Man stabbed, then decapitated on grey hound bus

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by polak

So what do we do if he stops taking his meds or has another mental episode and hurts somebody else?

What do you do if one of the other 300k schizophrenics in Canada stops taking meds?

Schizophrenia does not predispose people to violence. Only a small percentage of schizophrenics commit violent acts towards others.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by polak

So you don't think people who committed serious, violent crimes deserve punishment? As long as we're fairly confident they won't reoffend, we should let them go?

Screw. That.

To an extent, yes. However, rehabilitation /= no justice, I believe rehabilitation should be the force driving justice, not revenge.

If we wish to reduce violent crime in society, we are better off investigating the causes of violent crime, to stop the problem before it starts, and to rehabilitate offenders so that they are far less likely to commit another offense.

[polak]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

What do you do if one of the other 300k schizophrenics in Canada stops taking meds?

Schizophrenia does not predispose people to violence. Only a small percentage of schizophrenics commit violent acts towards others.

?

Are you arguing against me?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The system is broke. This guy should never be free, mentally not guilty be damned. Now that he is mentally sound on meds he should stand trial for murder. I understand about mental health but the bottom line is this guy murdered a young man and his family has to live with the fact there is zero justice for him.

It's so scary that you're a police officer. Honestly.

What you're basically asking for is for him to stand trial as if he had no mental illness because he's properly medicated now?

[V]

I am curious what happens if he's released, goes off his meds and does something terrible again. Can he then be held responsible? Negligence causing loss of life?

[Murph]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

What do you do if one of the other 300k schizophrenics in Canada stops taking meds?

Schizophrenia does not predispose people to violence. Only a small percentage of schizophrenics commit violent acts towards others.

We are not talking about the other 300k schizophrenics in Canada, we are talking about Vincent Li, who, clearly, is predisposed to gruesome violence.

100% compliance with taking his medication, or it's back to the mental health facility. If the only way to ensure 100% compliance is through daily/nightly monitoring of him taking his meds for the rest of his life, so be it.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Murph

We are not talking about the other 300k schizophrenics in Canada, we are talking about Vincent Li who, clearly, is predisposed to gruesome violence.

100% compliance with taking his medication, or it's back to the mental health facility. If the only way to ensure 100% compliance is through daily/nightly monitoring of him taking his meds for the rest of his life, so be it.

Re-bolded, can you provide evidence to support. How do you know he was predisposed?

Did he have a history? I can't recall.

[Murph]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Re-bolded, can you provide evidence to support. How do you know he was predisposed?

Did he have a history? I can't recall.

What I was trying to say was that NOW there is evidience that he is predisposed to violence.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by flameswin

It's so scary that you're a police officer. Honestly.

That guy's a cop? That is utterly disgusting. So much education is needed.

Are you arguing against me?

No. I'm asking you a question. You're worried about him stopping his meds and reoffending. This is something any one of the 300k schizophrenics might do at any second. Not to mention guys with PTSD, poor people, stupid people, psychopaths, etc. Is your solution a global one? ie, lock all the potential criminals up? Or just this one guy? My point is...

In most jurisdictions, homicide recidivism by people with schizophrenia is less common than published reports have suggested. The reasons for the variation in the rates of homicide recidivism between studies are unclear, although in most jurisdictions long-term secure treatment and supervision after release appears to be effective in preventing homicide recidivism

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/14/46

What I was trying to say was that NOW there is evidience that he is predisposed to violence.

Actually NOW there is evidence to the contrary. He is not predisposed to violence, or so say people with medical degrees in the field.

[polak]

He's not a potential criminal.

He's a full fleged criminal that, for all intents and purposes, killed somebody else.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by polak

He's not a potential criminal.

He's a full fleged criminal that, for all intents and purposes, killed somebody else.

Again, he is not a criminal. He was found not criminally responsible. Dunno how to make that any more clear.

The best medical knowledge we have said he did not know what he was doing. Not even 'didn't know better' but simply did not know what he was doing.

Now again, you may feel the current system is wrong, or that the doctors got it wrong. It's a tragic case and obviously open to a lot of emotion. But as it stands, he's not a criminal, so arguing it as such makes no sense.

There are a few reasons a person could kill another person that does not make them a criminal. Self defense for one. So simply saying 'he killed someone so he's a criminal' is wrong and is not a valid argument.

