So in your mind is there any difference between murder and manslaughter? Because my understanding is that murder requires intent. And how can you have any intent if you have an illness? Like I said to me it is no different than if someone gets into a car accident and kills someone because they have an illness. We don't charge them with murder either.
In your mind we should tell the McLean's that they should suck it up because accidents happen?
why go that route?
You mean I should entertain an outlandish comparison between an automobile accident and a gruesome murder that extended into mutilation and cannibalism without spinning the table back the other way?
My response was fair given the context offered to make a point.
You mean I should entertain an outlandish comparison between an automobile accident and a gruesome murder that extended into mutilation and cannibalism without spinning the table back the other way?
My response was fair given the context offered to make a point.
you can disagree with anything you wish. but try exercising a little respect when doing so.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You mean I should entertain an outlandish comparison between an automobile accident and a gruesome murder that extended into mutilation and cannibalism without spinning the table back the other way?
My response was fair given the context offered to make a point.
you can disagree with anything you wish. but try exercising a little respect when doing so.
The comment that was made to me prefaced with, in your mind. I responded in kind. I'm not sure how you are reading that as disrespectful?
The Greyhound case isn't as unique as one might think:
Some guy attacks another guy with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. A couple days after that attack, he kills a boarder from his house and eats body parts.
At least in the baseball bat attack, doctors say he can't be held criminally responsible because he was hearing voices and scared of aliens. He's a paranoid schizophrenic. If these acts were not crimes, I guess they were just accidents then? What else would you call them?
The victims aren't ill. One is scared and the other is just dead and partially digested. These victims and their loved ones would probably argue that there actually were crimes that occurred, but their needs are seemingly the least of our concerns and ultimately insignificant- although some would say this is an exaggeration.
The Greyhound case isn't as unique as one might think:
Some guy attacks another guy with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. A couple days after that attack, he kills a boarder from his house and eats body parts.
At least in the baseball bat attack, doctors say he can't be held criminally responsible because he was hearing voices and scared of aliens. He's a paranoid schizophrenic. If these acts were not crimes, I guess they were just accidents then? What else would you call them?
The victims aren't ill. One is scared and the other is just dead and partially digested. These victims and their loved ones would probably argue that there actually were crimes that occurred, but their needs are seemingly the least of our concerns and ultimately insignificant- although some would say this is an exaggeration.
The Greyhound case isn't as unique as one might think:
Some guy attacks another guy with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. A couple days after that attack, he kills a boarder from his house and eats body parts.
At least in the baseball bat attack, doctors say he can't be held criminally responsible because he was hearing voices and scared of aliens. He's a paranoid schizophrenic. If these acts were not crimes, I guess they were just accidents then? What else would you call them?
The victims aren't ill. One is scared and the other is just dead and partially digested. These victims and their loved ones would probably argue that there actually were crimes that occurred, but their needs are seemingly the least of our concerns and ultimately insignificant- although some would say this is an exaggeration.
crimes WERE committed. But the perps just can't be held criminally responsible.
So this is what I'm kind of getting at: can there actually be a crime if there is no criminal? Wouldn't these scenarios be more appropriately called 'mishaps' or 'accidents' given how we view the perpetrator?
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,912
The Greyhound case isn't as unique as one might think:
Some guy attacks another guy with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. A couple days after that attack, he kills a boarder from his house and eats body parts.
At least in the baseball bat attack, doctors say he can't be held criminally responsible because he was hearing voices and scared of aliens. He's a paranoid schizophrenic. If these acts were not crimes, I guess they were just accidents then? What else would you call them?
The victims aren't ill. One is scared and the other is just dead and partially digested. These victims and their loved ones would probably argue that there actually were crimes that occurred, but their needs are seemingly the least of our concerns and ultimately insignificant- although some would say this is an exaggeration.
crimes WERE committed. But the perps just can't be held criminally responsible.
