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

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Your opinion on medication is not what I'm criticizing you about. You said schizophrenia isn't the problem and that the problem is childhood trauma. That's not correct. While there is absolutely a correlation between the two, the problem is most definitely schizophrenia no matter how the brain got there. But since you're the expert on medication, what is Li's medication? Do you have intimate knowledge of his meds and his response to them? What are his prescriptions? Or are your own observations limited to your own world?

Can confirm, childhood trauma is not the cause of Schizophrenia. I think Puddy has a correlation == causation problem.

so ya, if a psychiatrist is trying to solve childhood trauma issues with Schizophrenia meds it really would be random guesswork...

[Swift]

I've never really understood the concept of Not Criminally Responsible. I'm not 'frothing at the mouth' against it and I don't have strong principles on it, but something doesn't quite make sense to me, and I'd love if someone could make a case for it.

Here's a question (and I'm not comparing psychological issues with drugs before anyone makes that argument) - Why is Li, for example, NCR for a crime he committed while not being in the right frame of mind, but some guy hopped up on bath salts is held responsible? To me, they're both not in their right mind when committing the crime. Sure, you could argue that taking the drugs was a choice, whereas mental illness isn't, but in neither case was murder premeditated. Same goes for drunk driving.

If a physical body commits a crime, shouldn't that physical body serve the time regardless of what influence their brain was under at the time?

Kind of a devil's advocate position, but I'm curious why society draws the line it does.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Then congrats, you won!

He killed your loved one, you killed him, you get sent to jail for planning and committing a murder, further ruining your own life.

You sure showed him.

Nowhere in my posts did i say delivering justice would be killing someone. That has been read in here by others. Justice comes in many forms.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Corral

Nowhere in my posts did i say delivering justice would be killing someone. That has been read in here by others. Justice comes in many forms.

You gonna beat him up for a ten year sentence? Harrass him at work for five years? What do you have in mind exactly?

[Locke]

I always find the opinion of: 'do what the experts say' as though its some sort of actual thought to be interesting.

Its just an opinion much the same as 'we shouldnt let this face-eating monster out as theres a good chance he could eat someone's face' is an opinion.

Its not like 'experts' are ever wrong right?

Its not like its called an expert opinion for nothing right?

Like artificially low interest rates can never be bad and housing will never collapse and the earth is flat?

"Trust the experts" is just an abdication of original thought.

What did we do with the last face-eater? Cant do that anymore? I guess we'll just have to think this through then.

Come on guys, the opinions of the people who think he probably should never be released are at least as valid as the opinions of the people who shrug their shoulders and say 'the experts say he'll be fine.'

Its not like this is run-of-the-mill territory thats very cut and dry. Even 'the experts' seem out on a limb on this one.

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

You gonna beat him up for a ten year sentence? Harrass him at work for five years? What do you have in mind exactly?

So you are saying that he should kill him then for the lower jail sentence?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Locke

"Trust the experts" is just an abdication of original thought.

I don't think that's true. Is it even possible for anyone here to have original thoughts on the clinical pathology of schizophrenia? Like have you done the research, testing, generated any conclusions? Have you advanced the state of the art in psychiatry and medical research in the field? It's not an easy thing to have an original thought in this case so the smartest and best advice is to consult those who have.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Locke

I always find the opinion of: 'do what the experts say' as though its some sort of actual thought to be interesting.

Its just an opinion much the same as 'we shouldnt let this face-eating monster out as theres a good chance he could eat someone's face' is an opinion.

Its not like 'experts' are ever wrong right?

Its not like its called an expert opinion for nothing right?

Like artificially low interest rates can never be bad and housing will never collapse and the earth is flat?

"Trust the experts" is just an abdication of original thought.

What did we do with the last face-eater? Cant do that anymore? I guess we'll just have to think this through then.

Come on guys, the opinions of the people who think he probably should never be released are at least as valid as the opinions of the people who shrug their shoulders and say 'the experts say he'll be fine.'

Its not like this is run-of-the-mill territory thats very cut and dry. Even 'the experts' seem out on a limb on this one.

They are as worthy of expressing, but not necessarily as valid.

Generally, people who hold opinions consistently contrary to the experts are called "deniers."

Is denying climate change, evolution, or the holocaust equally valid as saying "the experts agree, those things exist"? I'm going to say 100% no.

I completely agree that an appeal to authority is basic and generally a sign of someone vacant of knowledge or lacking enough to actually put forth a compelling argument (it happens all the time here: "anyone who plays sports... I work in a vaguely related field... I took a course in university... my brother works as a delivery driver ... so I know best!"). The problem with it, though, is the validity of that authority.

