Man stabbed, then decapitated on grey hound bus

[cracher]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

On the other hand, the big difference is in the real scenario his brain is what fed the chemicals, the second scenario is someone provided the chemicals. If the brain is the 'defective' part, just like they are determining with so many criminals, than why are we letting this guy go but not so many other criminals?

So are you saying that there is a group of people who were born defective/inferior? And that their deficiencies are uniform and should be painted with the same brush? And that society should sequester all of these people?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Dagger

That's changing the parameters of what happened. It's irrelevant.

Originally Posted by rubecube

How so? In both situations he's having a psychotic episode through no fault of his own and there end up being major ramifications. I'm just curious if people would believe he's criminally responsible in one situation but not the other.

EDIT: If you want to, let's take Li out of the equation. If this hypothetical scenario happened do you think the perpetrator should be held criminally responsible?

OK, how about an individual that suffers an unforeseen vagal episode while driving and passes out. When they are passed out their vehicle slams into a crowd killing 25 people (Polak likeed this number).


Do we punish this driver with life in jail or the death penalty?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

There we go, on the attack again. You truly hate opposing views.

What on earth does that even mean? Opposing views are challenged in pretty much every thread on this board.

Why don't you challenge the assertion that you posted a load of "unsubstantiated speculation and rhetoric that you've thrown out as if they were facts"?

Instead of your usual, woo is me, I'm such a victim, I'm always being attacked bs why don't you respond to the post?

This has been a good thread with differing opinions/posts challenged all over the place. What are you getting so wound up about?

[polak]

I'm not going to chime in here but I just want to thank Nage Waza, Daradon and the others who stepped in and had my back! I appreciate it.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Different situation completely, and I think I would need to know more before I commented.

On the other hand, the big difference is in the real scenario his brain is what fed the chemicals, the second scenario is someone provided the chemicals. If the brain is the 'defective' part, just like they are determining with so many criminals, than why are we letting this guy go but not so many other criminals?

Well technically the brain could still be the defective part in both situations. Not everyone would react the same way to the chemicals. It sounds to me like you're saying in one situation he's more dangerous to re-offend than another, or am I misunderstanding.

If they didn't have a 'cure' for his disorder, would you want him released?

Obviously not.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Exactly! I want a court system that determines if they committed the crime and I don't care about the mental illness side of things, just like how it treats most other mental illness.



.

That's one of the scariest things I've read on CP. Very frustrating and sad as well.

At the end of the day your opinion is where most industrialized nations were at decades/centuries ago in terms of law, and thankfully most of those countries have progressed (emphasis on progressed) from your scary views, and thankfully we won't be going back to those times.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by cracher

So are you saying that there is a group of people who were born defective/inferior? And that their deficiencies are uniform and should be painted with the same brush? And that society should sequester all of these people?

LOL, this is hilarious. Of course I didn't say that.

There are many types of mental illness and many of them have medication used for treatment. However, not all of them seem to get people from serving what I think is an appropriate sentence.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Bagor

What on earth does that even mean? Opposing views are challenged in pretty much every thread on this board.

Why don't you challenge the assertion that you posted a load of "unsubstantiated speculation and rhetoric that you've thrown out as if they were facts"?

Instead of your usual, woo is me, I'm such a victim, I'm always being attacked bs why don't you respond to the post?

This has been a good thread with differing opinions/posts challenged all over the place. What are you getting so wound up about?

Uhh, what are you going on about? Was there a question you asked me?

Same guys as always shooting down the opposing reasonable opinions.

I stepped in after watching some lame posts against Polak, not myself.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by flameswin

That's one of the scariest things I've read on CP. Very frustrating and sad as well.

At the end of the day your opinion is where most industrialized nations were at decades/centuries ago in terms of law, and thankfully most of those countries have progressed (emphasis on progressed) from your scary views, and thankfully we won't be going back to those times.

LOL, seriously, scariest things you have read on CP? This is basically how the entire court system works, talk to any cop about which people are sent to jail over and over. We are picking and choosing who doesn't have to go to jail based on their illness. I am stating that since we throw so many of them in jail, why aren't we doing the same with Mr Li?