So this is what I'm kind of getting at: can there actually be a crime if there is no criminal? Wouldn't these scenarios be more appropriately called 'mishaps' or 'accidents' given how we view the perpetrator?
well, if they end up getting some kind of help to live some sort of sane life in treatment then I think it means they are in fact held accountable just not in a way that others are.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So this is what I'm kind of getting at: can there actually be a crime if there is no criminal? Wouldn't these scenarios be more appropriately called 'mishaps' or 'accidents' given how we view the perpetrator?
well, if they end up getting some kind of help to live some sort of sane life in treatment then I think it means they are in fact held accountable just not in a way that others are.
I hear what you are saying. I realize there is a level of accountability demonstrated, but I'm speaking to the 'acts'. Are the dead 'victims of circumstances' or are they 'victims of a crime'? I think they would suggest the latter, but the courts seem to suggest the former?
By ruling that these two cannibals are not criminals they are essentially saying that no crime was committed as we move up the ladder of inference. How can these situations be called a crime without a criminal at the core of them?
I hear what you are saying. I realize there is a level of accountability demonstrated, but I'm speaking to the 'acts'. Are the dead 'victims of circumstances' or are they 'victims of a crime'? I think they would suggest the latter, but the courts seem to suggest the former?
By ruling that these two cannibals are not criminals they are essentially saying that no crime was committed as we move up the ladder of inference. How can these situations be called a crime without a criminal at the core of them?
so by your reasoning that if there is no criminal by your definition then there is no crime, if someone is raped and the rapist is never caught and/or never convicted, that person was never raped?
that is preposterous. a crime is an event. a criminal is defined by TWO things: as the person who is found guilty of perpetrating the act AND the person was able to determine right from wrong during said act.
eliminating the criminal from the equation does not by rule negate the crime itself.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I hear what you are saying. I realize there is a level of accountability demonstrated, but I'm speaking to the 'acts'. Are the dead 'victims of circumstances' or are they 'victims of a crime'? I think they would suggest the latter, but the courts seem to suggest the former?
By ruling that these two cannibals are not criminals they are essentially saying that no crime was committed as we move up the ladder of inference. How can these situations be called a crime without a criminal at the core of them?
so by your reasoning that if there is no criminal by your definition then there is no crime, if someone is raped and the rapist is never caught and/or never convicted, that person was never raped?
that is preposterous. a crime is an event. a criminal is defined by TWO things: as the person who is found guilty of perpetrating the act AND the person was able to determine right from wrong during said act.
eliminating the criminal from the equation does not by rule negate the crime itself.
Your first scenario makes no absolutely no sense to the context of the discussion and tells me you have missed the point miserably. To my way of thinking... if a rape has occurred and the rapist has not been caught... there has been a crime and a criminal has not been apprehended. In these two 'cannibal' situations... a person has been caught, but they have been deemed not criminally responsible for the act: rendering the event as an unfortunate event, but not a crime. For something to be a crime, the event must be perpetrated by a criminal.
You have tried to say otherwise with a couple of pretty fancy definitions, but Merriam-Webster's definitions of a criminal are not quite in line with yours and tend to support what I am saying:
1. one who has committed a crime and 2. a person who has been convicted of a crime
So, as for your assertion that my line of reasoning is preposterous... I would suggest that this would be only to your way of thinking. My reasoning is solid and if you cannot follow my line of logic then that is your problem. If we are not holding anyone criminally accountable for an event then one can suggest there has been no crime. Therefore, these 'events' we are growing accustomed can be more accurately described as accidents: unfortunate events where a guy happens to cross paths with a mentally unstable person who decides to mutilate them.
With the aforementioned said... I call bullshit, once again. I'm all for helping those who need help; however, once they cross the line and commit a grievous crime... then they are now a criminal and I don't give a shit what has made them do it (voices, paranoia, momentary lapse of reason, temporary insanity, bout of jealous rage, or whatever).