In this situation, it's very reasonable to say "let's trust those who have been working with Li for the past several years, who have the education, work experience, clinical background to form an educated opinion" then it is to say "we can never know!"

Sure, WE can never know. But someone knows more than us, and that's worth trusting sometimes.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I don't think that's true. Is it even possible for anyone here to have original thoughts on the clinical pathology of schizophrenia? Like have you done the research, testing, generated any conclusions? Have you advanced the state of the art in psychiatry and medical research in the field? It's not an easy thing to have an original thought in this case so the smartest and best advice is to consult those who have.

Oh, I think you have to be heavily skeptical of psychiatric diagnoses.

The Rosenhan experiment was a famous experiment done in order to determine the validity of psychiatric diagnosis, conducted by psychologist David Rosenhan, a Stanford University professor, and published by the journal Science in 1973 under the title "On being sane in insane places".[1][2] The study is considered an important and influential criticism of psychiatric diagnosis.[3] It was while listening to one of R. D. Laing's lectures that Rosenhan wondered if there was a way in which the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses could be tested experimentally.[4]

Rosenhan's study was done in two parts. The first part involved the use of healthy associates or "pseudopatients" (three women and five men, including Rosenhan himself) who briefly feigned auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different states in various locations in the United States. All were admitted and diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. After admission, the pseudopatients acted normally and told staff that they felt fine and had no longer experienced any additional hallucinations. All were forced to admit to having a mental illness and agree to take antipsychotic drugs as a condition of their release. The average time that the patients spent in the hospital was 19 days. All but one were diagnosed with schizophrenia "in remission" before their release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

And even further, the 'Psychopath Test' devised by a Canadian Dr. Hare is widely considered by current psychiatrists to be complete tripe.

But it was Gospel for decades.

So here you have a medical path that has a track history of throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks and then teaching that as immutable fact.

Now, in situations with most mental health issues where there are countless people afflicted and Doctors working with them all over the world with a whole variety and range of experience and education, sure, I'll agree with the experts on the vast majority of things.

But on something this serious that is something more or less brand new? Do you think this group with their track record are people to be trusted implicitly and without question?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

I've never really understood the concept of Not Criminally Responsible. I'm not 'frothing at the mouth' against it and I don't have strong principles on it, but something doesn't quite make sense to me, and I'd love if someone could make a case for it.

Here's a question (and I'm not comparing psychological issues with drugs before anyone makes that argument) - Why is Li, for example, NCR for a crime he committed while not being in the right frame of mind, but some guy hopped up on bath salts is held responsible? To me, they're both not in their right mind when committing the crime. Sure, you could argue that taking the drugs was a choice, whereas mental illness isn't, but in neither case was murder premeditated. Same goes for drunk driving.

If a physical body commits a crime, shouldn't that physical body serve the time regardless of what influence their brain was under at the time?

Kind of a devil's advocate position, but I'm curious why society draws the line it does.

That's it right there

[Swift]

Right, but when someone takes drugs, they don't do it with the intention of committing a crime.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Locke

Come on guys, the opinions of the people who think he probably should never be released are at least as valid as the opinions of the people who shrug their shoulders and say 'the experts say he'll be fine.'

Do you take the same stance on climate change?

Is a climate change deniers opinion just as valid as someone who defers their opinion to the expert opinion?

No, a random person's opinion is never as valid as the experts in the field. This will not be one kook doctor coming up with the decision. It will be doctors, psychiatrist and case workers who have dealt with Mr. Li for the last nine years. They will be presenting evidence to a board comprised of highly educated people in this field. Now, if there was someone who had evidence to argue against Li's release - as relates to him presenting a danger to society - what is it? Feelings? Oh great.

Maybe more importantly, it's Canada. A nation who's justice system basis, and really entire society, is tied to the basic belief that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Of course we've already established that Li was not guilty of his actions, so it became rather an argument on if he was a continued threat to society. We need to prove that he still is, or we need to allow him the right to try and recuperate his life when he has shown to no longer be a threat.

I mean it's also been 9 years, even rehabilitated criminals with second-degree murder convictions are eligible for parole in Canada in 10. Of course he hasn't been locked up this entire time, but it's not like he got off scot free even if he is released unconditionally.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Cameron Swift

Right, but when someone takes drugs, they don't do it with the intention of committing a crime.

Doesn't matter, they engage in actions that could reasonably be forseen to end badly, I should point out if you get drunk or high and kill someone you will probably be charged with manslaughter, not murder but the point still stands, you are responsible for your behaviour when high.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Do you take the same stance on climate change?

