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

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So Locke's opinion that deferring to experts is not valid...unless it's under a different set of arbitrary conditions that he set up.

Ignoring the fact that I can assure you Mr. Li has been evaluated by multiple professionals, why is there a belief that being evaluated by only one institute is invalid? Why would it require two? Or three? Has Locke or you have any proof to support the fact that the Manitoba Criminal Review Board has been deficient with it's current policy and that a second independent review is necessary? Any at all?

I mean, imagine if it took two trials of being proclaimed innocent with two separate independent experts testifying on your behave. What a travesty of injustice that would be. Fortunately it's not required.

Again, present some evidence other than "feelings" or the need for punishment as to why Li should remain locked up indefinitely, or else I think deferring to the experts is the most obvious solution. And anecdotal, but Li will probably not be granted unconditional release this time, he'll get it next year if everything goes well which just coincidentally lines up with the 10 year parole eligibility of second-degree murder.

No....but its an option.

Like...you know, appealing? And then having a whole different group of people presiding over your trial and looking at things differently?

Yeah, that would be a travesty of injustice. Thankfully we dont live in a world like that.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Locke

No....but its an option.

Like...you know, appealing? And then having a whole different group of people presiding over your trial and looking at things differently?

Yeah, that would be a travesty of injustice. Thankfully we dont live in a world like that.

Yes, and an appeal only works is evidence to support that something had "gone wrong" in the original trial. Something that no one has even remotely been able to suggest with regards to Li's review board. Heck, it hasn't even happened yet.

If all courts or review boards required two, that would be removing the presumption of innocence completely

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Yes, and an appeal only works is evidence to support that something had "gone wrong" in the original trial. Something that no one has even remotely been able to suggest with regards to Li's review board. Heck, it hasn't even happened yet.

If all courts or review boards required two, that would be removing the presumption of innocence completely

So you'd be totally cool if they just let this guy walk? Just hand him a bottle of pills and some cab fare and sent him on his way?

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So Locke's opinion that deferring to experts is not valid...unless it's under a different set of arbitrary conditions that he set up.

Ignoring the fact that I can assure you Mr. Li has been evaluated by multiple professionals, why is there a belief that being evaluated by only one institute is invalid? Why would it require two? Or why not three? Has Locke or you have any proof to support the fact that the Manitoba Criminal Review Board has been deficient with its current policy and that a second independent review is necessary? Any at all?

I mean, imagine if it took two trials of being proclaimed innocent with two separate independent experts testifying on your behave. What a travesty of injustice that would be. Fortunately it's not required.

Again, present some evidence other than "feelings" or the need for punishment as to why Li should remain locked up indefinitely, or else I think deferring to the experts is the most obvious solution. And anecdotal, but Li will probably not be granted unconditional release this time, he'll get it next year if everything goes well which just coincidentally lines up with the 10 year parole eligibility of second-degree murder.

I have no 'feelings' or need for punishment which results in locking him up indefinitely. Please stop projecting whatever baseless narrative your mind has concocted onto me. Thanks

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Locke

So you'd be totally cool if they just let this guy walk? Just hand him a bottle of pills and some cab fare and sent him on his way?

No. I would like to give him the opportunity to be released once (and only if) the experts have found him to be a minimal threat to society and assessed as a potential candidate to be released unconditionally. Once that has been achieved, I would want the Manitoba Criminal Review Board to take in the evidence presented to them, the testimony of those who have dealt with Li over the last nine years, and assess if he should be released. Once, if, they assess that he should be released, then I am happy with that happening.

Of course that's been determined by the Supreme Court of Canada already. So right now, what I would be cool with is following the law.

It's almost like there are check and balances in our crazy system...

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I have no 'feelings' or need for punishment which results in locking him up indefinitely. Please stop projecting whatever baseless narrative your mind has concocted onto me. Thanks

So what are the reasons to keep him locked up? Threat to society? Present some evidence that contradicts the current findings by the experts. It's an emotional plea because of his past actions nearly a decade ago. Actions that he had no control over and has been treated for. And I get that, it's hard to throw away emotions, but as far as I can tell no expert who has assessed Li has tried to prevent him from gradually working his way to the current unconditional release phase that is his next step.

