de Grood to be transferred to hospital for assessment

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Sure thing. Right here in the article.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle33995562/

How courts deal with those who commit offences while suffering extreme mental illness has been thrust into the spotlight in recent days, with news that Will Baker – formerly known as Vince Li – was given an absolute discharge in the murder and mutilation of his seatmate on a Greyhound bus in 2008. The decision means Mr. Baker is living free in the community without any conditions or monitoring to ensure he continues taking medication for schizophrenia.

This part????

I believe Li said he would continue to be monitored as part of his choice for treatment. It was not a requirement.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Vince Li (now Will Baker) was granted an absolute discharge but was/is subject to nightly monitoring to ensure he took his medication.

Do not conflate absolute discharge in terms of a legal status that removes the individual from needing to go infront of the Review Board with no medical support. Those are two different aspects to a discharging an NCR patient.

And again, remember that these cases are extremely rare. Studies have shown people who declared NCR from violent offenses have far lower recidivism rates than those with lesser offenses.

Not entirely sure how making #### up (and presenting it as and pretending that it is truth) will further greater understanding of this issue.

[Snuffleupagus]

Serious question?

Is there another country in the world where you murder 5 people and get let out of an institution after 5 years?

James Holmes who killed 12 in a theater was also diagnosed with severe schizophrenia and he won't get out till he's 3500 years old, it's one of the rare times I agree with the USA

[Dion]

Originally Posted by zamler

This happened while being closely monitored.

He is trying to get an absolute discharge.

Given that he has had a relapse, he should not be granted an absolute discharge. Clearly more time is needed to make sure he doesn't suffer anymore relapses.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Dion

Given that he has had a relapse, he should not be granted an absolute discharge. Clearly more time is needed to make sure he doesn't suffer anymore relapses.

What if he didn't relapse and was released? See the problem?

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Serious question?

Is there another country in the world where you murder 5 people and get let out of an institution after 5 years?

James Holmes who killed 12 in a theater was also diagnosed with severe schizophrenia and he won't get out till he's 3500 years old, it's one of the rare times I agree with the USA

Depends where in the U.S. we're talking about. We're seeing now how some states are making it impossible to prosecute theft, it wouldn't surprise me if these locales are happy to release dangerous criminals.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Some of the posts in this thread really demonstrate how far we still have to go in terms of believing that mental illness can be and is a thing that is beyond control of the individual afflicted with it.

This isn't a comment on whether he should or shouldn't be released, but saying the honourable thing to do would be to kill yourself in a situation like this is pretty gross.

It's pretty sad.

Dinosaur-like thinking. Not everyone operates like you do, and has the same control of their faculties as you have.

It's not like these convicts are playing some elaborately planned trick on people with mental illness cover story in order to get away with a heinous crime.

And yet it's as if that's what some people are insinuating.

In the Boomer generation where mental illness had more stigma attached to it and was expected to be brushed under the rug or could be chalked up to nonsense, I suppose it makes sense that some people still can't grasp the idea that someone might not be criminally responsible because of their condition.

If roles were reversed and in a fugue state you didn't comprehend you did something terrible you don't recall, would you like people to tell you to off yourself, or would you plead for some understanding?

[Cole436]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Serious question?

Is there another country in the world where you murder 5 people and get let out of an institution after 5 years?

James Holmes who killed 12 in a theater was also diagnosed with severe schizophrenia and he won't get out till he's 3500 years old, it's one of the rare times I agree with the USA

Considering it was determined by law he legally murder anyone, this question isn’t relevant.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Cole436

Considering it was determined by law he legally murder anyone, this question isn’t relevant.

That's my point. our laws are dumb and soft, in the end they both still killed people and not by an accident, shooting a gun or stabbing people had the same ending.

James Holmes - diagnosed with severe schizophrenia
Court - tough break, hope meds help you... 3500 years in jail for mass murder.

de Grood - diagnosed with severe schizophrenia
Court - poor thing, mass murder be damned, lets get you help so you can rejoin society.

If this happened 60 years earlier he would have been hanged in Fort Saskatchewan and the family's would have had closure, now 9 years later they are tortured every day with him not being locked up.

[rubecube]

Nm

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Not entirely sure how making #### up (and presenting it as and pretending that it is truth) will further greater understanding of this issue.

Nope. Absolute Discharge doesn't mean he wouldn't have a Community Treatment Order issued by a psychiatrist or have psychiatric monitoring after being removed from needing to go before the Alberta Review Board. Not saying that's what de Grood would get, but technically these are not one and the same.

Either way, if he's back in hospital because after suffering a psychotic relapse, there's very little chance he can get an AD. Reintegration in the community would need to happen first and likely with a conditional discharge.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

It's not like these convicts are playing some elaborately planned trick on people with mental illness cover story in order to get away with a heinous crime.

And yet it's as if that's what some people are insinuating.

