de Grood to be transferred to hospital for assessment

[Makarov]

Just to also clarify: these decisions are not made by psychiatrists alone (although they do play a large role). Decisions are made by specialized tribunals (such as Ontario Review Board) which hold hearings prior to making any such decisions. The Crown, the affected person, and the forensic mental health facility treating the affected person are all parties with an opportunity to adduce evidence, make submissions, etc.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by bigtmac19

I'm curious what information there is regarding what behaviours he was exhibiting in the months before his break. Do we actually know? Were there any obvious signs? I can only imagine that schizophrenia must manifest in so many different ways. If I was his family, it would haunt me forever that I missed signs and could have gotten him help before this happened.

I think it was a fairly typical scenario before the attack. I'm sure he posted weird stuff on FB, acted strangely around his friends and at work. There were reports of his parents receiving weird texts and trying very hard to track him down.



But this is common when it comes to almost all health care. People have heart attacks right in front of us and we give them some soup and tell them to have a nap. We do not know enough to take a the leap from our friend is feeling kind of down, to our friend is really very dangerously ill with something that could end up in multiple tragic deaths.



If someone's femur is sticking out of their leg we all know to take them to the hospital. But there are thousands of more serious conditions we haven't the foggiest notion of. When we talk of mental healthcare it involves everyone, not just those with an illness.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don’t know if it’s similar to schizophrenia or not but saying that the consequence will ensure compliance is not correct.

In the Edmonton Journal article they state that Voluntary Compliance for medication taking is not the most effective method of ensuring compliance.

For me the line on the NCR cases is that they should have mandatory supervised medication consumption for the rest of their life. I think that would be a reasonable balance between personal liberty and public safety

Couldn't agree more. It's not at all unreasonable to ask and shouldn't really be up for debate considering the horrific nature of this NCR case with de Grood.

Compliance can easily be offset by any number of stresses average people have in their lives, let alone what he is certain to face with not only the remorse factor weighing heavily, but also the fact he will be up against some seriously tough public opinions.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

This debate has been going on with CP for awhile.

At the end of the day, it can be summed up like this:

Do you believe our justice system is for rehabilitation?

Do you believe our justice system is for punishment/ deterrence?

The end.

Another classic Calgarypuck NCR vs lock-'em-up forever thread. The same usual posters arguing the same ol' arguments. Both sides bicker back and forth to no avail. Eventually MBates comes in to give his piece, garnering dozens of 'thanks'. Cooler heads prevail and eventually the thread fizzles out.

Recycle and repeat a month or 2 later.



Can't wait to see the next iteration!

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Corral

The brutality of his killings and the fact he needs meds to be stable should be enough to keep him institutionalized for life.

Ya, mental illness or not there should be some kind of line that determines a person is permanently unfit for society, and killing 5 people should go far beyond that line. What benefit is there in having this guy walking around freely? Any positive effect he might have on society in the future will never make a dent in the debt that he's already incurred. Stick him in a long term care facility under constant supervision, force feed him the meds, and let him live out the rest of his shallow existence. We gain nothing with having him free, and only incur the risk of another violent episode no matter how small

[powderjunkie]

Experts don't actually 'know' very much, their theories are just a lot less dumb than previous generations were. This applies to all fields to varying degrees, but I'd argue it is especially true in the intangible world of the psyche.

At various times, the leading medical experts have scoffed at the concept of hand-washing, prescribed smoking to treat sore throats, provided interesting diagnoses and treatments for 'female hysteria', and used [what we now consider to be] primitive electro shock therapy as a blanket treatment for most mental issues. Of course, ECT is far more refined now and very helpful in the right conditions.

The 'God Complex' is a very real thing in medicine...IMO it is actually often well earned - doctors perform 'miracles' every single day. Rehabilitating a human being who was once a homicidal maniac back to a relatively 'normal' person is miraculous.

All that said, I think this may be one of the situations where professional hubris may miss the forest for the trees. We are talking about tiny, tiny sample sizes here. What are the odds of having a murderous schizophrenic episode? 1 in 10M? 100M? Considering the relatively short history of effective treatment, I can't imagine we have a sufficient sample size to really know the odds of relapse. I'm also guessing that the leading experts aren't yet certain why some schizophrenics are so violent compared to others.


