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

[pylon]

Originally Posted by GGG

Are you arguing the recidivism rate for those convicted of murder is higher than the recidivism rate of those who were NCRd?

This has been demonstrated to be false. The comparison is a foolish one to go down by Li is less likely to commit a violent crime then the average murderer that has been released.

Even if he stops taking his medication? Show me the stats on that.

I would actually begrudgingly accept his release if he was force fed his medication daily. Or if there was an automated tamper free process to ensure he doesn't miss a dose.

This discharge guarantees none of that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by pylon

Even if he stops taking his medication? Show me the stats on that.

I would actually begrudgingly accept his release if he was force fed his medication daily. Or if there was an automated tamper free process to ensure he doesn't miss a dose.

This discharge guarantees none of that.

Well it's the odds of him stopping his meds x the odds of him killing again as opposed to just the odds of him killing again if he goes off his meds.

The expert who just released said the rate of violent recidivism amoung the NCRd was 5%. Oling hand numbers early showing a 20% recidivism rate amoung violent criminals. Though I'm too lazy to really dig into whether it's valid to compare those two numbers directly.

I agree with you that monitoring should be essential. But to say he's more dangerous than the average murderer even without monitoring it is just wrong.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree with you that monitoring should be essential. But to say he's more dangerous than the average murderer is just wrong.

With what he's demonstrated he's capable of. I'd argue he's more dangerous without medication. Because he has no capability of stopping himself. Your normal murderer doesn't do it in front of 60 people in broad daylight. And they typically don't pick some poor sap at complete random.

This is uncharted territory because I can't see there even being a sample size of any type that mirrors this scenario. And erring on the side of caution is a lot safer than just trusting the guy.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by pylon

The core condition is not their fault though. Nobody asks for a mental illness. And an argument can be made their actions are of a direct result of it. If Jim wasn't addicted to gambling, he would not have robbed a bank. If Jane wasn't a sex addict, she wouldn't have strangled her lover for leaving her. If Jerry wasn't an alcoholic, he wouldn't have killed that family in that accident.

Those people do not get leniency even though all of their actions are of a direct result of their mental illness.

Again, you're just wrong. We've been through this already. From a supreme court judgment....

A malfunctioning of the mind that results exclusively from self-induced intoxication cannot be considered a disease of the mind in the legal sense, since it is not a product of the individual’s inherent psychological makeup

There is a side note that in some cases drugs and in particular drug withdrawal can alter the mind causing an illness to be uncontrolled as in this case...

http://www.thewhig.com/2010/11/02/ca...induced-crimes

Saying Li had no control is semantics to me. Because in an age of open communication and so much knowledge, the second the Alien Lizard Demons start chanting for you to carve out the heart of a innocent bystander, there had to be some responsibility on the individual to seek help before it spirals out of control. Society as a whole knows this is not a normal condition, or chain of events. And there is without doubt in my mind the individual has enough lucid moments to question it.

Super wrong about that.

[Ryan Coke]

Nah, it's not super wrong.

You are arguing technical definitions, which is absolutely useful and interesting on a certain level. But to look wider at the concept that people who do horrible things all have a level of mental defectiveness is very reasonable. The level it is at, and the way it manifests is certainly different, but to debate where the legal system has placed a somewhat arbitrary line is completely legitimate.

This situation is interesting in that most of the spectrum of opinion that is shown in this thread is quite reasonable and defensible. There isn't much here that is completely ridiculous. There are some that for various reasons believe in more individual rights at the cost of others potential safety. And the side that is more comfortable limiting some individual rights to protect the many.

But the discussion over the concept of NCR and why the line is placed where it is in regard to differing mental illness' is anything but 'super wrong'.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by pylon

Dion. I get you want to educate us all and have sympathy for Li/Baker. It is possible to sympathize with his plight, and at the same time want him locked up. I don't deny he was acting on a force beyond his control. I don't deny he has remorse. But I don't care.

His body, his teeth and his hands still committed this act. And if denying him freedom seems cruel, so be it. I'm cruel.

Given the horrific nature of the crime I can see and understand why you and countless others would want him safely locked away from society. Maybe my symapthy for Li comes from a childhood friend who had that illness, I don't know. The whole thing saddens me greatly.

At the expense of society looking cruel, and backwards, I'm ok in this case. The safety of the general public, the value of Greyhound as a company who employs thousands, and the sanctity and peace of mind of the hundreds of people he has victimized, and will continue to victimize to their grave, trumps any freedom he has earned. I don't care what the experts say, I want him locked away safely. And that's my opinion.

The fact we don't have a smiliar case like this to compare to does make me a bit uneasy. We have all these stats but still nobody can say for sure that Li won't stop taking his meds. I just wish there were conditions attached to his discharge where he has to be monitired to make sure he takes his meds.

And I am dreading the day they set DeGrood free and the hug-in that arises here starts for him. I had the opportunity to meet the parents of a victim. And they have ZERO sympathy for his plight.

I don't know if I would call it a hug in. An understanding of the illness might be more appropriate. That said i'll wait to see what happens before I offer any opinion on Degroot.

