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

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

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.

Never suggested he be institutionalized due to the fear of the public. I was suggesting that it's hypocritical to say from 2 provinces over "Will Baker is taking his medication now, and he understands it's morally wrong to decapitate another man, and so I'm okay with him going unsupervised".

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

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.

Do you believe, unconditionally, that Will Baker is not a threat to society?

[DionTheDman]

Well, Dr. Kremer, his psychiatrist, is based out of Selkirk, which is the town in which Vince Li was first granted access when he started earning time out of the facility. So that argument doesn't hold much weight either. If his doctor is willing to allow him access to the town where his family, collegues, and friends presumably reside, then....

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Do you believe, unconditionally, that Will Baker is not a threat to society?

Unless you know (a) something his doctors don't about his condition/situation, (b) have some sort of specialized training that his doctors don't (c) can see the future or (d) just plainly don't believe in the system, I don't see how anybody could rationally believe otherwise.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Couple random thoughts, I wouldn't consider his rehabilitation a success until he proves he can function in society without supervision and that may be a life long test. The success will be if we never hear his name in the news again (for a negative reason).

I understand the desire to point to the diagnosis by his doctor(s) but it is important to remember they aren't infallible. They're no doubt more qualified and in a better position to judge his mental state than the general public, or people on CP, but they could be wrong. Approving his absolute discharge doesn't somehow prove he's ready to be alone or mean that he can't regress, it just means that within the parameters and powers granted to them, he meets the requirements for release.

It's actually laughable to say he's unconditionally not a threat to society. There is literally a specified condition of his release that he has to be taking his medication to not be a threat. Not only that but even his doctors no doubt have a threshold of freedom vs public safety and there has to be an acceptable level of risk for his release, albeit judged by them to be very, very low.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Unless you know (a) something his doctors don't about his condition/situation, (b) have some sort of specialized training that his doctors don't (c) can see the future or (d) just plainly don't believe in the system, I don't see how anybody could rationally believe otherwise.

A rational person would say that there is a very important condition that impacts whether or not Will Baker is a threat to society. Whether or not he takes his medication.

[GGG]

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.

What likelihood of recidivism is not a significant threat to you.

You keep bringing up other criminals being a more significant threat. That is not the standard set out by the law for letting people out of prison. It is the standard set out by law here. So what criminals do is absolutely not relavent to this case.

The statistics show somewhere between a 1/100 and 1/1000 chance of him killing again.

I think most people would agree that if he stops taking his meds he is a threat to society. If he takes his meds he isn't. So without assurance that he will take his meds he is a threat.

It's like trusting a random person in a bar that they took their birth control that morning and will the next morning. People taking medicine in general is unreliable. And unless the experts are saying a psychotic episode is highly unlikely even if he goes of his meds which I have heard no one do, then the risk of him going off his meds even accidently is significant.

The experts got the balance between risk and freedom wrong in this case. They are looking at him as an individual rather than as a statistic. And when evaluating threats it should be statiscal probabilities that govern.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Do you believe, unconditionally, that Will Baker is not a threat to society?

Not a significant threat, sure. I'll take the Manitoba's Criminal Review Board's opinion on that.

Everyone is a threat though. There's probably a lot more demographics or specific people that are a bigger threat and no one really brings them up. We could start with pretty much every single person who has ever been convicted of a single crime.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Not a significant threat, sure. I'll take the Manitoba's Criminal Review Board's opinion on that.

Everyone is a threat though. There's probably a lot more demographics or specific people that are a bigger threat and no one really brings them up. We could start with pretty much every single person who has ever been convicted of a single crime.

The standard for release of criminals from prison isn't threat level dependant.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by GGG

What likelihood of recidivism is not a significant threat to you.

You keep bringing up other criminals being a more significant threat. That is not the standard set out by the law for letting people out of prison. It is the standard set out by law here. So what criminals do is absolutely not relavent to this case.

The statistics show somewhere between a 1/100 and 1/1000 chance of him killing again.

I think most people would agree that if he stops taking his meds he is a threat to society. If he takes his meds he isn't. So without assurance that he will take his meds he is a threat.

It's like trusting a random person in a bar that they took their birth control that morning and will the next morning. People taking medicine in general is unreliable. And unless the experts are saying a psychotic episode is highly unlikely even if he goes of his meds which I have heard no one do, then the risk of him going off his meds even accidently is significant.

The experts got the balance between risk and freedom wrong in this case. They are looking at him as an individual rather than as a statistic. And when evaluating threats it should be statiscal probabilities that govern.

If statistical probability was the only factor considered by his doctors, then why would they have a hearing at all to determine if he safe to release? They would just know that he's available for release without any sort of discussion because he meets the statistical criteria.

It's absurd to say to each case shouldn't be judged on a case-by-case basis. But it is fair to say that the statistical probabilities should play a part, I'm not sure how big, in the decision to release him. And the analysis in judging what the chances are for regression of other people who had similar diagnosis.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

A rational person would say that there is a very important condition that impacts whether or not Will Baker is a threat to society. Whether or not he takes his medication.

Yes, I would agree. And everything we know points to that not being an issue. If he couldn't be trusted to maintain treatment independently, he wouldn't have been allowed additional freedoms.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GGG

You keep bringing up other criminals being a more significant threat. That is not the standard set out by the law for letting people out of prison. It is the standard set out by law here. So what criminals do is absolutely not relavent to this case.