Every year he has faced the review board. Often times he has increased his freedoms. He started with supervised walks on the hospital ground to escorted trips to the communities. He was in a group home before being released on his own with conditions that included monitoring. Now he is seeking to remove those conditions. Of course you knew all that already

Originally Posted by Criminal Code

672.54 When a court or Review Board makes a disposition under subsection 672.45(2), section 672.47, subsection 672.64(3) or section 672.83 or 672.84, it shall, taking into account the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused, make one of the following dispositions that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances:

(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;

(b) by order, direct that the accused be discharged subject to such conditions as the court or Review Board considers appropriate; or

(c) by order, direct that the accused be detained in custody in a hospital, subject to such conditions as the court or Review Board considers appropriate.

1991, c. 43, s. 4; 2005, c. 22, s. 20; 2014, c. 6, s. 9.

[GGG]

I think interesting interpretation here will be the definition of significant threat.

As from all accounts while taking meds he is not a significant threat and if he goes off he will reoffend. To me this risk is significant though not imminent.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

You're suggesting addiction issues and schizophrenia are the same thing. Yeah. We're totally done here.

Nope, didn't do that at all. Try reading before you post.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I worked with a kid that did two and half years in Colony Farm (a contained psyche unit near Vancouver) for pushing a cop, no harm done. just a big slow kid with profound cognative issues (maybe FASD) who got mad at being told he couldn't wait outside the rec center, his lawyer argued he was not competent for a charge that would have got him probation at most if he was 'normal'. Most psyche orders last way longer than the equivalent criminal sentence would for the same action.

Whether you are seen as mentally ill or not by the criminal justice system is pretty much a crap shoot if you're homeless, native addicted etc, most legal aid lawyers will plead you to the lowest sentence they can get, unless you are barking at the moon they don't have the time or facilities to argue you need assessing.

Thanks for taking the time to give this answer. A very interesting perspective.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I don't think that's true. Is it even possible for anyone here to have original thoughts on the clinical pathology of schizophrenia? Like have you done the research, testing, generated any conclusions? Have you advanced the state of the art in psychiatry and medical research in the field? It's not an easy thing to have an original thought in this case so the smartest and best advice is to consult those who have.

Seriously? This is primarily a hockey message board. Perhaps we should all stop posting about hockey because we aren't pro players? I see your bolded argument once in a while here, it always cracks me up.

This thread is about our criminal justice system which I happen to be a part owner of. I can complain or compliment all I want. Some of the posters have actually provided some interesting points on both sides of the argument without having to insult people. Someone would have to be coo coo to not consider this case controversial or to wish silencing those that appose the decision.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Nope, didn't do that at all. Try reading before you post.

Sure you did. You said if schizophrenics are not criminally responsible, then why aren't drug addicts afforded the same courtesy. Look. Right here....

It certainly seems odd to me that if this guy is allowed out of jail as long as he is on his meds, then shouldn't the rest of the people in jail have something similar offered? Why have we gone so far in this case?

That implies that mental illness is mental illness is mental illness and the people with these conditions all have the same symptoms and behaviors and cognitive functioning. And that's not correct.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Seriously? This is primarily a hockey message board. Perhaps we should all stop posting about hockey because we aren't pro players? --Some of the posters have actually provided some interesting points on both sides of the argument without having to insult people. Someone would have to be coo coo to not consider this case controversial or to wish silencing those that appose the decision.

So yeah. Hockey and schizophrenia are also a bit different. There are no special degrees and only minor training involved when opining on hockey. I agree that people have added great information and opinions. And some have added incorrect opinions born from nothing more than a passing knowledge of this case that contradict people who have decades of training and life times of experience. Just because it's an opinion doesn't make it correct. And just because doctors have made mistakes in the past doesn't make a total lack of education and experience a better place to ground an opinion. If you philosophically believe mentally ill people deserve to be punished the same as people of sound mind then have at it. That's a valid proposal. Just don't tell me that addressing childhood trauma is a valid course of treatment for schizophrenia, or that medication never works, or drug addicts deserve the same mental status assessment as schizophrenics. All fake news.

[Dion]

What the justice system says

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.

Archie Kaiser, an expert in mental health and the law at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said there's a poor public understanding of what "not criminally responsible" means. The emphasis must be on the individual's treatment and potential risk to the community, not on punishment.

"There is widespread stigma and prejudice when it concerns people with mental illness and that's something that persons found not criminally responsible bear in double measure," Kaiser said.