If I had a child and it happened to mine I can't say that I would feel any different than the parents of the victim. It's tragedy a parent should NEVER have to endure.

I don't deny mental illness needs to be studied and understood. But I don't believe these potential time bombs should be roaming the streets after they have proven what their minds and bodies are capable of during an episode.

It's a highly emotional issue that has got everyones backs up with people trying to find what would be a safe enviroment for both Li and the public at large.

I respect you as a person Pylon and will just say there are parts of this where we'll have to agree to disagree

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Nah, it's not super wrong.

You are arguing technical definitions, which is absolutely useful and interesting on a certain level. But to look wider at the concept that people who do horrible things all have a level of mental defectiveness is very reasonable. The level it is at, and the way it manifests is certainly different, but to debate where the legal system has placed a somewhat arbitrary line is completely legitimate.

This situation is interesting in that most of the spectrum of opinion that is shown in this thread is quite reasonable and defensible. There isn't much here that is completely ridiculous. There are some that for various reasons believe in more individual rights at the cost of others potential safety. And the side that is more comfortable limiting some individual rights to protect the many.

But the discussion over the concept of NCR and why the line is placed where it is in regard to differing mental illness' is anything but 'super wrong'.

The super wrong part is Pylon thinking schizophrenics are offered a moment of lucidity before their illness takes over. He's suggesting people with this mental illness have a chance to choose their course of action because we have the internet as a resource. Like "hey, wait a minute...I just Googled all this devil sitting next to me, space alien, cia micro chip stuff and it is starting to sound a little far fetched, but I'm just going to go with it anyway." That's actually so painfully wrong it's insulting. The hallmark of schizophrenia is that it makes you feel like you're hyper-sane, better able to assess the world around you than other people and it's actually everyone else who is crazy. And this is the predominant line of thought very early on in the process. It's what makes staying on medication so difficult.

The difference between ncr and not I'm sure gets fuzzy around the edges as do most things. But there really is no comparison between knowing what you're up to and not. Suggesting addicts are in the same boat as schizophrenics just shows you don't know anything about the two. It's very common for addiction and schizophrenia to go together and this might be where the line gets blurred.

[pylon]

So everything you are all saying points to how utterly unpredictable and dangerous he can be without medication. He thinks he's super human, superior and ultra aware.

He's been granted an unconditional discharge without monitoring why then?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by pylon

So everything you are all saying points to how utterly unpredictable and dangerous he can be without medication. He thinks he's super human, superior and ultra aware.

He's been granted an unconditional discharge without monitoring why then?

Nine years of therapy, monitoring and medical treatment and not being a threat anymore. And then you get back to this same old, doctors are wrong and I know more than any doctor because once a nut always a nut in my books. Have at it.

[RichKlit]

Anyone that's thinks this is exact science is fooling themselves. There is nothing wrong with questioning why the hell someone who did this type of horrific crime is now free to walk the world free and unconditionally with no restraints whatsoever, except he promises to be good. I think it's fair even responsible for the general public to question this ruling.

[EldrickOnIce]

Why not a more graduated process with removing conditions?
Baker has been living on his own for only 3 months, during his daily medication intake is visually monitored.
So why not something like:
-4 months of texting the team when he takes his meds.
-4 months with electronic monitoring, just insuring that the medication has been removed from blister pack.
-4 months unmonitored

If all is well in a year, unconditional release.

I'd be pretty satisfied with something like that. And yes, Im aware I don't need to be.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think the most anyone can say (other than qualified professionals), is that we don't know if it is a good idea. The "not knowing" part makes people feel a little uneasy. Since it is not reasonable for a layman to know everything, we have to put our trust in those who are trained to make these decisions.

Therefore, I am not going to criticize the decision, but I would be lying if I said it feels right.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by RichKlit

Anyone that's thinks this is exact science is fooling themselves. There is nothing wrong with questioning why the hell someone who did this type of horrific crime is now free to walk the world free and unconditionally with no restraints whatsoever, except he promises to be good. I think it's fair even responsible for the general public to question this ruling.

I totally agree. The only caveat is to make sure it is informed and open minded questioning. Declaring the decision is wrong just because of how it makes you feel when you don't understand the disease and its treatment and risk factors is still allowed but not helpful. Advocating abandoning the rule of law because the incident was horrific is absolutely not responsible citizenship.

I would unquestionably be safer driving to work if I installed a NASCAR roll cage in my car and wore a fireproof suit and helmet. I am not an outrageous fool for driving with a t-shirt, shorts and a ball cap. And society hasn't given up on protecting public safety by not invoking NASCAR standards in the Traffic Safety Act. We measure and assume risk of death literally every single day. Traffic Safety experts are left to decide which measure we must have and which can be left out. We accept those expert assessments and risk our lives (an educated calculated risk) for the freedom and convenience cars give us.

I just don't see how allowing the experts in mental health to assess the risks in that field and decide what risks we can take and what risks are too much should be treated differently.

