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

[malcolmk14]

A few years from now we'll all be having the same conversation about Matt DeGrood.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

A few years from now we'll all be having the same conversation about Matt DeGrood.

The conversation will take place when the review board feels he has improved sufficiently that he no longer poses a threat. It could be next year, five years from now,ten years or never. He is serving a potentially indefinite sentence.

[DionTheDman]

Frankly, if that happens, it'd be great. It'd be a success of the health care system, not a failure of the justice system.

[Dion]

Baker's lawyer, Alan Libman, said Baker remains “committed to taking his medication and working with his treatment team.”

“I was confident based on the evidence that was presented to them,” Libman told the Winnipeg Sun on Friday. “There was no contrary point of view provided. No one who has worked with him believes he's a danger to anyone, no one who has worked with him has anything negative to say. He's been hard-working, compliant, and has done everything that's been asked of him.”

Libman said he can't change the opinions of those in the public who may feel uneasy with Baker now free.

“I can't adjust that. That's just not the way we operate in a free and democratic society,” Libman said. “We don't punish people who didn't intend the consequences of their actions. It's a mental health issue, not a legal one.”

Libman said Baker intends to maintain residence in Winnipeg in the short term, continue his education and plans to visit his family in China in the fall.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/10...lute-discharge

[Bootsy]

This is a disgrace all around, first off the misinformation by the media falsely reporting he was an undiagnosed schizophrenic, that's what most people believe through reports while the fact is he was diagnosed in 2005 , fled the hospital and refused his meds. It was known after the original trial. Here's an the article from 2009 :

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle20441432/

This fact alone should ensure he is always monitored for the rest of his life. It's insane to me that a doctor can push for his unconditional release when he has a proven past of going off his meds, skipping town then ended up killing a person in one of the most gruesome acts in Canadian history. It's even more insane a court allowed this.

Lastly the most concerning thing to me is the poor mental health system, as the article alludes to their decisions and regulations are a direct cause of the situation so excuse me if I have concerns trusting them in making the "right" call this time.

I personally believe he should be keep in a mental center for the rest of his life. With that said I do realize my tolerance for horrific violent acts isn't as high as a lot of people, but at the very least his monitored visits to make sure he's on his meds and continuing the psychiatric treatment should always be mandatory.

I don't know how anyone could think this is a good idea.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

This is a disgrace all around, first off the misinformation by the media falsely reporting he was an undiagnosed schizophrenic, that's what most people believe through reports while the fact is he was diagnosed in 2005 , fled the hospital and refused his meds. It was known after the original trial. Here's an the article from 2009 :

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle20441432/

This fact alone should ensure he is always monitored for the rest of his life. It's insane to me that a doctor can push for his unconditional release when he has a proven past of going off his meds, skipping town then ended up killing a person in one of the most gruesome acts in Canadian history. It's even more insane a court allowed this.

Lastly the most concerning thing to me is the poor mental health system, as the article alludes to their decisions and regulations are a direct cause of the situation so excuse me if I have concerns trusting them in making the "right" call this time.

I personally believe he should be keep in a mental center for the rest of his life. With that said I do realize my tolerance for horrific violent acts isn't as high as a lot of people, but at the very least his monitored visits to make sure he's on his meds and continuing the psychiatric treatment should always be mandatory.

I don't know how anyone could think this is a good idea.

Admittedly, I was one who thought from what I had read that he had not been previously diagnosed. So point taken there.

Though, I pause to note, none of the people making any of the actual decisions about his discharge were relying on badly written media reports.

And because of that, I am not ready to change my overall view of this result.

Perhaps you should ponder a little longer on this piece of the article:

Therein lies the most powerful reason Mr. Li was never treated. "The stigma around the illness is so severe," said Mary Alberti, executive director of the Schizophrenic Society of Ontario, "that people are afraid to talk about it, afraid to come forward because they are afraid of how they will be treated by society."

There is something significant in this highlighted part...