Your first scenario makes no absolutely no sense to the context of the discussion and tells me you have missed the point miserably. To my way of thinking... if a rape has occurred and the rapist has not been caught... there has been a crime and a criminal has not been apprehended. In these two 'cannibal' situations... a person has been caught, but they have been deemed not criminally responsible for the act: rendering the event as an unfortunate event, but not a crime. For something to be a crime, the event must be perpetrated by a criminal.
You have tried to say otherwise with a couple of pretty fancy definitions, but Merriam-Webster's definitions of a criminal are not quite in line with yours and tend to support what I am saying:
1. one who has committed a crime and 2. a person who has been convicted of a crime
So, as for your assertion that my line of reasoning is preposterous... I would suggest that this would be only to your way of thinking. My reasoning is solid and if you cannot follow my line of logic then that is your problem. If we are not holding anyone criminally accountable for an event then one can suggest there has been no crime. Therefore, these 'events' we are growing accustomed can be more accurately described as accidents: unfortunate events where a guy happens to cross paths with a mentally unstable person who decides to mutilate them.
With the aforementioned said... I call bullshit, once again. I'm all for helping those who need help; however, once they cross the line and commit a grievous crime... then they are now a criminal and I don't give a shit what has made them do it (voices, paranoia, momentary lapse of reason, temporary insanity, bout of jealous rage, or whatever).
"if there is no criminal there is no crime, just an unfortunate event". yeah, and MY reasoning is flawed. saying your reasoning is solid doesn't make it so, my friend.
what I actually said was "if the rapist is never convicted", which is the same as no one being held accountable for a crime, thereby stating the same as you, that therefore the rape was not a crime, it was a mere happenstance. and to me, that is preposterous.
you're just using silly reasoning to get your point across, that holding someone not criminally responsible somehow diminishes the plight of the victim, which is debatable at best.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
it's kinda funny to me that you are using the old "if a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?" to make your case that a mentally ill person needs to be locked away in prison with rapists and child molesters.
laughable.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
With the aforementioned said... I call bullshit, once again. I'm all for helping those who need help; however, once they cross the line and commit a grievous crime... then they are now a criminal and I don't give a shit what has made them do it (voices, paranoia, momentary lapse of reason, temporary insanity, bout of jealous rage, or whatever).
and you can't say you are for those who need help, and then say "except....". That's like going to a cancer fundraiser and saying "oh, but I won't give money to anyone with stage 4". that's not being "all for helping" anything or anyone.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Your first scenario makes no absolutely no sense to the context of the discussion and tells me you have missed the point miserably. To my way of thinking... if a rape has occurred and the rapist has not been caught... there has been a crime and a criminal has not been apprehended. In these two 'cannibal' situations... a person has been caught, but they have been deemed not criminally responsible for the act: rendering the event as an unfortunate event, but not a crime. For something to be a crime, the event must be perpetrated by a criminal.
You have tried to say otherwise with a couple of pretty fancy definitions, but Merriam-Webster's definitions of a criminal are not quite in line with yours and tend to support what I am saying:
1. one who has committed a crime and 2. a person who has been convicted of a crime
So, as for your assertion that my line of reasoning is preposterous... I would suggest that this would be only to your way of thinking. My reasoning is solid and if you cannot follow my line of logic then that is your problem. If we are not holding anyone criminally accountable for an event then one can suggest there has been no crime. Therefore, these 'events' we are growing accustomed can be more accurately described as accidents: unfortunate events where a guy happens to cross paths with a mentally unstable person who decides to mutilate them.
With the aforementioned said... I call bullshit, once again. I'm all for helping those who need help; however, once they cross the line and commit a grievous crime... then they are now a criminal and I don't give a shit what has made them do it (voices, paranoia, momentary lapse of reason, temporary insanity, bout of jealous rage, or whatever).
