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

[MBates]

My great grandfather gratuitously slammed a bayonette through the forehead of a young German soldier who was trying to surrender. That was one of the only stories of depraved savagery he ever told from his time in places like Ypres, Passchendaele and Vimy.

He came home and bottled up his PTSD and lived haunted by his own prior conduct until his last breath. He was a war hero though...so no need for anyone to even ask what risk of harm he posed to society walking around with no meds, no counselling etc.

This whole argument starts from a false premise that us who have not harmed anyone due to mental illness have some certain knowledge of how we never will.

The general population is not a homogenous group of non-risk. Vince Li post-release may well be one of the more safe people you would ever share a bus-ride with.

With all the time we are spending asking about his likely rate of recidivism, why are we not asking what is the percentage chance of getting on a bus with an undiagnosed schizophrenic who has not yet killed anyone?

Isn't that the risk you should be more worried about?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

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.

Any murderer could be released and murder again.

Any criminal could be released and commit another crime again. In fact, that happens extremely often, commonly with crimes being more severe.

You asking how I feel about him not taking his meds, is about the same as me asking you how you feel about releasing a criminal deemed to be rehabilitated after serving his sentence and him immediately killing someone. Of course you would hate to hear that, but does that mean you are against releasing criminals from prison ever?

And while we are talking stats, the recidivism of actual criminals is staggering. For aboriginal federal offender it's over 50% for any crimes!

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/r.../index-en.aspx

For violent, it shoots down to a measly 20%. So one in five aboriginals convicted of a violent crime will recommit a violent crime. If safety is our concern, I think you need to argue never releasing federal offenders ever based on those stats.

I mean, Li's just a drop in a bucket comparatively.

Of course I would only want him to be released unconditionally if he is no longer deemed a threat (as our law says). Of course that would mean a realistically high chance of him continuing his treatment and a very low chance of him killing someone again based on the experts and Review Boards analysis and discretion. That does not provide a guarantee, but in order to keep this society free you need to take "risks" otherwise the prudent choice would be to lock away any and all (at least violent) criminals for life.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

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.

Before he cut off someone's head, Vince Li was one hundred percent a member of the "general population".

You might tell yourself he wasn't to make you feel less scared but it won't make it true.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by MBates

With all the time we are spending asking about his likely rate of recidivism, why are we not asking what is the percentage chance of getting on a bus with an undiagnosed schizophrenic who has not yet killed anyone?

Isn't that the risk you should be more worried about?

It doesn't even need to be schizophrenic. I don't know where the stats came from nor do I really care to review it, but when other posters were discussing Li was 20x more likely than the average person to kill and some acted as though it's a huge scary number.

A greyhound bus seats 55 passengers. Assuming each of those passenger is "average," you would have nearly 3x the chance of being killed on a full bus than you would sharing a bus with Li as the only passenger...

[Nage Waza]

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.

I would be happy if you just changed your avatar.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I would be happy if you just changed your avatar.

Lol I had to Adblock it, was driving me crazy.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Any murderer could be released and murder again.

Any criminal could be released and commit another crime again. In fact, that happens extremely often, commonly with crimes being more severe.

You asking how I feel about him not taking his meds, is about the same as me asking you how you feel about releasing a criminal deemed to be rehabilitated after serving his sentence and him immediately killing someone. Of course you would hate to hear that, but does that mean you are against releasing criminals from prison ever?

And while we are talking stats, the recidivism of actual criminals is staggering. For aboriginal federal offender it's over 50% for any crimes!

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/r.../index-en.aspx

For violent, it shoots down to a measly 20%. So one in five aboriginals convicted of a violent crime will recommit a violent crime. If safety is our concern, I think you need to argue never releasing federal offenders ever based on those stats.

I mean, Li's just a drop in a bucket comparatively.

Of course I would only want him to be released unconditionally if he is no longer deemed a threat (as our law says). Of course that would mean a realistically high chance of him continuing his treatment and a very low chance of him killing someone again based on the experts and Review Boards analysis and discretion. That does not provide a guarantee, but in order to keep this society free you need to take "risks" otherwise the prudent choice would be to lock away any and all (at least violent) criminals for life.

I don't think you can compare Li to another criminals. If he was a criminal we wouldn't be talking about this for another 12 years or so and then he would be on parole for life.

