised my position is that I'm still uncomfortable with a person being released into society after an incident such as this because of the severity of it.

I'm not saying don't treat DeGrood, I'm saying keep him locked in a facility and then treat him. And if we must release him into society to feel good about ourselves then surely to hell make sure it's supervised at a minimum, forever.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I'm not saying they've misdiagnosed him I'm saying they have to ensure that the treatment is 100% conclusive that it will work. I highly doubt they have those numbers but could be pleasantly surprised. I think that regardless if I am pleasantly surprised my position is that I'm still uncomfortable with a person being released into society after an incident such as this because of the severity of it.

I'm not saying don't treat DeGrood, I'm saying keep him locked in a facility and then treat him. And if we must release him into society to feel good about ourselves then surely to hell make sure it's supervised at a minimum, forever.

I'm not sure where your fears are then, as you just pretty much described the exact process of rehabilitation and possible release in our country.

Except that it's not to feel good about ourselves, it's because we're a just nation.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I'm not sure where your fears are then, as you just pretty much described the exact process of rehabilitation and possible release in our country.

Except that it's not to feel good about ourselves, it's because we're a just nation.

I'm sorry I was pretty sure that a guy like Li is in a group home in Winnipeg, and is allowed access to the public and some basic freedoms. I'd imagine DeGrood would be treated similarly. I thought I recall that at some point these people may be allowed to have unsupervised community access.

What does being a "just nation" have to do with allowing a guy who's slaughtered 5 people allowed to wander around on his own?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I'm sorry I was pretty sure that a guy like Li is in a group home in Winnipeg, and is allowed access to the public and some basic freedoms. I'd imagine DeGrood would be treated similarly. I thought I recall that at some point these people may be allowed to have unsupervised community access.

What does being a "just nation" have to do with allowing a guy who's slaughtered 5 people allowed to wander around on his own?

Li was granted the right to live on his own last Feb. There are strict conditons he must follow including daily monitoring to make sure he takes his meds. Dispite that he hasn't killed anyone and is still considered a very low risk.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, this discussion has flown off the rails. Amateur statistical analysis! Armchair psychiatrists!

What about you and your so called expert posts about the damaging effects of weed on a persons mental health?

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Dion

Li was granted the right to live on his own last Feb. There are strict conditons he must follow including daily monitoring to make sure he takes his meds. Dispite that he hasn't killed anyone and is still considered a very low risk.

thanks. I think one of the issues I am struggling with is the use of the justice system not as one of punishment. In some cases, why isn't it? Why is vengeance, punishment not called for when a guy kills 5 people?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I'm not saying they've misdiagnosed him I'm saying they have to ensure that the treatment is 100% conclusive that it will work. I highly doubt they have those numbers but could be pleasantly surprised. I think that regardless if I am pleasantly surprised my position is that I'm still uncomfortable with a person being released into society after an incident such as this because of the severity of it.

It took 7 years before Vincent Li was granted the right to live on his own. It began with escorted outings for a few hours in the the yard of the hospital he was in. From there it went to escorted outings in the community and then to a group home and now to where he is living on his own. Each step of the way he had to prove to his medical team that he was worthy of taking the next step. That's a considerable amount of time to make sure his treatment is working.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

thanks. I think one of the issues I am struggling with is the use of the justice system not as one of punishment. In some cases, why isn't it? Why is vengeance, punishment not called for when a guy kills 5 people?

Fair question to ask. I'm not the expert that peter12 would have you believe but i'm guessing that punishment plays a part in the sentencing as does rehabilitation. If this wasn't a NCR case the convicted would probably spend the rest or most of his life behind bars and be labled a dangerous offender.

Another thing to consider is the fact that De Groot has to live with what he has done for the rest of his life. That will be hard for him to bear when medication and treatment helps him come to grips with what he has done. That is a harsh punishment I know I could not bear.

In the end there is a considerable amount of trust that we must have that his medical team is doing the right thing.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Dion

It took 7 years before Vincent Li was granted the right to live on his own. It began with escorted outings for a few hours in the the yard of the hospital he was in. From there it went to escorted outings in the community and then to a group home and now to where he is living on his own. Each step of the way he had to prove to his medical team that he was worthy of taking the next step. That's a considerable amount of time to make sure his treatment is working.

Yeah... I suppose this is where it all breaks down for me. I am sure there are doctors, professionals and experts evaluating these people and I am sure Li won't re-offend. It is tragic for Li and for DeGrood. A guy like Li lost 7 years of freedom plus has this struggle for the rest of his life with his illness.

Unfortunately, the guy who was beheaded lost what, 60, 70 years of life too. On this basis, I don't think I agree with a guy like Li being ever allowed to live on his own or have unsupervised access to society.