"if there is no criminal there is no crime, just an unfortunate event". yeah, and MY reasoning is flawed. saying your reasoning is solid doesn't make it so, my friend.
what I actually said was "if the rapist is never convicted", which is the same as no one being held accountable for a crime, thereby stating the same as you, that therefore the rape was not a crime, it was a mere happenstance. and to me, that is preposterous.
you're just using silly reasoning to get your point across, that holding someone not criminally responsible somehow diminishes the plight of the victim, which is debatable at best.
You actually said, "if someone is raped and the rapist is never caught and/or never convicted, that person was never raped?" So... my original point stands. To the second part which I never initially addressed: if the person was not convicted... then that would mean there was no crime/rape committed according to our legal system's processes. The accused would have been found innocent of the charges.
It is not a stretch to suggest the victim and the survivors find issues with forgiving sentences that find people not criminally responsible for the violent acts perpetrated against them or their loved ones.
With the aforementioned said... I call bullshit, once again. I'm all for helping those who need help; however, once they cross the line and commit a grievous crime... then they are now a criminal and I don't give a shit what has made them do it (voices, paranoia, momentary lapse of reason, temporary insanity, bout of jealous rage, or whatever).
and you can't say you are for those who need help, and then say "except....". That's like going to a cancer fundraiser and saying "oh, but I won't give money to anyone with stage 4". that's not being "all for helping" anything or anyone.
Not quite. Not at all in fact. Using the example you present to me... it would be like going to a cancer fundraiser and saying, "Please don't use any of my money on the deceased- they're past the point of any relief or help." Cannibals don't need help- they need incarceration. More importantly, their survivors need closure to their pain- they don't need to continually oppose the processes that wish to help the murderers that mutilated their children.
You actually said, "if someone is raped and the rapist is never caught and/or never convicted, that person was never raped?" So... my original point stands. To the second part which I never initially addressed: if the person was not convicted... then that would mean there was no crime/rape committed according to our legal system's processes. The accused would have been found innocent of the charges.
It is not a stretch to suggest the victim and the survivors find issues with forgiving sentences that find people not criminally responsible for the violent acts perpetrated against them or their loved ones.
no, your original point does not stand. by your reasoning if someone is not criminally responsible for a crime (whether a person is not caught or is not convicted, either way, no one is legally responsible for that crime by your definition), then that crime is not a crime, so my point stands. and that point is that your point is preposterous.
and no, it does not mean no crime happened. it means that particular person was not guilty of it. how can you possibly keep defending this immensely flawed logic? it's not even logic!
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Not quite. Not at all in fact. Using the example you present to me... it would be like going to a cancer fundraiser and saying, "Please don't use any of my money on the deceased- they're past the point of any relief or help." Cannibals don't need help- they need incarceration. More importantly, their survivors need closure to their pain- they don't need to continually oppose the processes that wish to help the murderers that mutilated their children.
but they died of the disease you are giving money to help find a cure for. jesus.
so you are now equating the mentally ill with the dead. great. big applause over here. might as well just burn them all then. I guess I'll be reporting to the stake along with most of the rest of my family.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
it's kinda funny to me that you are using the old "if a tree falls in the forest, but no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?" to make your case that a mentally ill person needs to be locked away in prison with rapists and child molesters.
laughable.
You don't think cannibals belong with rapists and child murderers?
You pardon mentally ill people because they are incapable of knowing what they are doing. How about the really, really stupid people that are found criminally responsible for acts they might have been responsible for, but unable to stop. For example, what about the woman who leaves her newborn in the car as she shops? She might have loved that newborn as much as a mother could love a baby... but she is so damn stupid that she is incapable of understanding or anticipating the hazards of leaving her child in a car with the sun baking down on it. Even though most of the public has the capacity to be above such an incident... this dummy really did the best she could, but it was all she was capable of.
