Board to decide bus beheader's fate

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

You are making some big stretches from my post. As others have said, we should limit who goes to jail. Secondly, types of programs in jails should be dependent on the crime, I don't know why you take a stance that it shouldn't. Commit a heinous crime? Minimilized jail program. Minimal as in zero attempt at any sort of rehab since they are not getting out (if I had a say).

Obviously this is not our current system, I am just expressing what I would like to see. As the guy footing the bill I like excersizing my right to complain!

I wasn't saying it shouldn't be, just that it isn't now, so it's a false argument to start changing the rules for this guy, as it can't be done.

I wasn't aware that you were saying the system should be changed, if that's your opinion that's fine, but as I said, has little bearing on this actual case.

As far as changing it though, I think your still overestimating just how much control we could have over costs. As I mentioned, generally the more security and higher level of offender, the higher the costs. Programs like this can actually be cheaper. And like Azure said, could have benefits to the society at large, like learning more about mental disorders.

Besides going gulag and ignoring basic human rights for the worst criminals, we're not really going to be able to save money in the way you are thinking, especially if your looking to save for the worst offenders. Heck, even death row in the states costs their system a lot.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Medical experts determined Jayme Pakieka was "normal" after threatening to kill his neighbour in 2009. It appears they were wrong. Very, very, wrong. Sure would suck if some of the bleeding heart people in this thread had a relative working in that Edmonton warehouse because it's people like you endorsing these nut jobs being released into society because an "expert" rolled the dice on them. I guess it's all good as long as you aren't affected in any way.

Well you can certainly tell who the Sun readers are on here.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Medical experts determined Jayme Pakieka was "normal" after threatening to kill his neighbour in 2009. It appears they were wrong. Very, very, wrong. Sure would suck if some of the bleeding heart people in this thread had a relative working in that Edmonton warehouse because it's people like you endorsing these nut jobs being released into society because an "expert" rolled the dice on them. I guess it's all good as long as you aren't affected in any way.

But we do that with convicted murderers.... they do their time and if a panel of experts feel that they are not a risk to society, then they are released. Sure, some do re-offend. We "roll the dice" every time we release a previously violent crimal back onto the streets; but we do it because we, as a society, believe in second chances and letting people become contributing members of a community despite a violent past. One case where rolling the dice turned up craps doesn't mean that it happens that way most of the time. It could well be the exception that proves the rule.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Regarding mental illness and multiple posts I have made, if the VAST majority of us do not resort to stabbing people at work, than I would assume this guy has mental illness? If he cannot control himself, than to me he has no business being free.

The vast majority of people do not steal cars either, so the ones who do must have some type of mental illness?

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Rathji

The vast majority of people do not steal cars either, so the ones who do must have some type of mental illness?

Perhaps? I don't know the answers! There are many people who are considered very violent and spend their lives in and out of jail. I am positive doctors would say the person has some type of disorder, but if they commit a crime bad enough, they will be locked up far longer than the schizophrenic guy. The fact science has no cure means they are in jail, based on how they treat other people.

Is it only a matter of being able to medically treat someone?

[Flamenspiel]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

But we do that with convicted murderers.... they do their time and if a panel of experts feel that they are not a risk to society, then they are released. Sure, some do re-offend. We "roll the dice" every time we release a previously violent crimal back onto the streets; but we do it because we, as a society, believe in second chances and letting people become contributing members of a community despite a violent past. One case where rolling the dice turned up craps doesn't mean that it happens that way most of the time. It could well be the exception that proves the rule.

Well, as a society you have to have more of a balanced approach, there has to be a perception by the public that justice is being done and public safety is being sufficiently addressed. The fact is that; in this case, the bus beheading and the case where the Quebec doctor killed his kids and got away with it, are creating the perception that there is a flaw in the justice system.

Its a Star Trek cliche but usually " the good of the many outweigh the good of the few".