Who? Did I miss something? Haven’t seen this at all.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Nope. Absolute Discharge doesn't mean he wouldn't have a Community Treatment Order issued by a psychiatrist or have psychiatric monitoring after being removed from needing to go before the Alberta Review Board. Not saying that's what de Grood would get, but technically these are not one and the same.

Either way, if he's back in hospital because after suffering a psychotic relapse, there's very little chance he can get an AD. Reintegration in the community would need to happen first and likely with a conditional discharge.

Can you provide the legal basis for this process. It’s okay to admit you are wrong here. Also still waiting for evidence of your claim that LI had non voluntary monitoring.

Because in order to be on a CTO it requires the consent of the patient in most cases. Where consent is not required it’s in limited circumstances. Circumstances that just happen to be conditions that would prevent a person from getting an absolute discharge.

Is consent required for a CTO to be issued?
Yes. The person (if competent) or their substitute decision- maker (SDM) must give their consent for a CTO to be issued. Consent is outlined in Section 28 of the MHA.
Are there any exceptions to consent?
A person’s consent is not required for a CTO if the issuing physicians are of the opinion that the person:
• has a history of not obtaining/continuing with treatment or
care in the community that is necessary to prevent the
likelihood of harm to others; or
• is suffering negative effects, including substantial mental
or physical deterioration or serious physical impairment, as a result of or related to the mental disorder,
• the CTO is reasonable in the circumstances and less restrictive than retaining the person as a formal patient.

Which one one of the above conditions apply to a person who met the following requirements:

In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Winko,provided guidance on section 672.54 and ruled that if the accused does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, the court or Review Board must order an absolute discharge. This decision reflects the basic principle that the only rationale for using the state's criminal law power to impose restraints on an individual who has been found not criminally responsible for his or her actions is the need to secure the safety of the public.[4]

The Supreme Court of Canada further clarified in R. v. Winko that Section 672.54 does not create a presumption of dangerousness. In other words, while the protection of society is paramount, there must be clear evidence of a significant risk to the public before a court or Review Board can maintain control over an accused through the imposition of a conditional discharge or detention order.

From the Justice Canada link from before

https://www.albertahealthservices.ca...-infosheet.pdf

Essentially if a person meets the requirements of an absolute discharge they clearly do not meet the requirements for a non-voluntary CTO

Also would need to meet section 9.1 of the health act items a,b,c, AND d. (Spoiler Alert: one of the requirements is around risk of harm)

So this started when I said after he receives an absolute discharge there would be no mandatory requirement for compliance with medication. You then have said without evidence a bunch of things. When asked for a link to your claims you provided a link that directly refuted your claim. When challenged on that link you changed your argument to something else without any kind of link.

So do you have any reference case of a person who recieved an absolute discharge from an NCR being put on a non-voluntary CTO? Can you map us through a path where how you would meet the requirements of a non-voluntary CTO at the same moment as meeting the requirements for an absolute discharge?

Or perhaps you could drop this line of argumentation and make the argument that this person is of similar risk to any other random person on the street (it’s not quite that low) but that at least is a reasonable justification to support the no mandatory monitoring on an an NCR discharge.

Remember your original claim was

The first statement is clearly wrong
The second statement appears to be not legally possible

[Ozy_Flame]

CTOs can be involuntary. Also, you can't have a CTO issued, nor have have anti-psychotics prescribed, without a physician monitoring progress.

Sorry, there's pretty high chance that AD was given to Li because he was compliant with discharge procedures and willingly volunteered to continue psychiatric monitoring. If he didn't volunteer willingly, that would have played into the boards decision.

Once again, AD is not given with the expectation that the Mental Health Act can be ignored afterwards. It doesn't mean he doesn't follow up with medical monitoring.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

CTOs can be involuntary. Also, you can't have a CTO issued, nor have have anti-psychotics prescribed, without a physician monitoring progress.

Sorry, there's pretty high chance that AD was given to Li because he was compliant with discharge procedures and willingly volunteered to continue psychiatric monitoring. If he didn't volunteer willingly, that would have played into the boards decision.

Once again, AD is not given with the expectation that the Mental Health Act can be ignored afterwards. It doesn't mean he doesn't follow up with medical monitoring.

I outlined the conditions for a CTO to be involuntary. They happen to conflict with the conditions for an absolute discharge.

Provide any evidence that mandatory requirements for treatment can be placed as part of the absolute discharge.

What you are suggesting is that a set of psychiatrists will say he is safe and not a risk to the public as long as he is medicated and that he has a great history of maintaining his medication so is no longer a risk so grant an absolute discharge but also we are issuing a non-voluntary CTO because of having a history of not following his treatment plan meeting the requirements of 9.1 e) ii) A of the MHA

I also notice your post again lacks any reference to legislation or news or anything to suggest you are correct.

Again there is no legal requirement for any NCRd patient to continue with treatment as part of an absolute discharge. There is no non-voluntary CTO in place at time of an absolute discharge. You are misleading people.