We also don't have a good method of preventing criminals from continuing to commit crimes. If you could medicate them appropriately and eliminate crime I suspect that for violent offenders this would be implented.

The loss of liberty of Li (in terms of ensuring he gets his meds) is reasonable in comparison to the amount of safety added to society.

An aside: Would Li be responsible for paying for his meds and therapy if he gets an absolute discharge? Because I would be worried if there is any potential barrier for his treatment.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't think you can compare Li to another criminals. If he was a criminal we wouldn't be talking about this for another 12 years or so and then he would be on parole for life.

We can't compare him to other criminals because he is not a criminal. But my point was, if people are so concerned with the society's safety, pretty much every single violent offender released is a much higher risk to society. Anyone concerned with Li, should be terrified of the amount of ex-cons we have in Canada...

Originally Posted by GGG

We also don't have a good method of preventing criminals from continuing to commit crimes.

Sure we do. Lock them up and throw away the key. Or even in the study presented it showed that most re-offenses occur after monitoring ends.... If we no longer care about individual freedoms and are willing to sacrifice rights for safety, then let's at least be smart about it and start with the the demographic with the far higher odds of committing a violent offense.

Like I said, I'm not quite buying the argument about wanting to protect society and public safety. If that was the real issue, every single Joe-Blow convicted of a violent offense should have much higher backlash than Li. A federal offender convicted of a violent offense has a near 20% chance of re-offending.

If released unconditionally (and therefore no longer deemed a significant threat by the experts and Review Board), what do you think are the odds Li goes off his medicine? And what are the odds if he does that he experiences psychosis without getting help? And what are the odds that he experiences psychosis without getting help manifests itself into a violent offense? Most psychotic episodes don't result in 'real danger.' It's more likely he starts talking incoherently than it would be of him lashing out violently. Realistically, it's more likely that he harms himself than anyone else.

There's simply no possibility of him being released unconditionally if the "chance" of him committing a violent offense is greater than 20%. And yet every single day, who knows how many violent offenders are being released in Canada with that statistic..

Originally Posted by GGG

The loss of liberty of Li (in terms of ensuring he gets his meds) is reasonable in comparison to the amount of safety added to society.

I disagree. An innocent person no longer deemed a significant threat to society has no reasonable "loss of liberty."

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Of course I would only want him to be released unconditionally if he is no longer deemed a threat (as our law says).

What if an assessment was done on Li 30 days after he decapitated that random bystander, and it determined it was unlikely he would have another episode? Would you be okay with him walking at that point, unconditionally?

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

If we no longer care about individual freedoms and are willing to sacrifice rights for safety, then let's at least be smart about it and start with the the demographic with the far higher odds of committing a violent offense.

Our criminal justice system takes into account both individual freedoms and public safety, and makes trade-offs between the two all the time.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Like I said, I'm not quite buying the argument about wanting to protect society and public safety.

Whether you buy it or don't buy it, protecting society is a fundamental element of the justice system, and one which we're willing to sacrifice individual freedom to achieve.

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

If released unconditionally (and therefore no longer deemed a significant threat by the experts and Review Board), what do you think are the odds Li goes off his medicine? And what are the odds if he does that he experiences psychosis without getting help? And what are the odds that he experiences psychosis without getting help manifests itself into a violent offense? Most psychotic episodes don't result in 'real danger.' It's more likely he starts talking incoherently than it would be of him lashing out violently. Realistically, it's more likely that he harms himself than anyone else.

There's simply no possibility of him being released unconditionally if the "chance" of him committing a violent offense is greater than 20%.

You're placing tremendous faith in what is regarded as the softest of the soft sciences. Psychology isn't physics or chemistry. It doesn't have a great track record when it comes to predictive accuracy. Are you aware of the controversy around recovered memory, and its role in criminal convictions that are now regarded as unjustified?

I don't believe we're advanced enough in our knowledge of schizophrenia to place absolute faith in predictions about the behaviour of people afflicted with it. The testimony of the experts should be a factor in sentencing and release conditions, but ultimate authority should rest in the consideration of judges.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

We can't compare him to other criminals because he is not a criminal. But my point was, if people are so concerned with the society's safety, pretty much every single violent offender released is a much higher risk to society. Anyone concerned with Li, should be terrified of the amount of ex-cons we have in Canada...

