Stabbing in Brentwood-5 Dead, 1 Arrested

[peter12]

I find the consensus-based group-think on Calgarypuck absolutely fascinating. The crowd decides what they think, and then, just becomes implacable. There is obviously room for discussion here.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by peter12

I find the consensus-based group-think on Calgarypuck absolutely fascinating. The crowd decides what they think, and then, just becomes implacable. There is obviously room for discussion here.

Skepticism is healthy, but in this context, there wasn't much room for discussion, given T@T's position. I thought there was a very good discussion regarding mental illness and what NCR really means to the individual.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by peter12

I find the consensus-based group-think on Calgarypuck absolutely fascinating. The crowd decides what they think, and then, just becomes implacable. There is obviously room for discussion here.

There has been discussion going on, it's just that mental illness is becoming less of a stigma and discussions about it are happening more often.

As a result, I'd say more people are understanding the impact of mental illness.

[peter12]

Mental illness is still, of course, very much stigmatized. The kernel of T&T's position - how reliable are these psychiatric assessments - is actually quite interesting.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

Mental illness is still, of course, very much stigmatized. The kernel of T&T's position - how reliable are these psychiatric assessments - is actually quite interesting.

Actually, the basis of his position seems to be that when people are murdered, someone has to be punished to balance the scales of justice.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Actually, the basis of his position seems to be that when people are murdered, someone has to be punished to balance the scales of justice.

Maybe, although his justification for that position is more central - that NCR isn't reliable enough to overcome the social need for retribution.

Maybe Foucault was right - the brutal public execution of a criminal is preferable for the criminal rather than a lifetime spent in increasingly inhumane surveillance-based institutions.

[DionTheDman]

Originally Posted by T@T

If de Grood is deemed not criminally responsible due to a mental health problems would you support his release in 5 years if the doctors say he's cured?

Late to the party, but my answer would absolutely be yes. I'll ask this of you in return --

Let's say some guy had a previously un-diagnosed medical condition that predisposed him to heart attacks. If he is driving his car, has a heart attack, and as a result, loses control of his car and kills five pedestrians, would you advocate for medical treatment or incarceration? If the treatment option lowered his chances of a subsequent event substantially, and he was also educated about warning signs and safety measures to take to mitigate future episodes, would you support his release from medical care?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by DionTheDman

Late to the party, but my answer would absolutely be yes. I'll ask this of you in return --

Let's say some guy had a previously un-diagnosed medical condition that predisposed him to heart attacks. If he is driving his car, has a heart attack, and as a result, loses control of his car and kills five pedestrians, would you advocate for medical treatment or incarceration? If the treatment option lowered his chances of a subsequent event substantially, and he was also educated about warning signs and safety measures to take to mitigate future episodes, would you support his release from medical care?

Obviously there are significant categorical differences between the deGrood case, and the hypothetical one that you just described.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by peter12

Obviously there are significant categorical differences between the deGrood case, and the hypothetical one that you just described.

You could have just answered it.

A similar situation was presented before, but craftfully skirted by most of those that disagree with the notion of NCR

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by peter12

Obviously there are significant categorical differences between the deGrood case, and the hypothetical one that you just described.

Not entirely. You just have to adjust your definition of intent.

Man has a heart attack, doesn't really know what he's doing in any proper conscious sense, his car swerves and kills 5 people.

Man has an episode, doesn't really know what he's doing in any proper conscious sense, he mistakes 5 people for demons/werewolves/whatever and kills them.

It's not really that different at all if you understand the impact of his mental illness. If you brush it off however, of course the difference seems significant.

The main difference is the one person should never be able to drive again, while the other should never be able to live un-monitored again.

[Kybosh]

I can appreciate the perfectly natural human response to be hesitant that people such as this can be cured and should be released. For example, even if he were deemed cured and released back into society I still would not want him in my house or around my friends and family.

That being said, I believe most of these fears are primarily unfounded and even the most staunch critics of the release of these people should put their emotions aside and consider the science. Peter is making some points about the accuracy of psychiatric assessments and that's fine. I'd argue that we need to continue attempts to rehabilitate these people to better understand what causes the human mind to break down so dramatically. As with any other medical issue, maybe it will eventually be possible to take preventative measures as a result of the analysis and treatment of individuals such as De Grood. Locking someone away with no analysis or attempt to rehabilitate would be a total waste for society.

I'll also add that cases like this, the headline news story ones, are all we hear about but are such a statistically insignificant portion of the crimes committed by those determined to be NCR for their actions.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by T@T

OK, Lets do it this way.

