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

[EldrickOnIce]

No, I think I understood all the numbers well enough:
1 in 5 NCR individuals unconditionally discharged will re-offend within 3 years.
Rates for violent NCR 'offenders' is less than than that.
All NCR are less like to re-offend than actual criminals who serve time in jail, 1 in 3 of those will.
NCR defenders are 20x more likely to re-offend than average population (or was that violent crimes only?)

Not sure what response you want?

[DionTheDman]

I must have missed this 20x more likely to re-offend than the general population bit. Where does it say that?

If you get the numbers, then why is this a discussion? He has been institutionalized for years, has been analyzed to death and deemed a minimal risk to re-offend, and is, statistically speaking, a minimal risk to re-offend. So what's the basis for keeping him incarcerated other than "just because he scares me"?

[OMG!WTF!]

30 year study on recidivist homicides and schizophrenia...

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._schizophrenia

It looks like the rate they came up with is about 3-5% but all were living in rural areas without on going care and treatment. Pretty interesting. Looks like conditional release with mandatory on going treatment would make the most sense.

[Nage Waza]

^ Couldn't the decrease in recidivism be attributed to the greater amount of resources being spent on the person? I am interested in how much is spent per person on the different categories.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

No, but why would it? What does that matter?

Hmm, maybe so you could provide proof thats relevant to this level of violence? Once again, I see a difference in the level of violence this guy committed and I guess you dont.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by greyshep

Hmm, maybe so you could provide proof thats relevant to this level of violence? Once again, I see a difference in the level of violence this guy committed and I guess you dont.

The study already clarifies the number when it comes to violent crime. Unless you expect the numbers to dramatically change when extracting the numbers for strictly homicide versus violent crime in general, I don't get what you hope to achieve by pointing out the study doesn't make that distinction.

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

The study already clarifies the number when it comes to violent crime. Unless you expect the numbers to dramatically change when extracting the numbers for strictly murder versus violent crime in general, I don't get what you hope to achieve by pointing out the study doesn't make that distinction.

You asked my why it matters, that was my answer. What are you hoping to achieve?

[DionTheDman]

Sorry, I must have missed that part. What's your answer to what you're trying to achieve?

As for what I'M trying to achieve... I'm just trying to explain why the system is the way it is. I mean, at the end of the day, the experts and the system work in the way I believe to be the correct way, so I'm "right" in that sense.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

I must have missed this 20x more likely to re-offend than the general population bit. Where does it say that?

If you get the numbers, then why is this a discussion? He has been institutionalized for years, has been analyzed to death and deemed a minimal risk to re-offend, and is, statistically speaking, a minimal risk to re-offend. So what's the basis for keeping him incarcerated other than "just because he scares me"?

There is no basis for incarceration, but I don't define him as incarcerated.
By your definition, he is currently incarcerated?

20 times came from earlier in thread. It seemed to be an accepted number, as it was suggested this would potentially be no higher than other subsets of the general population.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Perhaps you missed these parts:

What point do you find justifies release without monitoring. All I see is a recidivism rate that is higher than the general population of people and that the rate increases with an absolute discharge.

Do you feel he should be given the choice in whether or not to continue to medicate himself?

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Sorry, I must have missed that part. What's your answer to what you're trying to achieve?

As for what I'M trying to achieve... I'm just trying to explain why the system is the way it is. I mean, at the end of the day, the experts and the system work in the way I believe to be the correct way, so I'm "right" in that sense.

So thats what your looking for?

Here you go...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

I must have missed this 20x more likely to re-offend than the general population bit. Where does it say that?

If you get the numbers, then why is this a discussion? He has been institutionalized for years, has been analyzed to death and deemed a minimal risk to re-offend, and is, statistically speaking, a minimal risk to re-offend. So what's the basis for keeping him incarcerated other than "just because he scares me"?

The 20 times number is if you take the study I linked earlier and apply the murder rate over the 5 years in the study and compare in to Canada's murder rate it is 20 times greater.

Are you aware that he is already out of prison? Your post seems to assume he's incarcerated There are 3 positions being taken in this thread.

1) he should be locked up
2) he should be let out but monitored in some fashion for medication compliance and be forced to medicate for the rest of his life
3) Absolute Discharge where he is free to do as he pleases with no further restrictions placed on him by the justice system.

Its unclear from your post whether you support option 2 or 3

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by greyshep

So thats what your looking for?

Here you go...

Yes, that's what in looking for. If you're going to be an ass, then I'm not going to bother discussing with you.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Yes, that's what in looking for. If you're going to be an ass, then I'm not going to bother discussing with you.

Don't worry about BS like that, you've made great, reasoned posts in this thread. The discussion benefits from your input.

[OMG!WTF!]

For the weird notion that people on drugs are out of their mind and so not criminally responsible...

http://www.thewhig.com/2010/11/02/ca...induced-crimes

If you're in the throws of a major pot withdrawal you can go berserk and get an ncr ruling. I had no idea.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you believe that he should have the right to choose whether or not to medicate himself. That is the authority you are granting him with an absolute discharge.

Admittedly, it's a question that I'm not exactly comfortable with. But if the experts deem him to be a non-threat and the Review Board agrees with the assessment, they must release him unconditionally. By law. What he does after that, like all free innocent people, would be up to him.

