Stabbing in Brentwood-5 Dead, 1 Arrested

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Yes the 90% was fictitious, however what I didn't reference was the amount of times its successful but rather the amount of times its pulled or attempted to be used when involving a brutal homicide like this one.

As for your math:

Almost two-thirds (63%) of NCRMD cases where the most serious decision4 in the case was NCRMD involved crimes against the person. Major assault was the most frequent offence, representing about 20% of these NCRMD cases

Well, you didn't reference anything.

It's like you don't understand how courts work. It is an adversarial process. The defence can "pull" whatever strategy that they want, but they still face a prosecution who wants to pull that strategy apart. They also have to convince a judge/jury.

It's not like a time-out in hockey.

[Royle9]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, you didn't reference anything.

It's like you don't understand how courts work. It is an adversarial process. The defence can "pull" whatever strategy that they want, but they still face a prosecution who wants to pull that strategy apart. They also have to convince a judge/jury.

It's not like a time-out in hockey.

Stealth edited it in, my apologies.
I understand how it works, my point was the avenue so far in the media is as expected. All we can hope for is that the prosecution dissects it and judgment is served.

[peter12]

I really don't like victim impact statements. In my view, they have no place in a court of law.

EDIT: I suppose they are being considered tribute statements. Even worse, in my view.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Yes the 90% was fictitious, however what I didn't reference was the amount of times its successful but rather the amount of times its pulled or attempted to be used when involving a brutal homicide like this one.

You stated that 90% of criminal trials see the defense attempt to have the jury return a NCR verdict. That is nowhere close to the correct figure. Go do your research before embarrassing yourself further with more ridiculous unsourced claims.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Stealth edited it in, my apologies.
I understand how it works, my point was the avenue so far in the media is as expected. All we can hope for is that the prosecution dissects it and judgment is served.

2016 everybody, where a 1% success ratio on an apparent "90%" attempt rate is statistically significant enough to fear monger over.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

2016 everybody, where a 1% success ratio on an apparent "90%" attempt rate is statistically significant enough to fear monger over.

It's not fear-mongering.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's not fear-mongering.

Presenting a fictional scenario where an inept justice system allows "psycho" murderers to roam our streets free is definitely fear mongering.

[peter12]

It's based on a real concern, obviously.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by peter12

It's based on a real concern, obviously.

Not a statistically significant one. Aaaand we're back to 4 posts ago.

[peter12]

No, the fear is that not enough is being to either punish or treat violent offenders in such a way that prevents these tragedies from unnecessarily occurring.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by peter12

I really don't like victim impact statements. In my view, they have no place in a court of law.

EDIT: I suppose they are being considered tribute statements. Even worse, in my view.

Disagree, family needs to feel validated. Judges aren't going to be swayed on that at all.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Disagree, family needs to feel validated. Judges aren't going to be swayed on that at all.

There should be a different venue. The sentimentality doesn't belong in a courtroom, in my opinion.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Yes and very tragic, Mental health is real I just don't agree with its use as a reason to discount a murders severity or punishment.

If someone was not responsible for stealing your car would you sentence him to prison for it? If someone was not responsible for hitting your car then would their insurance pay for your claim?

Not responsible means not responsible. You can't say that a person is not responsible by reason of mental defect and then punish them for a crime because society needs its pound of flesh. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Sometimes in order for justice to be just vengeance isn't possible because it isn't always just. Revenge is a natural human reaction to the situation but it isn't always an enlightened one.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Presenting a fictional scenario where an inept justice system allows "psycho" murderers to roam our streets free is definitely fear mongering.

sounds like reality

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by T@T

Please! by 2025 he'll be off the "meds" and considered a perfect citizen and all will be forgotten.

Isn't that the goal of the correction/justice system?

[aaronck]

Originally Posted by peter12

There should be a different venue. The sentimentality doesn't belong in a courtroom, in my opinion.

Hearing how this tragedy destroyed 5 families, and affected hundreds more indirectly (Most of the city really) should most certainly be established in the courtroom, during the trial of the person that did the destroying no matter what his mindset. Where is a more appropriate venue, the Dr Phil show?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

There should be a different venue. The sentimentality doesn't belong in a courtroom, in my opinion.