Answer a simple question with Yes or No.(please answer honestly and no other comment)

If de Grood is deemed not criminally responsible due to a mental health problems would you support his release in 5 years if the doctors say he's cured?

Here's another yes or no question. Would you rather he be sentenced to 25 years, serve every last second of that time, and then be released without ever receiving any of the treatment he otherwise would if found NCR? Because most likely that is your alternative. Short of a dangerous offender designation, these people will be free one day with nothing but a hope that they take their pills.

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by peter12

I find the consensus-based group-think on Calgarypuck absolutely fascinating. The crowd decides what they think, and then, just becomes implacable. There is obviously room for discussion here.

I agree with you for sure. Totally fair game for debate.

Here's where I take issue:

I don't believe Matthew De Grood should be removed from society as a means of "punishment".

I am on board with Matthew De Grood being removed from society if he is deemed a "danger to society".

These are two very different things to me, and it has been argued by a few people that they would like him locked up as a means of punishment.

Why punish the person, and not the condition?

We have trained doctors who have studied this topic more than anyone participating in this conversation. If they deem De Grood to not be criminally responsible for his actions due to his illness taking over, I'm inclined to trust and respect the research.

IMO, it would be a shame to punish a person for their disease. The issue here is that I think many people can have trouble separating the actions caused by the disease vs. the human being. He did kill the 5 people. I get that. I get how that looks.

It would be better if it was more obvious to be linked to the illness. For example, if when the illness was triggered, De Grood was divided into two people, one who tries to kill, and the second person who is normal and visibly tries to stop the other person. And then when the episode ended, the killing version disappeared.

If that happened, it would be easy for us to clearly say, "the illness killed those 5 people and he tried to stop himself". But it isn't that easy to separate the events that transpired.

Anyways, maybe that makes more sense in my head and somebody could write a better example of my point, but that's how kind of how I see it.

At the end of the day, I would like to review past history for how these medications work, and how controllable and contained De Grood could be if given the proper remedy. If past history suggests that when controlled that these people can be rehabilitated back into society where the risk to the remainder of society is negligible, then I think there is middle ground.

We don't want to punish the person, but punish the illness. Don't let the illness and effects of the illness impact society any further. But we also don't want to punish a person that hasn't consciously done wrong.

[MBates]

Originally Posted by peter12

Mental illness is still, of course, very much stigmatized. The kernel of T&T's position - how reliable are these psychiatric assessments - is actually quite interesting.

It may be interesting, but instead of dealing with reality you float the suggestion that the Karla Homolka case is proof of something on this topic.

Anyone having actually dealt with these assessments knows that the testing regimens used by forensic psychiatrists all have components built into the tests to identify likely malingerers and fakers.

Interestingly, it is obvious from the DeGrood case that the Crown spent most of its time in cross-examination and during closing argument addressing this very issue. All three independent assessors tested for, considered, and then concluded it was unlikely DeGrood was faking.

So if this is such a worthy part of the debate, why not just quote the stats of how many people have avoided criminal responsibility by faking they had a mental illness?

[HarryH93]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I agree, let's just ban everyone that doesn't agree with the broader group. That way we don't have to put up with any challenging thoughts or ideas.

That wasn't my point, but okay.

There's nothing challenging about blaming religion for people suffering from schizophrenia, or denying the legitimacy of mental illness. That's just pure ignorance.

[Jason14h]

Would any of you let him babysit your children if he was found not criminally responsible due to a mental health problems if he started taking his medication?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Would any of you let him babysit your children if he was found not criminally responsible due to a mental health problems if he started taking his medication?

No, but how is that relevant to anything?

[Matt Reeeeead]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Would any of you let him babysit your children if he was found not criminally responsible due to a mental health problems if he started taking his medication?

Of course not.

Someone requiring this kind of treatment requires monitoring.

They should not be monitoring other people.

I would be stunned if anybody here thought this was a relevant scenario.

[Coach]

Is "they can babysit my children" the bar for being able to function properly in our society or something? It seems to get brought up every time these situations come up.

There are plenty of "normal" people I wouldn't even trust to babysit my dog, much less a human being.

[united]

Not responsible it is:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ents-1.3590276
Matthew de Grood's quintuple murder trial wrapped up Tuesday, with lawyers for the Crown and defence agreeing the Calgary man was in a psychotic state and unable to distinguish right from wrong when he stabbed five young people to death at a party in 2014.

"I agree the accused was suffering psychosis" Crown attorney Neil Wiberg said in his closing arguments.

"The Crown concedes he was incapable of knowing his acts were morally wrong."