Man who beheaded fellow bus passenger wants to live on his own

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm assuming that person hasn't been diagnosed with a serious mental disorder? The day he lost his mind, beheaded, and ate parts of a man this really stopped being about what's best for him and became about what's best for the public. You have to ask yourself if you have a family are you okay with this man being your long term neighbor while unmonitored? Is a 2% chance he may stop taking his medication and lose his mind again good enough for your son, daughter, wife? One percent is too much for me and I don't believe there's an expert on the planet that can claim this man will be able to go back to the daily grind of life where people have bad days, weeks, months, etc and not go back down the road that led him to taking a man's life. How will he feel when he's depressed? Will he stop taking his medication? Start drinking? Sorry but there's simply too many variables and IMO being monitored periodically is a small price to pay considering the lives he affected even if it was indirectly.

While I agree that maintaining some level of precaution is probably appropriate in this case, I think it's important to point out how wrong your 2% scenario is.

What concerns you, is that the % chance of him actually acting out and killing somebody has actually occurred. Whatever the % chance of it actually happening was, it did happen. That % chance may be low enough that he never does it again.

The important thing to remember, though, and what a lot of people forget, is that you too have a percentage chance of losing touch with reality and doing great harm to someone.

Li isn't unlike you or me, he may have a condition that raises his % chance of doing something unthinkable, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a greater chance than you, or any of the neighbors you already live beside. You're concerned because Li's chance of re-offending is, say, 1%. But you don't know that any of your neighbors don't carry a 1.5 or 2% chance. Maybe you're just 0.01% more likely to kill someone than Li is to kill again.

You aren't scared of him because he might do something. You're scared because he did. Ignorance is bliss, but it's a huge mistake to think he's something other than human and that each and every one of us aren't capable of or susceptible to the exact same thing.

[FireGilbert]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So you're against check stops, and the security procedures we're all subjected to every time we get on a plane?

I'm not going to touch this thread topic with a 1000 foot pole but in response to this post I am against check stops and airport security.

Check stops are an infringement on your rights presuming guilt until proven innocent. Instead of grouping a bunch of police in one area that can easily be avoided if you use google traffic, have them out patrolling the streets looking for erratic drivers and giving them drug tests and breathalysers.

Airport security is overkill and only provides the illusion of security. An example I always use is how I've had olive oil and an Allen key confiscated but no one noticed the time I flew halfway around the world accidentally having safety razor blades in my carry on. The reason for no highjackings in America after 9-11 is because of reinforced cockpit doors, Air Marshals and the hard work of intelligence agencies.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by ken0042

The difference being is that unmedicated, he did commit a very violent act. He is now medicated, and his freedom should be based upon him remaining medicated. The only way to do that is to check in on him.

Do you have evidence to support your belief that he will stop taking medication once he is stopped being monitored?

Do you believe the experts have not thought of the possibility of him stopping to take his medicine?

Originally Posted by ken0042

If he had been, he would have been left in jail and likely never been given parole.

Yes. If you changed the circumstances the consequences also change. Not really sure the point of that is. If you murdered someone, you would be in jail..but you didn't, so who cares?

Originally Posted by ken0042

In my mind, part of not being criminally responsible due to mental disease is that you disease must be monitored.

Maybe in your mind, certainly not by the Criminal Code of Canada that was upheld by the Supreme Court.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

My concern is also, whether or not the medical system will work properly if Li shows up complaining of a new bout of problems. I am concerned that the staff at the hospital/walk-in clinic won't have any knowledge of his prior issues.

I recently had a friend and co-worker murdered. There is talk that the person accused of the murder had sought medical/mental help less than 12 hrs prior. That person was turned away, and my co-worker is now dead. Is my friend still alive if this person isn't turned away from the facility they went to, I don't know. I don't even know if this person even went to a facility as facts/information is cloudy and scant.

So let's get this straight, because, anecdotally, this person may or even may not have gone to a medical facility that failed him. So because of that, we should infringe on the rights of others? You're not providing any evidence that Li is currently a threat to society, but you still want him to not gain back his personal freedom. That's a more scary thought to me than it would be having Li be in my community.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Hey didn't do it purposely, though. That's what the whole ncr process was determining all these years.