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

This is a disgrace all around, first off the misinformation by the media falsely reporting he was an undiagnosed schizophrenic, that's what most people believe through reports while the fact is he was diagnosed in 2005 , fled the hospital and refused his meds. It was known after the original trial. Here's an the article from 2009 :

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle20441432/

This fact alone should ensure he is always monitored for the rest of his life. It's insane to me that a doctor can push for his unconditional release when he has a proven past of going off his meds, skipping town then ended up killing a person in one of the most gruesome acts in Canadian history. It's even more insane a court allowed this.

Lastly the most concerning thing to me is the poor mental health system, as the article alludes to their decisions and regulations are a direct cause of the situation so excuse me if I have concerns trusting them in making the "right" call this time.

I personally believe he should be keep in a mental center for the rest of his life. With that said I do realize my tolerance for horrific violent acts isn't as high as a lot of people, but at the very least his monitored visits to make sure he's on his meds and continuing the psychiatric treatment should always be mandatory.

I don't know how anyone could think this is a good idea.

His absolute discharge is a legal requirement after the review board has found that he no longer poses a threat, we simply can't keep people locked up who don't belong there.

If it gives you any confidence, the recidivism rate for those who are found NCR and later released after treatment is much lower than those who go through the traditional legal system. He has received significant treatment over the last 8 years, much more than a hospital would have given him on a 14 day hold. I'd be willing to bet that instead of just being stuck in a bed and pills tossed his way, he's learned why he needs them and various strategies for living, not just medication.

I think the biggest hurdle that the mental health system faces is getting people the help they need. Those who are facing a mental illness quite possibly don't realize they need help and since it is so stigmatized, people simply are not likely to seek out that help if they realize they need it. This doesn't just apply to those with schizophrenia, but other forms of mental illness as well. Having a strong external support system of people who are willing to intervene is probably one of the most important parts of a successful treatment regimen. Even after treatment, there is still a strong stigma attached to admitting to having been treated for a mental illness (at least in my opinion).

[Schraderbrau]

Originally Posted by jayswin

They must be pretty confident and by all accounts he's completely remorseful and 100% committed to his meds, so it's nice to see him offered a full free life again.

Nice to see him offered a full free life again??? I'm sure the family, loved ones, and friends of the victim who had his head cut off might feel a bit different about this one. This guy should have been put in a chair and had 2,000 volts of electricity put through his body. Our system is a disaster and this is a prime example of it.

[KelVarnsen]

No it isn't.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Schraderbrau

Nice to see him offered a full free life again??? I'm sure the family, loved ones, and friends of the victim who had his head cut off might feel a bit different about this one. This guy should have been put in a chair and had 2,000 volts of electricity put through his body. Our system is a disaster and this is a prime example of it.

Tim Mcleans mother isn't as barbric as you. All she wants is for Li to be in a secure facility where he continues his treatment for the rest of his life. She understands that his schizophrenia was the reason and feels he can't be trusted with total freedom.

There is also a negitive stigma that goes with mental illness and because of people like you and your views there are people in this country who are too afraid to come forward to get treatment.

[Schraderbrau]

I don't have an issue with people with mental illness, I have an issue with people who cut off other people's heads. I'm kinda "anti-cutting off people's heads", it's a stance I've always taken. Sorry if that makes me a bad person.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Schraderbrau

I don't have an issue with people with mental illness, I have an issue with people who cut off other people's heads. I'm kinda "anti-cutting off people's heads", it's a stance I've always taken. Sorry if that makes me a bad person.

Do you see any difference between someone who is sane and decapitates someone and someone who has schizophrenia and decapitates someone?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

His absolute discharge is a legal requirement after the review board has found that he no longer poses a threat, we simply can't keep people locked up who don't belong there.

If it gives you any confidence, the recidivism rate for those who are found NCR and later released after treatment is much lower than those who go through the traditional legal system. He has received significant treatment over the last 8 years, much more than a hospital would have given him on a 14 day hold. I'd be willing to bet that instead of just being stuck in a bed and pills tossed his way, he's learned why he needs them and various strategies for living, not just medication.