Sure we do. Lock them up and throw away the key. Or even in the study presented it showed that most re-offenses occur after monitoring ends.... If we no longer care about individual freedoms and are willing to sacrifice rights for safety, then let's at least be smart about it and start with the the demographic with the far higher odds of committing a violent offense.

Like I said, I'm not quite buying the argument about wanting to protect society and public safety. If that was the real issue, every single Joe-Blow convicted of a violent offense should have much higher backlash than Li. A federal offender convicted of a violent offense has a near 20% chance of re-offending.

If released unconditionally (and therefore no longer deemed a significant threat by the experts and Review Board), what do you think are the odds Li goes off his medicine? And what are the odds if he does that he experiences psychosis without getting help? And what are the odds that he experiences psychosis without getting help manifests itself into a violent offense? Most psychotic episodes don't result in 'real danger.' It's more likely he starts talking incoherently than it would be of him lashing out violently. Realistically, it's more likely that he harms himself than anyone else.

There's simply no possibility of him being released unconditionally if the "chance" of him committing a violent offense is greater than 20%. And yet every single day, who knows how many violent offenders are being released in Canada with that statistic..

I disagree. An innocent person no longer deemed a significant threat to society has no reasonable "loss of liberty."

What is your definition of significant threat?

Again for violent offenders the loss of liberty of locking them up and throwing away the key is much more significant then monitoring for medication compliance. It also wouldn't prevent it as much more violent crime would incur inside these prisons rather than outside. The financial cost to keep people locked up forever is much more significant. And the funds for life imprisonment would likely be better spent elsewhere. So if there was a comparebly low cost and low loss of liberty method to prevent future incidents for violent offenders everyone would be in favour of it.

Li himself in an interview in 2012 said it was good he was being forced to comply with his treatment as it ensured he was healthy.

You look at people's compliance with taking birth control pills, anti biotic treatments, physiology programs, diets, etc. Humans are terrible at these types of things. As you said this also is for Li's protection as most people with psychotic episodes will kill themselves first.

I think the odds of him killing again over the course of his life are about 1/100 and therefore constitutes a significant threat. (.2% per 5 year period 30 year life span this assumes that homicides are evenly distributed after NCR finds as opposed to a logarithmic decay so odds could be as low as 1/1000).

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I would be happy if you just changed your avatar.

Schizophrenic patients come and go, but Rob Kerr is forever.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by MBates

Before he cut off someone's head, Vince Li was one hundred percent a member of the "general population".

You might tell yourself he wasn't to make you feel less scared but it won't make it true.

Very true. Which is why I still don't get the argument about fearing his potential for killing again. It's as low as it'll ever get.

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by MBates

My great grandfather gratuitously slammed a bayonette through the forehead of a young German soldier who was trying to surrender. That was one of the only stories of depraved savagery he ever told from his time in places like Ypres, Passchendaele and Vimy.

He came home and bottled up his PTSD and lived haunted by his own prior conduct until his last breath. He was a war hero though...so no need for anyone to even ask what risk of harm he posed to society walking around with no meds, no counselling etc.

This whole argument starts from a false premise that us who have not harmed anyone due to mental illness have some certain knowledge of how we never will.

The general population is not a homogenous group of non-risk. Vince Li post-release may well be one of the more safe people you would ever share a bus-ride with.

With all the time we are spending asking about his likely rate of recidivism, why are we not asking what is the percentage chance of getting on a bus with an undiagnosed schizophrenic who has not yet killed anyone?

Isn't that the risk you should be more worried about?

Ok. But would you not agree that someone who has done something like this before is more of a risk to do it again as opposed to someone like you or me (presumably)?

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Very true. Which is why I still don't get the argument about fearing his potential for killing again. It's as low as it'll ever get.

In my mind, that's not true. He did it before, he could do it again.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Mightyfire89

Ok. But would you not agree that someone who has done something like this before is more of a risk to do it again as opposed to someone like you or me (presumably)?

But Vince Li will never again be an undiagnosed schizophrenic. Why based on intuition are people prepared to declare that a guy who has undergone nearly a decade of intensive therapy and life skill training (to recognize risk factors, social and biological triggers etc etc) is a higher risk to attack someone in a psychotic break than the person who is absolutely out there walking amonsgt us and who is hearing voices but has no such awareness of the illness?