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Well, as a society you have to have more of a balanced approach, there has to be a perception by the public that justice is being done and public safety is being sufficiently addressed. The fact is that; in this case, the bus beheading and the case where the Quebec doctor killed his kids and got away with it, are creating the perception that there is a flaw in the justice system.

Its a Star Trek cliche but usually " the good of the many outweigh the good of the few".

The thing about the public is, they're idiots.

[Devils'Advocate]

I really get the impression that people only watched "Wrath of Khan" and completely skipped out on "The Search for Spock".

If "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, (or the one)" meant what you people think it means, then it justifies the Russian anti-gay laws.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I really get the impression that people only watched "Wrath of Khan" and completely skipped out on "The Search for Spock".

If "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, (or the one)" meant what you people think it means, then it justifies the Russian anti-gay laws.

Not to mention that any coherent concept of utilitarianism is usually qualified with the notion of "tyranny of the majority."

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I wasn't saying it shouldn't be, just that it isn't now, so it's a false argument to start changing the rules for this guy, as it can't be done.

It is not a false argument - we are peeved the rules work the way they do and are complaining. We wish it was different.

Originally Posted by Daradon

I wasn't aware that you were saying the system should be changed, if that's your opinion that's fine, but as I said, has little bearing on this actual case.

Of course this forum has little bearing on this case, but I use it as a way to express I am peaved with how my money is spent.

Originally Posted by Daradon

As far as changing it though, I think your still overestimating just how much control we could have over costs. As I mentioned, generally the more security and higher level of offender, the higher the costs. Programs like this can actually be cheaper. And like Azure said, could have benefits to the society at large, like learning more about mental disorders.

I don't think so...it could be much cheaper. Look at what Elon Musk did with electric cars - just because it is done a certain way and always has, does not mean it is right. I don't disagree that there is a value in studying guys like this, but it could be done behind bars.

Originally Posted by Daradon

Besides going gulag and ignoring basic human rights for the worst criminals, we're not really going to be able to save money in the way you are thinking, especially if your looking to save for the worst offenders. Heck, even death row in the states costs their system a lot.

I agree that the system is not working the way it is, I certainly am not the one to answer this, but there has to be a better way.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

It is not a false argument - we are peeved the rules work the way they do and are complaining. We wish it was different.



Of course this forum has little bearing on this case, but I use it as a way to express I am peaved with how my money is spent.



I don't think so...it could be much cheaper. Look at what Elon Musk did with electric cars - just because it is done a certain way and always has, does not mean it is right. I don't disagree that there is a value in studying guys like this, but it could be done behind bars.



I agree that the system is not working the way it is, I certainly am not the one to answer this, but there has to be a better way.

Point 1. We're getting tangled up in different discussions. I feel your argument is well suited to a discussion on changing the justice/penal system and while I don't agree with it, I do think that's the place for it and it's a valid idea. I don't feel it makes a lot of sense when looking at this specific case as AS IT STANDS NOW, we don't have the option of anything you suggested in regards to this case. It's kinda like saying 'we should remove the neutral zone' in the middle of a hockey game, instead of the end of the season.

2. You're allowed to be peeved and I know many are. I didn't mean this discussion has little bearing on the case, just that your specific argument doesn't, as for the reasons I outlined in point 1. As I said, I get your peeved, I know a lot of people are, and while I don't agree with it, I think it's a good conversation. It's a valid opinion. It's just that here it makes little sense. It's a different discussion. You can't just move goalposts as a solution. 'Hey I know it's not how our system works, and we have no way of implementing it, but we should really just give this guy bread and water and nothing else.' Constructive.

3. I don't even know where to go with this. If you are comparing changing the economics of a functional justice system with the economics in launching a new product... well yeah. You're comparing apples to bulldozers. Of course things can be done different and better, and we can take a look at how. But again I think you are vastly overestimating how much could be changed, and the ease of which it could be changed. Changing society and social programs is way different than launching new tech or products. Infinitely more nuanced.