[polak]

Except no one is arguing what the law does and doesn't consider "criminally responsible". We're agruing that the law is wrong and that we disagree or at least, that we disagree with the decision to give him more undeserved freedom.

In my orginal post I said that the system is broken. There is no way anyone, regardless of medical expertise, will ever convince me that this guy having the freedom to be unsupervised in public is a good idea. Not because I don't trust the judgement of medical professionals, but because:

a) He still ####ing cut someones head off on a bus in front of dozens of witnesses. No professional stamp on any document will ever erase that from happening. To me, whether he is medically deemed responsible or not, doesn't matter. In my eyes, he's full blown guilty and should be under lock and key and strict supervision for the rest of his life. I know, you keep repeating "he is not guilty, stop using that logic" but answer this simple question. Did that person kill another human being?

b) It is completely messed to me that there are people serving more time for drug possesion charges, crimes that have no consequences on anyone but the user, then this guy.

System = Broken

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by polak

I don't know. To me, when it comes to MURDER, "justice" is quite a valid reason to keep someone locked up for the rest of their lives. He 100%, without doubt killed somebody on purpose and quite brutally and now there is a chance he will be free. That is not okay in my books regardless of sanity.

Define "justice".

My aunt's murderer did 10 years before coming up on parole. Would we have seen more "justice" if he did 25? 50? Was electrocuted? From a vengeance POV, sure. But the law says murder two is minimum 10 years, and in that time, the killer was a model prisoner. I can't really say that justice would be served by keeping a low risk offender in beyond that statutory time.

In this specific case, the law sets different criteria for people who commit crimes as a result of mental insanity. If he has reached the point where the law feels he is fit to rejoin society, then I likewise can't argue too much. Though I do agree that he should be monitored because his ability to interact with society seems to require those medications.

[dissentowner]

nm

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Would you say the same thing if that was your son he did that too? And what does my views on this have to do with my career? Don't be an idiot.

Because you openly mention numerous times on this site your ties to law enforcement and now you're in a thread about the justice system?

Don't you see how people would make that connection? Geezus.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Would you say the same thing if that was your son he did that too? And what does my views on this have to do with my career? Don't be an idiot.

No, he wouldn't but you're supposed to take that kind of emotion out of it. The fact that you can't do that as an apparent police officer is also frightening.

You openly put your profession as an officer on the forum, multiple times over a plethora of threads. Don't be surprised when it's brought up, especially when you act like this.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

Except no one is arguing what the law does and doesn't consider "criminally responsible". We're agruing that the law is wrong and that we disagree or at least, that we disagree with the decision to give him more undeserved freedom.

In my orginal post I said that the system is broken. There is no way anyone, regardless of medical expertise, will ever convince me that this guy having the freedom to be unsupervised in public is a good idea. Not because I don't trust the judgement of medical professionals, but because:

a) He still ####ing cut someones head off on a bus in front of dozens of witnesses. No professional stamp on any document will ever erase that from happening. To me, whether he is medically deemed responsible or not, doesn't matter. In my eyes, he's full blown guilty and should be under lock and key and strict supervision for the rest of his life. I know, you keep repeating "he is not guilty, stop using that logic" but answer this simple question. Did that person kill another human being?

b) It is completely messed to me that there are people serving more time for drug possesion charges, crimes that have no consequences on anyone but the user, then this guy.

System = Broken

Yes he killed another person.


But was he found criminally guilty?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Would you say the same thing if that was your son he did that too?

Appeal to emotion is an argumentative fallacy.

And what does my views on this have to do with my career? Don't be an idiot.

Perhaps the part where you appear to allow emotions and your own desires of what the law should be affect your judgment, when a lapse in your judgment carries with it greater ability to kill someone.

And no, it is actually quite clear that you do not "understand about mental health".

[dissentowner]

nm

[firebug]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Would you say the same thing if that was your son he did that too? And what does my views on this have to do with my career? Don't be an idiot.

The RCMP were not able to gather enough evidence against my niece's murderer to press charges.

While I would like to see him face justice, in reality, my family's life would not have been any different if he would've been convicted and incarcerated verses the fact that he's been a 'free man'.

Is it tough to believe that a victim's family could be interested in justice (and rehabilitation) rather than vengeance and retribution?