It is far from a perfect system, but society has a false and unwarranted sense of "safety" and an imagined idea that your risk of getting your head cut off on a bus is zero so long as nobody who ever did such a thing before is allowed on. It was not true for Tim McLean and it is not true going forward either.

I heard an interview on the radio of a reporter who has been working out in the same gym with Vince Li for years. He has covered every annual review of his detention since the NCR designation. He described a progression and a completely different person from the first review to the most recent one. He seemed to agree with assessments that Li was likely now at more risk of being attacked by ignorant people in society than anyone was st risk of being attacked by him.

[Dion]

Vince Li agrees to continued monitoring if he's granted freedom

WINNIPEG — A psychiatrist testified Monday that a schizophrenic man who beheaded and cannibalized a fellow passenger on a Greyhound bus is unlikely to go off of his medication because he doesn’t want his disease to take over again.

Baker’s doctor, Jeffrey Waldman, told the board that he is confident Baker will remain on his medication and will continue to work with his treatment team if released. Waldman testified that Baker knows it’s the medication that keeps his illness at bay.

That should be enough to grant Baker his freedom, argued lawyer Alan Libman.

“We’ve heard over and over again about Mr. Baker’s commitment to taking his medication, his commitment to physical and mental health, and his commitment to making sure he’s never in a position where his reality is different than the rest of us,” Libman told the board.

“He never wants to be in a situation where he could cause harm to himself or others.”

Baker is monitored nightly by pharmacy staff who stop by his apartment to watch him take his medication, a practice Waldman said Baker has agreed to continue if his request is granted.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1999 that a review board must order an absolute discharge if a person doesn’t pose a significant threat to public safety.

The ruling added there must be clear evidence of a significant risk to the public for the review board to continue imposing conditions after a person is found not criminally responsible.

The board is to rule on the discharge request in the coming days.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/02/06...freedom-monday

[Dion]

The Crown prosecutor states her case....

Goska told the board she "surprised" to hear about Baker's request two weeks ago. She said Baker was previously prescribed anti-psychotic medication following an Ontario hospital stay years before the Greyhound attack, only to decide he no longer wished to keep taking them.

Goska said Monday this is a case of Baker asking for too much, too soon and that a more "slowly and deliberately" tailored return to society is warranted.

"It's not been a period where one can adequately assess how he's going to perform over the long-term," she said.

Goska questioned why an absolute discharge is necessary if Baker truly plans to keep having his medication intake supervised. She noted the Crown is only asking that such an order continue so that there would be consequences should he fail to do so. If granted a discharge, Baker would ultimately have all the power.

"I'm submitting those conditions are necessary. That's what this situation demands," she said.

Goska questioned whether this was a case of the treatment team making decisions based on a "lack of resources."

"There's certainly a motivation to have people through our system," Waldman admitted. But he said their opinion is formed based on the facts before them

Waldman tried to offer assurances that they would likely notice any significant changes to Baker's behaviour and could still take action under the Mental Health Act if they felt it was warranted.

"If he were to develop symptoms we would be aware of that and be able to intervene appropriately," said Waldman. "I think it would be really easy to determine he was getting sick, if he was to get sick again."

But Goska suggested that would only be true if Baker decided to keep seeing the treatment team — and a discharge would no longer legally require him to do so.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/loc...412956313.html

[EldrickOnIce]

According to the first article, Baker (Li) has been living on his own since November 2016.
I expect a decision to defer unconditional release until next year's review might happen, as this is a pretty short period of time.
MBates should be hired in any instance. His respectful, eloquent, reasoned response(s) have convinced me that Baker's unconditional release, when it comes, will absolutely be the right decision.
(I. E. Mocking and eye rolling are not valuable tools in presenting a convincing argument).

[GGG]

I appreciate that Li is asking for monitoring to continue. I agree with the crown though that ensuring there is a consequence to not doing it is important.

Here is something I was not aware of in this case from the article

She said Baker was previously prescribed anti-psychotic medication following an Ontario hospital stay years before the Greyhound attack, only to decide he no longer wished to keep taking them.

Maybe Mbates can answer this but does an NCR show up on a police background check or vulnerable persons check? If so is their a way that that can be suppressed like it would in a discharge but still keep monitoring requirements.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by MBates

But Vince Li will never again be an undiagnosed schizophrenic.

Was it ever revealed what sort of mental illness he was hospitalized with before? I recall it mentioned that he had been previously hospitalized before the incident after a confrontation with police.