My family has been unfortunate enough to have read a victim impact statement in court.

Maybe you think I'm someone who carries a burdensome amount of sentiment around with them, but I think the victim is somewhat under represented in criminal proceedings as they relate to violent crime in Canada.

Victim impact statement won't turn a simple assault into a life sentence, but they should help contextualize the impact of the violent crime on society and the burden that charge has brought on the community, and it should be influential on sentencing.

We often see signs of remorse and empathy taken into account during sentencing. A remorseful, apologetic defendant will likely see a lesser sentence for the same crime as a remorseless defendant. I don't think this is out of bounds or an indication of a judicial flaw and I like to think I'm a pretty 'cut and dry', justice oriented individual.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I have a deeply psychotic lad living with me right now, hears voices sees things, is utterly convinced that a kid he lived next door to is plotting to steal his soul, but he is at the same time normal, essentially he is a normal person reacting to what he believes are real deeply frightening supernatural events.

I've read enough of your posts to know you're not looking for kudos but goddamn man you do noble work.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

My family has been unfortunate enough to have read a victim impact statement in court.

Maybe you think I'm someone who carries a burdensome amount of sentiment around with them, but I think the victim is somewhat under represented in criminal proceedings as they relate to violent crime in Canada.

Victim impact statement won't turn a simple assault into a life sentence, but they should help contextualize the impact of the violent crime on society and the burden that charge has brought on the community, and it should be influential on sentencing.

We often see signs of remorse and empathy taken into account during sentencing. A remorseful, apologetic defendant will likely see a lesser sentence for the same crime as a remorseless defendant. I don't think this is out of bounds or an indication of a judicial flaw and I like to think I'm a pretty 'cut and dry', justice oriented individual.

My real issue is that it often involves unverified statements that have nothing to do with the crime. So it shouldn't matter whether your son was a wonderful boy or an absolute disgusting wretch - murder is murder in the eyes of the law.

It sets a standard of bias, which should have nothing to do with justice.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Lets remember Vince Li the decapitating cannibal greyhound scumlord. Few years in a padded cell before getting freedom visits to his hometown.

A psychotic episode where he thought Jesus was telling him to kill the alien next to him to save his life. When the episode ended he pleaded for death. This was not a scumlord. It was a mentally unstable individual who went through a psychotic episode that, extremely unfortunately, ended the life of young man.

Again, if you think Li had any sort of real control over his thought process then you must think it's normal to have Jesus come and tell you to kill demons. Seek help.

Originally Posted by Royle9

He was deemed fit enough to stand trial,

Does not preclude from having a psychotic episode at the time of the murders.

Originally Posted by Royle9

I'm not discounting the notion that he is definitely mentally unstable to the point where he's talking about werewolves and zombies and whatnot, but I guess I just don't see how that should have any effect on the punishment for his crime.

Well it depends on your notion of what the criminal justice system is. If you feel it should strictly be for punishment, which it isn't, then you also have to be responsible. You can't be punished for something you didn't have control over, that much is clear to any sane person. So how would a mentally unfit person who doesn't have control over his thoughts and actions, if that is the case, receive just punishment?

Originally Posted by Royle9

Stable enough to have a job.

Does not preclude him having a psychotic episode at the time of the murders.

Originally Posted by Royle9

Stable enough to have a university education.

Does not preclude him having a psychotic episode at the time of the murders.

Originally Posted by Royle9

Stable enough to understand what he was doing (he told the police)

Does not preclude him having a psychotic episode at the time of the murders.

Originally Posted by Royle9

There's lots of crazy people out there in the world, but not all of them are committing a mass murder. Maybe he does have some mental health problems, but who's to say he's not playing at least some of it up to make it seem worse than it is. I guess that's why they've got professionals working this case, only time will tell.

But you didn't wait, nor did you care about the outcome of the Vince Li trial. You already called the justice system a joke and don't seem to care whether or not he was actually having a psychotic episode or was mentally stable at the time of the murders. There's been 0 evidence presented so far to conclude that he was mentally healthy, it may come, but right now there's just a whole lot of evidence that he was mentally unfit.