Is a climate change deniers opinion just as valid as someone who defers their opinion to the expert opinion?

No, a random person's opinion is never as valid as the experts in the field. This will not be one kook doctor coming up with the decision. It will be doctors, psychiatrist and case workers who have dealt with Mr. Li for the last nine years. They will be presenting evidence to a board comprised of highly educated people in this field. Now, if there was someone who had evidence to argue against Li's release - as relates to him presenting a danger to society - what is it? Feelings? Oh great.

Oh sure, all I'm saying though is that the Psychiatric profession is rife with Groupthink.

They can have their opinion and keep it to themselves.

Then send him somewhere else, completely unrelated, offer them the same access and opportunity and if their opinions match exactly then thats all you have to do to convince me.

[FlamesAddiction]

Just to play devil's advocate a little, couldn't you say that not taking drugs (i.e., prescribed medication) is also a choice? If someone knows they have a disease that makes them prone to a psychotic breakdown and makes a lucid decision while medicated to stop taking medication; wouldn't there be some responsibility they should bear? I won't put it up there with drinking and driving, but the "ought to have known" aspect is difficult to ignore.

I know two schizophrenic people and both of them have at times, purposely stopped taking medication because of side-effects. I know that there is individual variation and even while medicated, some people still experience strong symptoms so the decision might not be all that lucid for everyone that makes that choice.

I guess it's obviously complicated, which again is why we have to default to experts.

[Puddy27]

Originally Posted by Swarly

Can confirm, childhood trauma is not the cause of Schizophrenia. I think Puddy has a correlation == causation problem.

so ya, if a psychiatrist is trying to solve childhood trauma issues with Schizophrenia meds it really would be random guesswork...

You guys have some reading comprehension problems it seems. I did not state schizophrenia IS caused by childhood trauma. I said usually there had been some underlying affect of childhood trauma. Not the same thing.
Only therapy solves issues at the core. Not antipsychotic medication or schizophrenia medication as you state it. It's still all guess work by trial and error. Even with all of the blood testing that the people taking these medications are subjected to there is no defined levels of serotonin or other chemicals of the brain that can be accurately measured before or after medications.

You prescribe meds and see if it helps or doesn't help. Then they play with the levels. Then if there is no improvement they try other medications and go from there and the cycle goes like that but you guys obviously know all of this already so I'll just bow out now.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Locke

Then send him somewhere else, completely unrelated, offer them the same access and opportunity and if their opinions match exactly then thats all you have to do to convince me.

So you would be deferring your opinion to experts....gotcha.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So you would be deferring your opinion to experts....gotcha.

Absolutely. The key being plural. It's not an exact science. And independent, meaning not a single institutional fellowship, to remove any potential of bias. Exactly like a second opinion from an independent medical doctor.
Get exactly the same opinion, and there you go.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So you would be deferring your opinion to experts....gotcha.

Peer review without bias or undue influence.

And I never indicated that my own personal opinion would differ much from the experts' so long as I was confident in the method in which they arrived at that opinion because, as I also indicated, the mental health profession has created its own stigma of unreliability.

What I did indicate is that the experts are also blindly navigating through this particular forest and to not implicitly trust them without question.

The people who feel he should never be released arent crazy emotional crackpots...well, some of them might be....but they probably have similar levels of experience in the schizophrenic 'face-eating' arena as the 'experts.'

I for one think they should have him sentenced by a jury of his peers.

They'd need to televise that.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Absolutely. The key being plural. It's not an exact science. And independent, meaning not a single institutional fellowship, to remove any potential of bias. Exactly like a second opinion from an independent medical doctor.
Get exactly the same opinion, and there you go.

So Locke's opinion that deferring to experts is not valid...unless it's under a different set of arbitrary conditions that he set up.

Ignoring the fact that I can assure you Mr. Li has been evaluated by multiple professionals, why is there a belief that being evaluated by only one institute is invalid? Why would it require two? Or why not three? Has Locke or you have any proof to support the fact that the Manitoba Criminal Review Board has been deficient with its current policy and that a second independent review is necessary? Any at all?

I mean, imagine if it took two trials of being proclaimed innocent with two separate independent experts testifying on your behave. What a travesty of injustice that would be. Fortunately it's not required.

Again, present some evidence other than "feelings" or the need for punishment as to why Li should remain locked up indefinitely, or else I think deferring to the experts is the most obvious solution. And anecdotal, but Li will probably not be granted unconditional release this time, he'll get it next year if everything goes well which just coincidentally lines up with the 10 year parole eligibility of second-degree murder.