If he were to immediately go off his meds, there would appear to be an obvious failure in the system that would need to be reevaluated and corrected if possible. But that's the same really anytime someone is released and re-offends. Playing that hypothetical is loaded, because by all accounts he recognizes the importance of his treatment and has been a huge consideration of why he's in his position today regarding asking for unconditionally release.

Originally Posted by GGG

Also you are again stating facts that have not been tested in a court of law. Courts have only ruled that he is safe with monitoring and experts have only testified to that fact. At this point it is only his lawyer asking for the absolute discharge. Whether experts and the judicial system find that appropriate is still being tested.

I've repeatedly made caveats regarding him being deemed a non-threat by the Manitoba Criminal Review Board. Of course my position is that if the Review Board deems him to be a threat I am for the continued monitoring, and really potentially additional conditions that could include being sent back to the Selkirk facility based on the assessment.

I'm arguing against those that want him monitored forever regardless of whether he is deemed a non-threat. So that's the hypothetical we are discussing.

[GGG]

Experts won't deem him a non threat. They will deem him not a significant threat. Based on the recidivism study linked those deemed not a significant threat and given absolute discharges do go on to commit violent crimes again at a higher rate than the general populace.

That is with all of the safeguards that are currently in place. My argument would be that the law is not strict enough.

I enjoy that you struggle with the concept that he is allowed to choose to not take his meds. It's that question that leads me to be not able to support experts in this case. To me from a public safety stand point given the available studies I have read he should not be able to make that choice.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by GGG

The 20 times number is if you take the study I linked earlier and apply the murder rate over the 5 years in the study and compare in to Canada's murder rate it is 20 times greater.

Are you aware that he is already out of prison? Your post seems to assume he's incarcerated There are 3 positions being taken in this thread.

1) he should be locked up
2) he should be let out but monitored in some fashion for medication compliance and be forced to medicate for the rest of his life
3) Absolute Discharge where he is free to do as he pleases with no further restrictions placed on him by the justice system.

Its unclear from your post whether you support option 2 or 3

I would prefer 2, but understand and would accept 3. I disagree with 1, wholly.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by GGG

Experts won't deem him a non threat. They will deem him not a significant threat. Based on the recidivism study linked those deemed not a significant threat and given absolute discharges do go on to commit violent crimes again at a higher rate than the general populace.

That is with all of the safeguards that are currently in place. My argument would be that the law is not strict enough.

I enjoy that you struggle with the concept that he is allowed to choose to not take his meds. It's that question that leads me to be not able to support experts in this case. To me from a public safety stand point given the available studies I have read he should not be able to make that choice.

I personally don't think it's fair to compare them with the general population, because the general population isn't suffering from conditions like his. It makes perfect sense that an individual with a risk factor is more at risk of these sorts of episodes than one that doesn't.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

30 year study on recidivist homicides and schizophrenia...

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._schizophrenia

It looks like the rate they came up with is about 3-5% but all were living in rural areas without on going care and treatment. Pretty interesting. Looks like conditional release with mandatory on going treatment would make the most sense.

This is a poor study with respect to this situation. While you already discussed the issue with the most common offender being the minorities living in rural areas with limited access to treatment, there's just other areas that don't draw a parallel:

Since 2000, Chuvashia has had a high total homicide rate of about 14 per 100,000 per annum and a high homicide rate by people diagnosed with schizophrenia of about 0.45 per 100,000 perannum (Golenkov et al., 2011a)

Canada's homicide rate is about 1.5 per 100,000. You're 10x more likely to be murdered period in Chuvashia.


Here's a follow up by the same three authors.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3933385/

This study suggests that in most jurisdictions, the rate of recidivist homicide offences by people with schizophrenia who have been released to community care is very low. There were no cases of homicide recidivism in New Zealand [36] or Austria [33] over periods of 30 and 25 years respectively. A low rate of recidivism was also suggested by the findings of most of the other studies from high-income countries conducted over shorter periods. Although it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about the reasons for these low rates of homicide recidivism, the most important factor in the prevention of further homicides by mentally ill offenders is likely to be the ability of forensic services to provide an adequate period of secure detention, carefully graded release to community settings and ongoing supervision of treatment after release.

This review was conducted after we published a study describing a high rate of homicide recidivism in Chuvashia [12]. Other researchers with similar findings might also be more likely to prepare a report and have it accepted for publication. Hence, there is a risk of publication bias towards reports of higher rates of recidivism, which appears to have been confirmed by our analysis of published versus unpublished data. However, the low rates of homicide recidivism in the unpublished data might also be a due to under-reporting, for example, as a result of the imperfect recollection of homicide recidivism by the primary researchers.

There was one case from New South Wales, Australia [6,13], and one case in a recent study from Saudi Arabia [26]. The authors of 8 other published studies from Austria [33], Australia (two studies from Victoria) [21,34], Barbados [35], New Zealand [36], The Netherlands [28], Nigeria [37] and Singapore [38] confirmed that there were no cases of recidivism in their samples. The authors of 3 studies from the UK confirmed the presence of some recidivists in their samples but they could not specify the number of cases [14,17,25]. Hence, of 29 studies reporting homicide offenders with schizophrenia from defined geographic regions, 3 studies reported homicide recidivism according to our definition

Despite significant limitations of the available data, our results suggest that repeat homicides by people with schizophrenia are rare in jurisdictions with low rates of total homicide and well developed services for the long-term treatment of homicide offenders with schizophrenia.