OK, so then tell that I understand it properly now, because I have been focused on medicated versus non - incorrectly so, I think. That unmedicated = potential risk. So monitoring made sense.
However,
Unconditional release = unmedicated, potentially.
Therefore, granting unconditional release specifically implies experts are of the opinion that Li is no greater risk to society, unmedicated, than other individual might be. That the psychotic episode that resulted in that action is not reflective of the symptoms of that condition in Li specifically, but was just a horrible maelstrom of circumstances or episodes that led to that one instance. And further, I suppose, the statistics that are available back this opinion that unmedicated he poses no greater risk.
And yes, 20x greater than 'average' is significant, but not necessarily compared to other subsets of the population operating entirely free in society.
Is this more or less correct?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Therefore, granting unconditional release specifically implies experts are of the opinion that Li is no greater risk to society, unmedicated, than other individual might be

No. That's not the case at all.

It appears Li has been determined by the evaluations that he's not a significant threat to society. In part, that's because of his recognition of the importance of his treatment.

Significant threat of course is subjective to a degree but does not mean he has exact same odds as me or you of doing something.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So let's get this straight, because, anecdotally, this person may or even may not have gone to a medical facility that failed him. So because of that, we should infringe on the rights of others? You're not providing any evidence that Li is currently a threat to society, but you still want him to not gain back his personal freedom. That's a more scary thought to me than it would be having Li be in my community.

I should that I believe the information is correct regarding the alleged murder of my friend based on the source.

I don't believe that currently medicated Li is a threat to society. But I do believe that non-medicated Li could be a threat to society.

My concern (and others) is that he might stop his medication. I am lucky, I have never had a mental illness. My friend's wife does, and it isn't easy. She is on medication. If she stops taking it she starts to think people are after her, she has all sorts of hallucinations and hear voices. He has told me stories or chasing her around Cape Town for days on end trying to find her. She doesn't like it, she doesn't want to have those problems. The trouble is, when medicated she doesn't think she needs to be medicated because she doesn't have any problems. Her brain doesn't put together that it is the medication that is stopping the voices/paranoia. It is sad, she is a lovely lady that never use to have this problems.

That is my concern with Li. Perhaps after 5-10 years of regular maintenance & check up that condition is removed.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I should that I believe the information is correct regarding the alleged murder of my friend based on the source.

I don't believe that currently medicated Li is a threat to society. But I do believe that non-medicated Li could be a threat to society.

Having obviously no knowledge of you, I will say it's safe to say that a sober undercoverbrother is not a threat to society.

undercoverbrother on bathsalts though has the potential to eat human faces as well. How can I, as a concerned citizen, be sure you won't have bathsalts? Should you be subjected to constant monitoring as well, it is afterall the only way to guarantee you don't do something wrong on drugs or otherwise.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

That is my concern with Li. Perhaps after 5-10 years of regular maintenance & check up that condition is removed.

Sorry, but what? I mean now you are pretty much taking my stance. I haven't said any definite timeline for when Li needs to no longer be deemed a significant threat to society by the Review board, only that he be released unconditionally when he is. I'm arguing against the "forever" constant monitoring of him.

Now regardless of that, he's already been living outside of the Selkirk facility for years. Why the arbitrary 5-10 years? Do the last couple years count for that? Would you be okay if he was unconditionally released in, say 2020, but not 2019?

[EldrickOnIce]

With any medication, compliance is always a significant issue, even when they know they are electronically monitored for compliance.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_url...sAQgAMIGSgAMAA

This review of 76 studies that used gold-
standard EM devices demonstrated that
patients take -51% to 79% of doses daily
as prescribed across a wide range of therapeutic areas.


Considering the variety of medical dis-
orders evaluated in the present study, it is
likely that these findings can be extrapo-
lated to other medications, formulations,
and medical disorders. Research has
demonstrated that physicians are poor
judges of patients' compliance, and that
patients are poor judges of their own level
of compliance with the prescribed regi-
men.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

How can I, as a concerned citizen, be sure you won't have bathsalts? Should you be subjected to constant monitoring as well, it is afterall the only way to guarantee you don't do something wrong on drugs or otherwise.

Because he doesn't have a past history of using bathsalts. Li has a past history of having psychotic breaks while not medicated. (Not sure if psychotic breaks is the exact term.)

While not criminally responsible, he does have a past history that should be considered.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Having obviously no knowledge of you, I will say it's safe to say that a sober undercoverbrother is not a threat to society.

undercoverbrother on bathsalts though has the potential to eat human faces as well. How can I, as a concerned citizen, be sure you won't have bathsalts? Should you be subjected to constant monitoring as well, it is afterall the only way to guarantee you don't do something wrong on drugs or otherwise.