I think the biggest hurdle that the mental health system faces is getting people the help they need. Those who are facing a mental illness quite possibly don't realize they need help and since it is so stigmatized, people simply are not likely to seek out that help if they realize they need it. This doesn't just apply to those with schizophrenia, but other forms of mental illness as well. Having a strong external support system of people who are willing to intervene is probably one of the most important parts of a successful treatment regimen. Even after treatment, there is still a strong stigma attached to admitting to having been treated for a mental illness (at least in my opinion).

The poster you are responding to didn't argue to lock him up forever. The argument is for mandatory medicationand continued monitoring. His argument is that given his previous history of going off meds he still is a threat. The relative threat between a person who completed a normal sentence a Li is not relavent. I think we'd agree that people in the regular prison system are a threat when they are released.

In arguing for his unconditional discharge you are arguing that Li should have the choice on whether to continue to take his meds. That choice should not be his to make.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

You should get a refund on your MD and/or JD if that's your understanding of what that means.

I don't have an MD nor a JD. Neither of those are a prerequisite to having common sense. What we have here is a situation where a person whose mental illness caused him to kill an innocent person in a brutal, excruciating manner. The experts have deemed him to be NCR, thus he is NCR. My question is how can we be absolutely sure that, if left unsupervised, he won't stop taking his meds as prescribed? Is that a risk that we should be taking as a society? If he at some point starts reducing his medication schedule or stops taking them altogether and ends up killing another person, what do we say to the family members of the victim as we look them in the eye? Also, what kind of message does this case send to anyone out there who might be thinking of committing a murder and then trying to get off with NCR diagnosis? I guess my overall question here is why should we let our compassion and forgiveness for this person get in the way of doing what is best for society as a whole? At what point do the tears, agony, and heartbreak of the family members and friends of the beheading victim actually mean something to us? Why shouldn't we allow those things to factor into our decision making?

For the record I'm not in favor of the death penalty. This man should be kept in a facility (not jail/prison) where he can be supervised and have his medical needs looked after.

[transplant99]

Yikes....the holier-than-thou gang are out in full force i see.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Also, what kind of message does this case send to anyone out there who might be thinking of committing a murder and then trying to get off with NCR diagnosis?

The message I would be getting is that it's impossible to fake schizophrenia for an NCR defense. I mean unless you take years and years to create the back story, the history of paranoia and delusions; and you manage to say and do all the right things in front of dozens of psychiatrists trained to look for malingerers.You just don't really understand this.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

I don't have an MD nor a JD. Neither of those are a prerequisite to having common sense. What we have here is a situation where a person whose mental illness caused him to kill an innocent person in a brutal, excruciating manner. The experts have deemed him to be NCR, thus he is NCR. My question is how can we be absolutely sure that, if left unsupervised, he won't stop taking his meds as prescribed? Is that a risk that we should be taking as a society? If he at some point starts reducing his medication schedule or stops taking them altogether and ends up killing another person, what do we say to the family members of the victim as we look them in the eye? Also, what kind of message does this case send to anyone out there who might be thinking of committing a murder and then trying to get off with NCR diagnosis? I guess my overall question here is why should we let our compassion and forgiveness for this person get in the way of doing what is best for society as a whole? At what point do the tears, agony, and heartbreak of the family members and friends of the beheading victim actually mean something to us? Why shouldn't we allow those things to factor into our decision making?

For the record I'm not in favor of the death penalty. This man should be kept in a facility (not jail/prison) where he can be supervised and have his medical needs looked after.

1. Speaking of common sense, perhaps we should apply it in this case. People that have worked with him daily for the last 8+ years think he is safe. Common sense says that any one of those physicians probably know more about his situation than everyone on this message board combined. And as a whole, they have come to the agreement that he should be freed. What does that tell you about the position you've taken?

2. There is no such thing as a guarantee. I can't guarantee I won't kill you one day. You can't guarantee that you won't ever kill your neighbour. There is no such thing.