"People think if you have a serious mental-health problem that you're going to act unpredictably, that you're incapable of making decisions and you're dangerous, whereas none of those things are likely to be true."

Kaiser also suggested involvement with the justice system serves to amplify concerns about an individual, "so people have at least two levels of prejudice that they're fighting against."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...says-1.3960785

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So what are the reasons to keep him locked up? Threat to society? Present some evidence that contradicts the current findings by the experts. It's an emotional plea because of his past actions nearly a decade ago. Actions that he had no control over and has been treated for. And I get that, it's hard to throw away emotions, but as far as I can tell no expert who has assessed Li has tried to prevent him from gradually working his way to the current unconditional release phase that is his next step.

Every year he has faced the review board. Often times he has increased his freedoms. He started with supervised walks on the hospital ground to escorted trips to the communities. He was in a group home before being released on his own with conditions that included monitoring. Now he is seeking to remove those conditions. Of course you knew all that already

On the bolded part, I'll flip it back to you. What are the reasons to give him a full unconditional release? That is what he is asking for. If he is being successfully treated with medication, I don't see the harm in having him submit to medical testing on a regular basis to ensure the treatment continues to work.

We take away liberties all the time for medical reasons. After a heart attack people aren't allowed to drive for several months. People prone to seizures also have driving restrictions. Sure- less restrictive than full liberty, but restrictions none the less. All due to the fact that a medical condition increases the risk of injury to others.

He has a medical condition that left untreated caused the death of another person. Let's make sure he continues to get the treatment he needs.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by ken0042

On the bolded part, I'll flip it back to you. What are the reasons to give him a full unconditional release?

Because he's an innocent person who had no control of his actions. It was the mental illness that killed Tim MacLean, Vince Li has been treated for that mental illness and now has it under control, at least according to the experts who have evaluated him over the past nine years. Let's stop stigmatizing the mentally ill. It's not their fault. Both legally and morally.

It's in the Criminal Code, and upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, that a person who was not criminally responsible and is no longer a threat to society must be released unconditionally.

So the reason is the law. Once (if), the Manitoba Criminal Review Board assesses the he is not a significant threat, he must be released by law.


What you're advocating, he's already been doing. He's living on his own with random drug tests. He has been for a full year now, with the occasional monitoring. Pretty much all the next step is going to do is stop him from pissing in a cup and phoning in to talk to someone every once in a while.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

...
Actions that he had no control over and has been treated for.
....
So what are the reasons to keep him locked up?
...
Every year he has faced the review board. Often times he has increased his freedoms. He started with supervised walks on the hospital ground to escorted trips to the communities. He was in a group home before being released on his own with conditions that included monitoring. Now he is seeking to remove those conditions. Of course you knew all that already

It's the way you argue, friend, that grinds.
Again, I never suggested he should be locked up. And it is disingenuous for you to talk of him being locked up. Of course you know already he has been released on his own. With conditions.
Referring to his illness (if that's the right word - don't want to label incorrectly) as a condition that he has been treated for seems to me implies a cure, and we know a cure isn't possible. His medication is part of necessary ongoing treatment, I assume. While I am completely confident that his condition can be controlled with medication - allowing him to be an autonomous, fully functional member of society (like he is now), were he to no longer take that medication, I am not sure experts can confidently predict what might happen.
We know what his condition, untreated, resulted in previously. Any threat he may pose in the future would only be potentially in absence of his medication - therefore continuing to monitor compliance seems prudent to me. I am not certain that monitoring is an undue restriction on his liberty, given the circumstances. Which may be completely wrong.

[OMG!WTF!]

If he's not psychotic and delusional in anyway right now, what sets him apart from other people who have schizophrenia? He's killed someone before but is he now more likely to do it again than any other person with the disease? I don't know but I think probably not. If not, then he should be free to go.

[CliffFletcher]

We strive to be a rational society that leverages scientific knowledge to make good choices. That's a good thing. However, expertise isn't clear-cut. It's becoming evident that many 'scientifically proven' facts about health and diet, for example. are unfounded because the trials were too limited or the results misinterpreted.

I was listening to a CBC feature the other day where one of Canada's main scientific bodies was calling for a re-evaluation of the way we do trials and public their results. There's strong economic and professional incentive for a study or trial to yield actionable results. However, there is no money or prestige to be gained in carrying out wider trials to challenge the validity of those results. In short, much of what we hold as scientific truth is based on questionable data and studies.