I happen to take the stance that we do it right now and we are doing the right thing, mental illness or not. The fact I mention this make me frustrating and scary? Go sit in a court room for a day.

Based on some of the posts I have read in this thread, someone drinking and driving shouldn't be punished either, since they are not really in control of their decisions and because (I think) alcoholism is a disease.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

LOL, seriously, scariest things you have read on CP? This is basically how the entire court system works, talk to any cop about which people are sent to jail over and over. We are picking and choosing who doesn't have to go to jail based on their illness. I am stating that since we throw so many of them in jail, why aren't we doing the same with Mr Li?

I happen to take the stance that we do it right now and we are doing the right thing, mental illness or not. The fact I mention this make me frustrating and scary? Go sit in a court room for a day.

Based on some of the posts I have read in this thread, someone drinking and driving shouldn't be punished either, since they are not really in control of their decisions and because (I think) alcoholism is a disease.

What is frustrating and scary is that people have literally no, zero, (0), understanding of mental illness. Alcoholism is a mental illness just like schizophrenia? Very scary and very frustrating.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

LOL, seriously, scariest things you have read on CP? This is basically how the entire court system works, talk to any cop about which people are sent to jail over and over. We are picking and choosing who doesn't have to go to jail based on their illness. I am stating that since we throw so many of them in jail, why aren't we doing the same with Mr Li?

I happen to take the stance that we do it right now and we are doing the right thing, mental illness or not. The fact I mention this make me frustrating and scary? Go sit in a court room for a day.

Based on some of the posts I have read in this thread, someone drinking and driving shouldn't be punished either, since they are not really in control of their decisions and because (I think) alcoholism is a disease.

Alcoholism is an addiction. At some point in peoples lives they choose to drink and in some cases they develop an addiction where they can't stop without help. That is not the way mental illness works. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Alcoholism is influenced by genetic, psychological, social and environmental factors that have an impact on how it affects your body and behavior.

The process of becoming addicted to alcohol occurs gradually, although some people have an abnormal response to alcohol from the time they start drinking. Over time, drinking too much may change the normal balance of chemicals and nerve tracks in your brain associated with the experience of pleasure, judgment and the ability to exercise control over your behavior. This may result in your craving alcohol to restore good feelings or remove negative ones.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-c...s/con-20020866

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Based on some of the posts I have read in this thread, someone drinking and driving shouldn't be punished either, since they are not really in control of their decisions and because (I think) alcoholism is a disease.

Show me those posts please.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

What is frustrating and scary is that people have literally no, zero, (0), understanding of mental illness. Alcoholism is a mental illness just like schizophrenia? Very scary and very frustrating.

What is frustrating and scary is that people have literally no, zero, (0) reading comprehension. Alcoholism is a mental illness, like schizophrenia, and both have been used in courts in different ways.

Some interesting links for those interested to see where being drunk was introduced as a defence and what our legal system did to adapt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Daviault

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...on-defence-of/

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Uhh, what are you going on about? Was there a question you asked me?

Same guys as always shooting down the opposing reasonable opinions.

I stepped in after watching some lame posts against Polak, not myself.

What am I on about?

I am on about YOU being challenged on YOUR post and responding to it with your usual oh woe is me, I'm such a victim stunt. This has nothing to do with Polak.

Yes, there was a question I asked you.

Why don't you challenge the assertion that you posted a load of "unsubstantiated speculation and rhetoric that you've thrown out as if they were facts"?

instead of attempting to deflect from it by playing the victim.

So why don't you?

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Show me those posts please.

Sorry, I was describing how someone drunk enough cannot make decisions (to raise the issue of at what point are we not responsible for our actions). Our legal system has had to make the odd rule change to manage this concept.

I was just pointing out some parallels to this case.

I find the subject interesting. I don't recall if you said it or someone else, but the key for schizophrenia is that they didn't choose to have schizophrenia, but the drunk chose to drink. That is certainly true, but some people that drink didn't choose to be an alcoholic either. Clearly not downplaying either issue, just that the two subjects are certainly not the same, but I think they can be spoken about in the same debate.