45 yr old UCB he is ok, but 23 yr old UCB that spent a night in an Eastern European jail is a different story.

Sorry, but what? I mean now you are pretty much taking my stance. I haven't said any definite timeline for when Li needs to no longer be deemed a significant threat to society by the Review board, only that he be released unconditionally when he is. I'm arguing against the "forever" constant monitoring of him.

Now regardless of that, he's already been living outside of the Selkirk facility for years. Why the arbitrary 5-10 years? Do the last couple years count for that? Would you be okay if he was unconditionally released in, say 2020, but not 2019?

I said perhaps, I am not sold on it, but rather presented it as a possibility to discuss. The timeline 5-10 years is arbitrary for sure. To be frank I don't like the idea.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Flying and driving are privileges, not rights. By doing either, you are passively agreeing to both of those. Neither of those have any bearing when we are talking about rights.

Are you for stop-and-frisk, random searches, unlawful detainment and unwarranted searches?

Well we know you are definitely for the sarcastic eye roll smiley. There is certainly no doubt about that.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Mightyfire89

How is it incorrect?

You're making the wrong assumption that Li was in total control of his mind when he cut the young mans head off. People with schziophrenia often hear voices telling them to do things that they would not normaly do.

What the voices are like
Most of the time, the hallucinations experienced by schizophrenics are auditory in nature, which mean they are hearing something. These are usually in the form of hearing voices. Schizophrenics may believe they are hearing two or more voices, such as people having conversations or several people talking to them. Or, they may hear one voice. To the schizophrenic, the voice or voices seem very real. They often have no insight into the fact that it is a hallucination.
Often the voices are commenting on the schizophrenic’s thoughts or actions. And to make it even more distressing, the voices may be threatening or disparaging. Sometimes the voice or voices are familiar, but this is not always the case.

Command hallucinations

Another fairly common experience with regards to the voices is that they tell the schizophrenic to do certain things. Clinically, these are referred to as “command hallucinations”, and in some cases they can cause significant problems. The voices may tell the schizophrenic to harm or kill himself/herself or to harm someone else. Because the voices seem very real, they can be very compelling, making it difficult for the schizophrenic to resist acting on the command.

http://www.schizophrenic.com/content...hearing-voices

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Because he doesn't have a past history of using bathsalts. Li has a past history of having psychotic breaks while not medicated. (Not sure if psychotic breaks is the exact term.)

So would you be in favour of monitoring anyone who has done bathsalts? I mean, at least they, for the most part, chose to take them. That's less unfair of a treatment to someone who had no choice for their actions...

Originally Posted by ken0042

While not criminally responsible, he does have a past history that should be considered.

Yes he does. And it's been considered for the last nine years, and continues to be considered. Just so does his eight years of more recent history where he has not had an incident.

And again, you've presented no evidence to suggest that he would go off his medication once monitoring ends. Of course it's a possibility, so is you developing schizophrenia and attacking an innocent person. Right now you're asking for 100% guarantee, that's not possible nor is it that basis of our Justice System...if it was everyone would be locked away so we couldn't do anything to anyone.

[Dion]

If he should ever stop taking his meds those voices that commanded Li to cut off the young mans head will return over time. Should we give him that unconditional release we have no gaurentees he would continue to take his meds. That's why I feel he needs to be monitored for the rest of his life,

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Dion

If he should ever stop taking his meds those voices that commanded Li to cut off the young mans head will return over time. Should we give him that unconditional release we have no gaurentees he would continue to take his meds. That's why I feel he needs to be monitored for the rest of his life,

That's a pretty definitive statement. You know this how? If true, you best tell the review board, I suspect they will change their tune.

Thanks to O.R. on the heavy lifting. I haven't posted much, but I do agree with your position.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

No. That's not the case at all.

It appears Li has been determined by the evaluations that he's not a significant threat to society. In part, that's because of his recognition of the importance of his treatment.

Significant threat of course is subjective to a degree but does not mean he has exact same odds as me or you of doing something.

Do we know that from his evaluations that he is not considered a significant threat to society. His lawyer is asking for an absolute discharge. This has not been tested by the courts yet or been testified to by medical experts. Medical experts have deemed that he is not a significant risk if he is properly monitored.