3. The rights of the individual aren't overriden by the fears of the many. Mr. Li was sick, symptomatic, untreated, and a danger to public safety. Now he is sick, asymptomatic, treated, and no longer a danger to society. There is no further basis for keeping him in custody, medical or legal.

3. I feel sorry for Mr. McLean's family. But their desire for vengeance or what they feel is justice does not take precedence over what our legal system can and is designed to provide.

[The Fonz]

He cut an innocent mans head off, carried it around, chewed the flesh that hung from his open neck, then proceeded to cut out and eat his eyeballs.

If that is something that has happened and can happen again when you don't take your meds, then under no circumstance should you go unsupervised.

The man is dangerous. Cut the "stigma" bull ####. I don't believe for 1 second that anyone on CP would be comfortable with Will Baker moving into the same neighbourhood as them and their family.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Is that a risk that we should be taking as a society?

Yes, that is a risk our society needs to take. Here's the reason he is out. The only reason he is out:

Originally Posted by Criminal Code 672.54(a)

where a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder has been rendered in respect of the accused and, in the opinion of the court or Review Board, the accused is not a significant threat to the safety of the public, by order, direct that the accused be discharged absolutely;

Read it. Then read it again. You need to comprehend how important that this section of our Criminal Code is and you have to understand this is what makes Canada great. First is the importance for Canada to recognize that a person with mental illnesses may not be responsible for their actions. If someone is not responsible for their actions, how can they be guilty of them? If they are not guilty, then they are innocent. Only some backwards country can deem someone to be guilty of an action they had no control over (and those countries exist). Finally, if an innocent person is not a threat to society, they must be discharged. How could anyone be against that and support Canada? You'll never ever hear me say anything like this about anything else that I disagree with someone on, but to anyone who doesn't think an innocent person who is not a significant threat to society should be free needs to get the #### out of Canada. They clearly have no idea what it means to be Canadian and clearly do not believe in the Canadian Justice System. Find some other country where you can get your jollies off on taking the rights away of innocent people.

Now of course the caveat with Li is some people believe he is still a significant threat, against the expert and Criminal Boards opinion. And I understand that. But meh. The stats clearly don't back that up and they have significantly less understanding and knowledge on Li and his mental illness than those that made the decision. It's ignorance, nothing more in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Mathgod

If he at some point starts reducing his medication schedule or stops taking them altogether and ends up killing another person, what do we say to the family members of the victim as we look them in the eye?

Or what if he doesn't? What if he continues to takes his meds? What if he never harms another person? God forbid, what if the experts were right? Should we prevent him from returning to his own country of China? Should he never be free to see his own family? To be continued to be subjected to a loss of freedom? When he is innocent of any wrongdoing?

What if that schizophrenic roaming the streets downtown who's probably not on meds does something? Should he be monitored indefinitely? Locked away? What about that impoverished addicted teen aboriginal who was convicted of a crime, should he be locked away for ever? I mean, statistically he has a far far far greater chance of harming someone in the future than Li.

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Also, what kind of message does this case send to anyone out there who might be thinking of committing a murder and then trying to get off with NCR diagnosis?

Meh, just go for murder two, you'll be out in 10 years anyways and won't have to go through the hell that is the mental facility. That's assuming you're actually convicted anyways.

This is really not a concern.

Originally Posted by Mathgod

I guess my overall question here is why should we let our compassion and forgiveness for this person get in the way of doing what is best for society as a whole?

What's best for society as a whole is clearly and unequivocally, allowing innocent people the proper freedom they deserve when they are no longer deemed a significant threat.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

I don't believe for 1 second that anyone on CP would be comfortable with Will Baker moving into the same neighbourhood as them and their family.

This is a poor argument. The public's fears, whether rational or irrational, are not a basis for sentencing, or treatment, or institutionalization.

If that were the case, 30 years ago, AIDS patients would have been locked away. In the further distant past, lepers. Albino people.