Have a look at this:

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/289848-overview

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Bagor

What am I on about?

I am on about YOU being challenged on YOUR post and responding to it with your usual oh woe is me, I'm such a victim stunt. This has nothing to do with Polak.

Yes, there was a question I asked you.
instead of attempting to deflect from it by playing the victim.

So why don't you?

Nice troll attempt. You don't have a question, even after posting several times that you did. Polak already stepped in, as did someone else, stating basically what I said.

The bleeding hearts certainly have a hard time with any contradicting opinions. What is odd is how reasonable I think both sides have been, and you jump in with this nonsense.

Now buzz off unless you are interested in the subject.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Nice troll attempt. You don't have a question, even after posting several times that you did. Polak already stepped in, as did someone else, stating basically what I said.

The bleeding hearts certainly have a hard time with any contradicting opinions. What is odd is how reasonable I think both sides have been, and you jump in with this nonsense.

Now buzz off unless you are interested in the subject.

Pathetic.

Now you're being trolled. Always deflecting. Always the victim.

Poor Poor Naza.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

This is basically how the entire court system works, talk to any cop about which people are sent to jail over and over. We are picking and choosing who doesn't have to go to jail based on their illness.

Why would we need to ask a cop? We know that courts look at the circumstances around the crime as much as the crime itself. Someone's state of mind and mental disorders have been considered long before either of us were born. It's not exactly a surprise.

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

I am stating that since we throw so many of them in jail, why aren't we doing the same with Mr Li?

So many of who? Criminals who were capable of making decisions and are responsible for their actions or mentally ill people unable to do so? Not really sure the "them" you are talking about. But when it comes to Mr Li, it's because he was not found criminally responsible for his actions because he didn't have control over those actions.

There's just a disconnect I can't get over personally. You want to punish people, presumably for their actions because I don't believe you're a sadist, but when you remove the ability to make those decisions where's the justice in that?

There's definitely grey areas, but a lot of the disorders and situations you're bringing up still leave the person with choices, with people who are able to tell right from wrong and could have taken precautionary measures to prevent anything (i.e. giving up your keys when you're getting ####faced).

Here, in this specific situation, we're talking about a man who by all accounts was a good person prior to believing he was the second coming of Christ and that aliens were trying to kill him. He literally believed he would die if he did not kill his fellow passenger. He's remorseful, aware of his medical issues and the psychiatrists don't believe he is high-risk to re-offend. I do not see a reason to punish a man who, through no fault of his own, had a psychotic episode that ultimately left a man dead. It's not the same as a gangbanger shooting up a restaurant and killing an innocent victim, I don't know why would treat it like it is.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Sorry, I was describing how someone drunk enough cannot make decisions (to raise the issue of at what point are we not responsible for our actions). Our legal system has had to make the odd rule change to manage this concept.

I was just pointing out some parallels to this case.

I find the subject interesting. I don't recall if you said it or someone else, but the key for schizophrenia is that they didn't choose to have schizophrenia, but the drunk chose to drink. That is certainly true, but some people that drink didn't choose to be an alcoholic either. Clearly not downplaying either issue, just that the two subjects are certainly not the same, but I think they can be spoken about in the same debate.

Have a look at this:

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/289848-overview

They cannot be spoken in the same debate...

Substance induced disorders are distinct from independant co-occuring mental disorders in that all or most of the psychiatric symptons are the direct result of substance abuse.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64178/

Drug-induced psychotic state not a defence for crime, Supreme Court rules:

Bouchard-Lebrun argued that he had an underlying mental disorder that was triggered by the drug use, and therefore should be found not criminally responsible for the attack.

But on Wednesday, the Supreme Court dismissed the argument, saying Bouchard-Lebrun could not establish that he was suffering from an underlying mental disorder, since he returned to normal once the effects of the drugs ran their course.

“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,” the judge concluded.

If everyone who committed a violent offence while in a toxic psychosis was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, the judge said the scope of the defence would be too broad.

Wednesday’s ruling clarifies a grey area in the Criminal Code, saying that if simply taking a drug causes a psychotic state, the mental-disorder defence is not available.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11...e-court-rules/