4. I know it's a popular opinion in some circles, but I wholeheartedly disagree. If you want to be the one who starts the thread and looks at the justice system in general then that would be a good place to do it and it's a valid and useful discussion. I do think the eye for an eye crowd though gets far too upset at looking at the worst cases that seem a little lopsided (and some do for me too) and not enough at the system as a whole which works pretty well for us. When you look at crime rate, incarceration rate, and cost, Canada does pretty well comparatively. Some definite weak spots, but as a whole the way we react and deal with crime is pretty healthy and works for us.

It's just the conservative crowd goes all bonkers at the worst cases and try to use it as an example something is wrong with the system. Statistically, that's not true. There will always be crime, and there will always be Bernardo's and Homolka's and things that make us sick to our stomachs. But it's a percent of a percent of a percent, and hardly indicative of a failing system. Every country in the world has to deal with psychos.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

The thing about the public is, they're idiots.

Of course you are superior, and only your way of superior thinking is the right way.

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I really get the impression that people only watched "Wrath of Khan" and completely skipped out on "The Search for Spock".

If "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, (or the one)" meant what you people think it means, then it justifies the Russian anti-gay laws.

Really bad comparison. Nobody was forced to go to the Genesis planet to recover Spock. Kirk even said at the Transporter "None of you have to do this." They were all such close friends pretty much family, that they chose to make a sacrifice and take a chance for a friend, and good Vulcan/Human being perhaps one of the greatest minds in Starfleet. Spock was worth them taking a risk for to them. Nobody that didn't want to go went. The risk of resurrecting Spock still had a massive benefit to galactic society as a whole. And in a poetic pause filled Shatneresque moment, he proclaims to Spock at the end "Sometimes the needs of the one, out weigh the needs of the many...." to deliberately inject human irrationality and the complete lack of logic for what they did. Basically it was an admission of fault and he was essentially saying. "Yeah that was pretty stupid of us to steal our ship, pick a fight with the Klingons blow it up in orbit to the cost of 20 trillion credits, and get my son killed to save your sorry ass... but you're like a bro....bro!"

/massive nerd analysis

And on the Russian gay law thing, that's ridiculous. Homosexuals cause nobody harm, and the fear of them is completely unwarranted bigotry. There are many good reasons to fear Vincent Li as he has a very high likely hood of going rogue again. If Vincent Li was my own brother I would protest his release.

What will your reaction be, if he is released, and inside of 5 years, has another murderous episode? Would you still be defending his release and the professionals that recommend it?

[Dion]

nm

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by pylon

What will your reaction be, if he is released, and inside of 5 years, has another murderous episode? Would you still be defending his release and the professionals that recommend it?

If he was released in a way that allows him to go off his meds and he does, and he has another episode and he kills someone, again. I'd be very critical and upset with the professionals and our justice system that allowed that to happen.

But those are all what ifs that haven't happened. I know it's tough for a lot of people, but we have to go with professionals and the law in these cases. We can't, as a society go "well, I don't like what you guys decided, he's seems like more of a 'lock him up for life' type of character, so let's do that".

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by pylon

Of course you are superior, and only your way of superior thinking is the right way.

Not really. My line of reasoning just requires a touch of critical thinking and rationalism, as opposed your anecdotal, ignorant, and emotion-based reasoning.

There are many good reasons to fear Vincent Li as he has a very high likely hood of going rogue again.

Case in point. What are you basing this off of? Do you have any empirical sources you can cite, or is this something you just have a "gut-feeling" for (a.k.a pulled it out of your ass)?

[DOOM]

So what you guy are saying is...

1. Kill an innocent person
2. Eat part of an innocent person
3. Be diagnosed with a mental illness
4. Take pills
5. Be released outside of a secure area

Ridiculous

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by DOOM

So what you guy are saying is...

1. Kill an innocent person
2. Eat part of an innocent person
3. Be diagnosed with a mental illness
4. Take pills
5. Be released outside of a secure area

Ridiculous

Ridiculous is exactly what I'd call that kind of analysis. Also juvenile, simplistic, moronic, ignorant.