And the reality is they do it every day as well. People are in and out of psych assessment under provincial mental health legislation hundreds of times a month I am sure. Often within a 24 hour period and a half hour long interview an expert decides whether a person gets to be unconditionally free to live mentally ill beside you...you just don't know it.

It's all calculated risk with no guarantees. But for some reason when the incident is horrifying all non psychiatrists give themselves an instant PhD and take to the internets to tell everyone how the whole system is in ruins. It's not.

I wonder what the stats are on how many greyhound bus trips have been taken in Canada where no passenger was a victim of any assault whatsoever? Probably millions. If you think the only paranoid schizophrenic who has ever rode on a greyhound was Vince Li you are sadly mistaken.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Why not a more graduated process with removing conditions?
Baker has been living on his own for only 3 months, during his daily medication intake is visually monitored.
So why not something like:
-4 months of texting the team when he takes his meds.
-4 months with electronic monitoring, just insuring that the medication has been removed from blister pack.
-4 months unmonitored

If all is well in a year, unconditional release.

I'd be pretty satisfied with something like that. And yes, Im aware I don't need to be.

That's exactly what he's been doing over the last few years. Gradually increasing his independence with monitoring. This is just the next step in that process that has already been going on for a number of years.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by RichKlit

Anyone that's thinks this is exact science is fooling themselves.

Putting so much faith in psychology, of all sciences, is dangerously naive. Recovered memory theory was mainstream psychology not long ago. It was responsible for hundreds of false convictions and ruined thousands of lives. Today it's been pretty much discredited. Whoops!

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by MBates

I totally agree. The only caveat is to make sure it is informed and open minded questioning. Declaring the decision is wrong just because of how it makes you feel when you don't understand the disease and its treatment and risk factors is still allowed but not helpful. Advocating abandoning the rule of law because the incident was horrific is absolutely not responsible citizenship.

I would unquestionably be safer driving to work if I installed a NASCAR roll cage in my car and wore a fireproof suit and helmet. I am not an outrageous fool for driving with a t-shirt, shorts and a ball cap. And society hasn't given up on protecting public safety by not invoking NASCAR standards in the Traffic Safety Act. We measure and assume risk of death literally every single day. Traffic Safety experts are left to decide which measure we must have and which can be left out. We accept those expert assessments and risk our lives (an educated calculated risk) for the freedom and convenience cars give us.

I just don't see how allowing the experts in mental health to assess the risks in that field and decide what risks we can take and what risks are too much should be treated differently.

And the reality is they do it every day as well. People are in and out of psych assessment under provincial mental health legislation hundreds of times a month I am sure. Often within a 24 hour period and a half hour long interview an expert decides whether a person gets to be unconditionally free to live mentally ill beside you...you just don't know it.

It's all calculated risk with no guarantees. But for some reason when the incident is horrifying all non psychiatrists give themselves an instant PhD and take to the internets to tell everyone how the whole system is in ruins. It's not.

I wonder what the stats are on how many greyhound bus trips have been taken in Canada where no passenger was a victim of any assault whatsoever? Probably millions. If you think the only paranoid schizophrenic who has ever rode on a greyhound was Vince Li you are sadly mistaken.

There most likely have been many but Vince Li was the only paranoid schizophrenic who chopped off a passenger's head and then ate his eyeballs.
I'm not sure what other schizophrenics have to do with the discussion, no one is arguing to lock up all people with schizophrenia, not all schizophrenics are equal.

Only one that I'm aware of Vince Li is a proven murderous lunatic when off his medication - he should be monitored for life at the very least and in my view preferably in a mental health center.

I think it's disturbing that people think it's too much to ask that Mr.Li/Baker be inconvenienced by a weekly visit to ensure he's on his meds when the consequences of him skipping them can lead to a scene from an 80's slasher flick.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

That's exactly what he's been doing over the last few years. Gradually increasing his independence with monitoring. This is just the next step in that process that has already been going on for a number of years.

Yes, but unless my understanding is wrong, only living on his own for 3 months (while visually monitored for medication compliance).
It just 'feels' to me like a leap from that straight to unconditional. And yes, I understand the problem with 'feels' like, but as the famous quote suggests: "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."
A significant mandate of the CJS is to protect society, and in my opinion that includes having the public trust in feeling protected.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Putting so much faith in psychology, of all sciences, is dangerously naive. Recovered memory theory was mainstream psychology not long ago. It was responsible for hundreds of false convictions and ruined thousands of lives. Today it's been pretty much discredited. Whoops!

Darn good thing he was being treated by and assessed by psychiatrists then. Ironically enough the psychologists involved in the case suggest he should not be released.

[Ryan Coke]

So your contention is psychiatry is a rock solid science then?

And that for all the talk of listening to experts you think we should only listen to the group of experts whose opinions you prefer?

[Northendzone]

I read an article from the globe and mail that focused on what I might characterize as the "forgotten victims" (at least forgotten by me) - the witnesses - horrible event for them.

I was initially indifferent to his release; however, I think I have changed my mind that feel that eh should be under close supervision.