Do you as a person with an opinion without deferring to experts feel that the risk of him not taking his medication or his medication not work is significant.

As an aside if I am Li I want continuous monitoring. If I have done something that horrible and it was my brain that tricked me into doing it and the only thing stopping me from doing it again is the medication being taken and being effective I want some fail safes in place to ensure if the effectiveness of the med's changes I don't slide of a cliff.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

That's a pretty definitive statement. You know this how? If true, you best tell the review board, I suspect they will change their tune.

Thanks to O.R. on the heavy lifting. I haven't posted much, but I do agree with your position.

I'm sure the review board will have all the available medical information they need to make a proper decision. My info came from the posted llink in my previos post.

Secondly it's Li who is asking an unconditional release and not the review board. Given his history and that he is monitired to be sure he takes his meds I can't see the board granting his wishes. Like what gaurentees do we have, other than his word, that he will continue to take his meds? Just because he's taken them in the past is no a gaurentee of the future.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So would you be in favour of monitoring anyone who has done bathsalts? I mean, at least they, for the most part, chose to take them. That's less unfair of a treatment to someone who had no choice for their actions...



Yes he does. And it's been considered for the last nine years, and continues to be considered. Just so does his eight years of more recent history where he has not had an incident.

And again, you've presented no evidence to suggest that he would go off his medication once monitoring ends. Of course it's a possibility, so is you developing schizophrenia and attacking an innocent person. Right now you're asking for 100% guarantee, that's not possible nor is it that basis of our Justice System...if it was everyone would be locked away so we couldn't do anything to anyone.

That he specifically will? No.
That statistically he will? Yes.

There is substantial evidence to suggest individuals suffering from this condition will be non compliant with medication. The US National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) and PubMed link numerous studies that suggest compliance is a major problem, like this one.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3782179/

Estimated non-adherence rates in schizophrenia are about 50%, widely ranging from 4% (observed in a study with depot neuroleptic drugs) to 72%[6]. Factors that might account for such variability include: definition of non-adherence and criteria used to determine it, methods for evaluating non-adherence and observation period[6]. Furthermore, adherence may vary during the patient’s evolution; it is usually good after hospital discharge and tends to decrease with time[1].

In a prospective study, one-third of patients admitted to hospital after their first psychotic episode of schizophrenia were non-adherents 6 mo afterwards [11]. Another prospective 2-year study showed similar results: 33.4% of patients stopped attending follow-up visits or refused to go on with the treatment[12]. In a study including male patients with a first psychotic episode of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder or schizoaffective disorder, 53.6% of them abandoned the treatment during the first year[13].

In patients with psychopathological symptoms, antipsychotic drugs have proven effective in reducing relapse and rehospitalization rates[2]; however, non-adherence is a frequent cause of impairment[6,14], hospitalization[5,15,16], higher risk of suicide[17], longer time to remission[18], poorer prognosis[19], loss of job, dangerous behavior[20], arrest, violence, drug and alcohol consumption, psychiatric emergences, poor mental performance and low satisfaction with life[21].

The risk of psychotic relapse in patients with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder increases almost five times after 5 years, reaching 81.9%

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

That he specifically will? No.

So that's actually what matters.....

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

That statistically he will? Yes.

Uh, no your evidence does not support that. Nor are blanket statistics like that given huge weight in individual cases. Those with schizophrenia and relapsing are simply not under the same conditions that Mr. Li has been under for the last eight years. One of the biggest assets that Mr. Li has shown was the ability to recognize the need for treatment and the effects of not following it properly. The same may not be able said about the people making up the statistics. Take a look at undercoverbrother's post about his friend who ", when medicated she doesn't think she needs to be medicated because she doesn't have any problems." That's not the same as Li who has shown to recognize the importance for eight years.

He's already had eight+ years of treatment. He hasn't relapsed, he hasn't had issues. He's been the model patient. He's not part of the statistics being discussed because he's already gone well past the 2 year mark...I mean those are fine stastics and a great argument if we were talking about unconditional release in 2011, but they do not support anything with respect to someone who's been on treatment, and doing it well, for eight years.

Not to mention, a relapse or psychotic episode does not have to be violent. Anecdotal, but it's more likely he's found screaming at himself or naked than it would be of him murdering someone.

So relapsing is already low, and murdering another person is even lower.