[Ozy_Flame]

Nope. The decision to grant AD is based on a release plan between patient, psychiatrist and the Review Board. Part of that decision is based on the agreement to follow precautions and medical advice - as needed - to be released into the community without having to report to the Review Board. If the patient shows noncompliance or isn't in agreement, a conditional discharge with more control might be more appropriate instead.

You are treating the AD decision like it's a black or white test you either pass or fail. It's not like that whatsoever. It's a case and analysis review, and done collaboratively with medical staff and the patient.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Nope. The decision to grant AD is based on a release plan between patient, psychiatrist and the Review Board. Part of that decision is based on the agreement to follow precautions and medical advice - as needed - to be released into the community without having to report to the Review Board. If the patient shows noncompliance or isn't in agreement, a conditional discharge with more control might be more appropriate instead.

You are treating the AD decision like it's a black or white test you with pass or fail. It's not like that whatsoever. It's a case and analysis review, and done collaboratively with medical staff and the patient.

I’m not sure how you can start that sentence with NOPE.

You just stated that any CTO would be voluntary if one exists. Also there would be no requirement that a CTO continue past the moment of discharge. And you just stated that the CTO wouldn’t be a requirement of the absolute discharge instead you said a person likely wouldn’ get a discharge if the didn’t agree to ongoing treatment. That’s a significant difference in order of operations. Also still waiting for any evidence that LI had a non voluntary CTO as part of his discharge or a CTO at all or if he just chose to continue with monitoring like everyone while healthy would.

I agree that the person likely would maintain treatment. My arguement is there is no legal requirement to maintain treatment.

[Ozy_Flame]

You can't be issued a CTO - voluntary or involuntary - if a physician isn't monitoring your case. So reverse engineer this for a second - an absolute discharge does not disclude medical intervention when needed, which means that the discharge is granted provided the patent complies with ongoing medical monitoring where needed.

For the umpteenth time, an AD is not 'patient walks out and disappears into the aether." It's granted with a plan to continue compliance of psychiatric and medical assistance. It's not black and white, especially in high profile cases where that is taken into consideration from the Review Board.

Remember, the Review Board for Li included a lawyer, a psychiatrist and a member of the public. That decision to grant isn't made lightly and is done with absolute diligence to ensure the patient doesn't relapse.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

That's my point. our laws are dumb and soft, in the end they both still killed people and not by an accident, shooting a gun or stabbing people had the same ending.

James Holmes - diagnosed with severe schizophrenia
Court - tough break, hope meds help you... 3500 years in jail for mass murder.

de Grood - diagnosed with severe schizophrenia
Court - poor thing, mass murder be damned, lets get you help so you can rejoin society.

If this happened 60 years earlier he would have been hanged in Fort Saskatchewan and the family's would have had closure, now 9 years later they are tortured every day with him not being locked up.

It's about separating oneself from the visceral emotional reactions around injustice and vengeance and objectively recognizing the difference between a person committing a heinous crime in a sane state versus something unfortunate but on a similar level of freak misfortune as getting plowed off the road by a semi in poor conditions. The stars aligned in an awful way for those victims. But you have to differentiate between two very different things.

And thank god we've progressed since then.

De Grood should be consistently monitored and restricted for the public's safety, but from what i recall of the assessments of him, this isn't a case like others where there was actually criminal responsibility determined and they were given a sentence that didn't add up to the crimes.

Some of you and your lines of thinking frankly frighten me, and I'm glad you don't have any say on these matters.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You can't be issued a CTO - voluntary or involuntary - if a physician isn't monitoring your case. So reverse engineer this for a second - an absolute discharge does not disclude medical intervention when needed, which means that the discharge is granted provided the patent complies with ongoing medical monitoring where needed.

For the umpteenth time, an AD is not 'patient walks out and disappears into the aether." It's granted with a plan to continue compliance of psychiatric and medical assistance. It's not black and white, especially in high profile cases where that is taken into consideration from the Review Board.

Remember, the Review Board for Li included a lawyer, a psychiatrist and a member of the public. That decision to grant isn't made lightly and is done with absolute diligence to ensure the patient doesn't relapse.

Quit straw manning. No one thinks he is just dumped on the street with no medical support. Everyone agrees it’s granted with a plan. The disagreement is that the plan is non a Condition of the absolute discharge. If the person does not follow the plan there is to legal recourse under NCR legislation. It’s done. Secondly you have provide no evidence that the plan is a CTO in any cases. But even if a voluntary CTO once the conditions are met it can also be removed.

So let’s be really clear there is no legal requirement for continued monitoring of a patient as a part of an absolute discharge.

Allow me to make the argument you appear to be trying to make. As part of the treatment plan and in getting to the point a psychiatrist will make a recommendation to make an absolute discharge and not being at risk to society treatment plans will be developed and agreed to and the patient will be well supported in the community. Although there isn’t a mandatory legal requirement for continued monitoring these people when healthy choose to be monitored as any rational person would so if things are changing or medication isn’t working or there are other issues it will be caught and adjusted.

[Ozy_Flame]

Now you're getting it, son! Welcome!