What? Of course if people think we should change the law and remove the rights of an innocent person because they feel he is a threat, then bringing up people who are higher threats and free is relevant.

Originally Posted by GGG

The statistics show somewhere between a 1/100 and 1/1000 chance of him killing again.

Come on GGG, you're better than that. There's no statistics for him. There was one person is Manitoba found NCR who went on to kill again. He was 16 and released after 4 months, he didn't even have schizophrenia. Provide statistics on people found NCR due to schizophrenia, who have been treated for 8 years and been deemed a non-threat and then we can talk about the stats of him....Given the advances in medical treatment we should also be talking about people who have been released relatively recently. Of course I'll throw you a bone and just say in general.

Originally Posted by GGG

They are looking at him as an individual rather than as a statistic. And when evaluating threats it should be statiscal probabilities that govern.

Yeah, no. Even if we believed that, there are no statistics of relevance that could possibly be used.

If you actually wanted to use stats with respect to Li's case, the actual conclusion, outside of "not enough data," would be very low. Right now all we got is a bunch of mishmash of limited data on limited countries over years where NCR and medical treatment knowledge was far less than today. Comparing Canada (who by the accounts I read seem to be a leader in schizophrenia rehabilitation like this) and comparing it to the Chuvash Republic and people released in 1981, who didn't have readily available treatment due to their financial situation, doesn't do justice when it's someone's freedom at stake. I mean at the very least we should be using statistics from Canada, and as far as I can tell we don't have any of relation to Li. In fact, I'm not sure if anyone has been able to bring up a single case of a person who killed due to a schizophrenic psychotic episode who went on to have another schizophrenic psychotic episode resulting in another death in Canada. Of course, as I've argued, there's limited information available on that because there's limited data available and the sample sizes are extremely small.

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.

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.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Not a significant threat, sure. I'll take the Manitoba's Criminal Review Board's opinion on that.

...

In her summation on Monday, Crown lawyer Mary Goska argued Baker remains a threat to the public if off his medication regimen.

“We should not lose sight of what occurred because it does speak to the threat,” she said. “... It’s clear that he can be a danger in certain circumstances.”

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Couple random thoughts, I wouldn't consider his rehabilitation a success until he proves he can function in society without supervision and that may be a life long test. The success will be if we never hear his name in the news again (for a negative reason).

I understand the desire to point to the diagnosis by his doctor(s) but it is important to remember they aren't infallible. They're no doubt more qualified and in a better position to judge his mental state than the general public, or people on CP, but they could be wrong. Approving his absolute discharge doesn't somehow prove he's ready to be alone or mean that he can't regress, it just means that within the parameters and powers granted to them, he meets the requirements for release.

It's actually laughable to say he's unconditionally not a threat to society. There is literally a specified condition of his release that he has to be taking his medication to not be a threat. Not only that but even his doctors no doubt have a threshold of freedom vs public safety and there has to be an acceptable level of risk for his release, albeit judged by them to be very, very low.

It's just as laughable to suggest he's more or less a threat than you. We simply don't have the information

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

...

In her summation on Monday, Crown lawyer Mary Goska argued Baker remains a threat to the public if off his medication regimen.

“We should not lose sight of what occurred because it does speak to the threat,” she said. “... It’s clear that he can be a danger in certain circumstances.”

Yeah, great the Crown's lawyer who's job it is to argue against him argued against him. And the experts.

Not really sure what you're getting at.

[The Fonz]

I'm not arguing the man be locked up. I'm saying it is irresponsible and dangerous that he is not required to have scheduled visits with a doctor to ensure that his mental state remains stable and that he continues taking his medication, because the consequences of him going untreated have shown to be horrific.

Christ, I've been taking medication to help me sleep for the last 9 years, and I have to schedule a check-up with a doctor every 3 months for that. The only consequence of me going untreated is that I don't sleep.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's just as laughable to suggest he's more or less a threat than you. We simply don't have the information

Lol ok. Got me there. I could have schizophrenia and I could cut off someone's head and eat their flesh. But we know for sure he does and has.

What a bizarre statement.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Christ, I've been taking medication to help me sleep for the last 9 years, and I have to schedule a check-up with a doctor every 3 months for that. The only consequence of me going untreated is that I don't sleep.

Are you legally required to do it, or do you do it because it's the right thing to do for your health? If it's the latter, as a responsible adult, do you think you need to be forced to go to the doctor every three months, or is it something you can manage yourself?

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Lol ok. Got me there. I could have schizophrenia and I could cut off someone's head and eat their flesh. But we know for sure he does and has.

What a bizarre statement.

If you want to consider that scenario further, your next door neighbour could be an undiagnosed schizophrenic who is thiiiiiis close to going over the edge because he/she never received treatment/education/medication to mitigate the symptoms.

On the other hand, you have Vince Li, who has received all three of those benefits, who is less of a threat now than he ever was before.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

If you want to consider that scenario further, your next door neighbour could be an undiagnosed schizophrenic who is thiiiiiis close to going over the edge because he/she never received treatment/education/medication to mitigate the symptoms.

On the other hand, you have Vince Li, who has received all three of those benefits, who is less of a threat now than he ever was before.

How is any of that relevant? You're not taking it further, you're bringing up irrelevant what if scenarios.

The point is that his doctors obviously believe he is a threat when not on medication otherwise they wouldn't have made it a condition of his release.

Bringing up random what ifs doesn't change he fact that he's not an unconditional threat.