That doesn't mean we should ignore science, of course. But it does mean that we should be careful of accepting anything a given expert or a study concludes until we have more time and more data to validate it.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

If he's not psychotic and delusional in anyway right now, what sets him apart from other people who have schizophrenia? He's killed someone before but is he now more likely to do it again than any other person with the disease? I don't know but I think probably not. If not, then he should be free to go.

I don't know, but I expect you are right. And I guess that's the point - I'm 'arguing' something I really have no idea about. I assume statistics suggest he is no greater risk, as do the experts treating him. So yeah. We release most criminally responsible offenders unconditionally, simply at a date.
I'm just not sure monitoring is an undue restriction on his liberty, in this case, given history. But I guess it probably is?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I am not sure experts can confidently predict what might happen.

You can say that for every person who has suffered any form of mental illness. Or just anyone.

Again, this is an emotional plea. You're basing it on what happened nearly a decade ago. But you haven't provided any evidence to him being a significant threat to society today. 8 years after his last episode. (And again, I'm not saying it's easy to remove the emotions from this discussion)

If he's not a threat, the Criminal Code says he needs to be released unconditionally. Maybe being on his own for a full year isn't enough, maybe the Board will want to wait another year before they are ready to deem him a non-threat. That's there prerogative, but they must be willing to follow the Criminal Code of Canada and release him unconditionally if they believe he is not a threat.

This is a man who knows the dire consequences of failing to follow his treatment. This is a man who has been a modeled patient, who has a huge support system with the Schizophrenia Society. It's a man who has shown complete and utter remorse for something he had no control over. There's a lot of people who don't have anywhere close to the same knowledge Li does with respect to his mental illness, they are arguably higher threats at this point.

Everyone presents some form of risk to society, it's up to you to provide some form of evidence that he prevents a high enough threat to not be released unconditionally. If not, on the very basis of our Justice System, an innocent person who is not a threat to society must be released unconditionally.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

We strive to be a rational society that leverages scientific knowledge to make good choices.

But we should pride ourselves more on a society that isn't barbaric and locks up, or unduly infringes on the rights of innocent people.

It's the presumption of innocence that our very Justice System is based on. And it's probably the most important aspect of our society.

Mr. Li has already been fighting an uphill battle trying to prove he is not a threat (and of course that's warranted given the situation) but he's now at the point that he's no longer being deemed a significant threat to society by those who have evaluated him over the near decade with expert evidence to back it up. There needs to be some actual evidence to argue that he still is for those who keep arguing that he is.



I see two arguments when it comes to Mr. Li's detractors:

• He's responsible for his actions and therefore requires punishment - this is an archaic and barbaric belief. Literally. We've had laws in place regarding those mentally unfit for over a century. Not criminally responsible is not a new concept. I would say this comes from the stigmatization of mental illness and lack of scientific knowledge. Some people just don't have the ability to control their actions or thoughts, temporarily or permanent, at the time. Trying to punish someone who, no fault of their own, did something is disgusting attitude.
  
• He's still a threat to society - well, let's see some type of evidence for that. It's an emotional plea, people are scared. I get it. It was a gruesome and traumatic event. But there need to be some actual evidence he is remains a significant threat. There really hasn't been any presented in this thread.

Morally and legally, Mr. Li should have the right for an unconditional release at some point, if he can is no longer deemed a significant threat. He's an innocent person.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This is a man who knows the dire consequences of failing to follow his treatment. This is a man who has been a modeled patient, who has a huge support system with the Schizophrenia Society. It's a man who has shown complete and utter remorse for something he had no control over.

The one thing I keep going back to is this: right now being of sound mind, I can only think that if I developed a mental illness such as this, and under that illness committed the same act, I would want to have that safety net of knowing I could never end up back in that same place. Or at least I would feel that my duty as a citizen is to make sure there was no way I could relapse.

Obviously I would want the freedom to have an independent life. I just don't see the burden this places on Li to be subject to testing. If he says he plans on continuing with his treatment, then let him do so.

It also could be beneficial to him. Those medications can't be free- and may not be cheap. If it is a term of his release, there could be some measure of public funding for his medication. That way he never has to worry about not being to afford it.