I think it is an admirable goal to return these people as close to a reasonably 'normal' life as possible, but IMO unconditional release is not reasonable (I know we aren't at that point yet in this case). I'm not exactly sure what the final set of incrementally less intrusive conditions should be set, but I think it's somewhere around a blood/piss test every 7-14 days to verify continuity of meds, with results monitored by a small group of doctors and centralized law enforcement. Taking a new name in a new community is totally fine, nobody local needs to know anything as long as this final safety net is in place. I don't care much about logistics and costs - ideally the patient/their family pays for it in the long run, but I don't think it is an insurmountable challenge (especially compared to the cost of lifetime institutionalization).

Putting myself in MdG's shoes, knowing that the voices were strong enough to prevent me from seeking care before with disastrous results, I would want some semblance of a safety net in place. Being 'forced to remember' every now and then when you pop a vial in the mail seems to me a better price to pay than worrying about whether you might one day forget. There are tons of completely innocent victims in this world carrying heavy burdens with them that impair their lives, I don't think it's unreasonable for MdG to follow a condition or two in perpetuity. It's impossible to put myself in the victims' families' shoes, and I think it's fair to say that there is simply no such thing as 'justice' in this case, but I imagine one could come closer to acceptance of reintegration with permanent conditions.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by GGG

We don’t have victims decide punishments or treatment for this very reason. Emotion should not be the driving factor in law making.

There is this thing called victim impact statements in criminal sentencing, used by the court to assess appropriate penalties. So you are not correct on this.

I suppose my point is they should have influence here as well. Sure he was found not guilty BUT nobody here is suggesting he isn’t a risk to kill again. Forgets his meds and look out. That and a victim impact statement means institutional for life in my view

[Resolute 14]

lol, Corral. He is absolutely correct on this. Victim impact statements are something the judge will consider in sentencing, yes. But at no point to the victims themselves decide punishment.

[bigtmac19]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think it was a fairly typical scenario before the attack. I'm sure he posted weird stuff on FB, acted strangely around his friends and at work. There were reports of his parents receiving weird texts and trying very hard to track him down.



But this is common when it comes to almost all health care. People have heart attacks right in front of us and we give them some soup and tell them to have a nap. We do not know enough to take a the leap from our friend is feeling kind of down, to our friend is really very dangerously ill with something that could end up in multiple tragic deaths.



If someone's femur is sticking out of their leg we all know to take them to the hospital. But there are thousands of more serious conditions we haven't the foggiest notion of. When we talk of mental healthcare it involves everyone, not just those with an illness.

All very true.

I do remember reading that the strange texts only happened shortly before he went to the house party, the parents were trying to track him down but it was already too late. Those texts must have been alarming enough that they knew something was very wrong right then. I don't know if we ever learned anything about the days and weeks preceding that day though. As a parent it's terrifying to me that I could miss something this serious happening to my child.

[Ozy_Flame]

Victims are not judges. As painful as their experiences may be, they are not a neutral third-party to oversee the entire case for all the facts on the table and make a balanced decision. Judges are supposed to be operating in this manner.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Only a guilty person can be sentenced for his crimes. This is our justice system, the biggest reason why Canada is a great country.

An innocent person who's assessed as a significant threat should continue to have the conditions and measurements put in place as recommended by his doctors (and approved by the Board).

An innocent person assessed as a minimal risk should be free to do as any other innocent person should.

Start blurring those lines and making innocent people face guilty sentences, low-risk people be held to the same standards as high-risk people and you're eroding the foundation of our justice system. Doing so under the guise of safety, emotional impacts or the bloodlust some apparently have does more harm to society than de Grood would.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by bigtmac19

All very true.

I do remember reading that the strange texts only happened shortly before he went to the house party, the parents were trying to track him down but it was already too late. Those texts must have been alarming enough that they knew something was very wrong right then. I don't know if we ever learned anything about the days and weeks preceding that day though. As a parent it's terrifying to me that I could miss something this serious happening to my child.

An interesting Vice article by a friend of De Grood's...


https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/b...-him-a-monster

Despite numerous professionals reassuring me that there were few symptoms to notice preceding the event, and little that could be done during, there is an insatiable guilt—the "what ifs," which cannot be avoided

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Ya, mental illness or not there should be some kind of line that determines a person is permanently unfit for society, and killing 5 people should go far beyond that line. What benefit is there in having this guy walking around freely? Any positive effect he might have on society in the future will never make a dent in the debt that he's already incurred. Stick him in a long term care facility under constant supervision, force feed him the meds, and let him live out the rest of his shallow existence. We gain nothing with having him free, and only incur the risk of another violent episode no matter how small

I’d this your view on the Humboldt Bus Driver?

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Ya, mental illness or not there should be some kind of line that determines a person is permanently unfit for society, and killing 5 people should go far beyond that line. What benefit is there in having this guy walking around freely? Any positive effect he might have on society in the future will never make a dent in the debt that he's already incurred. Stick him in a long term care facility under constant supervision, force feed him the meds, and let him live out the rest of his shallow existence. We gain nothing with having him free, and only incur the risk of another violent episode no matter how small

A medicated de Grood is less likely to have a violent psychotic episode than you or I. If this risk is geniunely unacceptable to you, then we should all be locked up as you describe.

I don't know de Grood's medication plan but some anti-psychotics are dosed monthly via injection (performed by doctor), meaning there is no way for him to choose to not take his medication.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

A medicated de Grood is less likely to have a violent psychotic episode than you or I. If this risk is geniunely unacceptable to you, then we should all be locked up as you describe.

I don't know de Grood's medication plan but some anti-psychotics are dosed monthly via injection (performed by doctor), meaning there is no way for him to choose to not take his medication.

I've seen this posted before, but logically it doesn't track. Do you have a link?

I've never killed anyone, he already has 5 kills to his credit. Why does medication get his odds to below mine?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

I've seen this posted before, but logically it doesn't track. Do you have a link?

I've never killed anyone, he already has 5 kills to his credit. Why does medication get his odds to below mine?

de Grood has diagnosed schizophrenia, and the right medication, treatment plan, and doctors monitoring his progress.

I don't know your situation, but it goes back to my earlier post - you, or anyone else, may have untreated schizophrenia or similar ailment you don't know about, and it may be untreated.

So while you can worry about the de Groods of the world, keep in mind that he is now being managed in the healthcare system, while many undiagnosed people with mental health issues are not.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

I've seen this posted before, but logically it doesn't track. Do you have a link?

I've never killed anyone, he already has 5 kills to his credit. Why does medication get his odds to below mine?

I would have to dig for a link, I read it in print. Logically I can get there, though - You and I are not on anti-psychotics, so naturally we would have a higher probability of having a psychotic episode than someone who is medicated.

Edit: (I am assuming you are not on anti-psychotics for purposes of the example, not trying to single you out if you are/aren't on medication)

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

I've seen this posted before, but logically it doesn't track. Do you have a link?

I've never killed anyone, he already has 5 kills to his credit. Why does medication get his odds to below mine?

The logic would be that a random person as a 1 in 1 million chance or so of being an untreated paranoid schizophrenic whereas DeGrood is a treated paranoid Schizophrenic. The caveat always is a Medicated DeGrood which doesn’t factor in the risk of ceasing taking meds

I posted the stats in one of these threads that the general recidivism rate for NCR defences is significantly lower than the criminal population but also still above the general population. So without the Medicated caveat the statement is certainly false.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Recidivism rate where NCR patients re-commits a violent offense is 0.6% in Canada.

Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health was in the news this summer for having one patient flee the country back to his home-country and another breaching his privileges and leaving the facility to go rob a place. The latter would be part of the 0.6%, but it should be noted that if he had simply been found guilty of his second-degree murder he would likely have been out anyways as he had spent a decade+ in the CAMH, and more importantly no one was killed in the robbery.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

I've seen this posted before, but logically it doesn't track. Do you have a link?

I've never killed anyone, he already has 5 kills to his credit. Why does medication get his odds to below mine?

You posted this recently, which significantly increases the likelihood that you are a sociopath:

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

..., agree with peter12.