Maybe we should excuse stupid people from being criminally responsible as well? It's not their fault they are stupid. Trust me when I say some stupidity is as legitimate as a mental illness. You likely wouldn't want to draw the line to account for stupid people. Maybe you do- I don't know. But a line needs to be drawn somewhere and I think that line starts at the crime regardless of factors.
Not quite. Not at all in fact. Using the example you present to me... it would be like going to a cancer fundraiser and saying, "Please don't use any of my money on the deceased- they're past the point of any relief or help." Cannibals don't need help- they need incarceration. More importantly, their survivors need closure to their pain- they don't need to continually oppose the processes that wish to help the murderers that mutilated their children.
but they died of the disease you are giving money to help find a cure for. jesus.
so you are now equating the mentally ill with the dead. great. big applause over here. might as well just burn them all then. I guess I'll be reporting to the stake along with most of the rest of my family.
My gawd, man. Read my posts instead of skimming.
You made a rather incongruent comparison that was faulty on many levels. I tried to illustrate what the actual comparison was that you were trying to make (that I was only willing to help to a point):
Cancer= wish to help.
Mentally ill= wish to help.
Dead cancer patient= no help from me (they are beyond it).
Mentally ill guy who mutilates and eats people= no help from me (they are beyond it).
You actually said, "if someone is raped and the rapist is never caught and/or never convicted, that person was never raped?" So... my original point stands. To the second part which I never initially addressed: if the person was not convicted... then that would mean there was no crime/rape committed according to our legal system's processes. The accused would have been found innocent of the charges.
It is not a stretch to suggest the victim and the survivors find issues with forgiving sentences that find people not criminally responsible for the violent acts perpetrated against them or their loved ones.
no, your original point does not stand. by your reasoning if someone is not criminally responsible for a crime (whether a person is not caught or is not convicted, either way, no one is legally responsible for that crime by your definition), then that crime is not a crime, so my point stands. and that point is that your point is preposterous.
and no, it does not mean no crime happened. it means that particular person was not guilty of it. how can you possibly keep defending this immensely flawed logic? it's not even logic!
Did you read what you have written? How the fuck does your point stand? You're talking, but you're not saying anything.
If a guy is not guilty of a crime... then how was there a crime? I know we typically might still call it a crime, but why? Whether right or wrong, we pat the victims on the head and call the situation a crime (so maybe this makes them feel better?), but we deal with it as if it was a tragic accident.
so you are now equating the mentally ill with the dead. great. big applause over here. might as well just burn them all then. I guess I'll be reporting to the stake along with most of the rest of my family.
And Hugh... you are talking to me as if I have gone through my life without having my personal/family experiences dealing with mental illness. Let's stick to the content. I'm not above mental illness- I understand it more than I care to share.
That's fine, but before we are, I find it comical that you talk of trolling?
Your position essentially centered on your opinion that you never really supported, what amounted to name calling, and some ill-formed parallels that didn't offer much in disputing what I was getting at (your Cancer fundraiser analogy). You spoke around it, but you never directly addressed what I was saying to any degree of satisfaction. If you didn't have the energy or time to discuss the idea, you probably should have left it alone.
Remember when you offered TWO (you used caps for emphasis) definitions for the term criminal that seemed to support what you were saying, but Merriam-Webster's more accurate definitions seemed to support what I was saying?
And do you remember you used terms to dismiss my assertion instead of presenting arguments to the contrary? Laughable, preposterous, silly, and now trolling were a few that I recall.
I realize what I was saying might not be something you liked hearing, but when comparing our tactics, for the second time this discussion... you might have wished to refer to Merriam-Webster. Your idea of trolling might actually be a little different than what most people think.
Vince Li, the mentally ill man found not criminally responsible for a random killing on board a Greyhound bus, could soon be living in Winnipeg and walking the streets without supervision.
Li's medical team made two major recommendations Monday as he appeared before the provincial review board for his annual hearing. They are the boldest proposed steps yet in his seven-year case and came on the heels of what they described as a "fairly good year" for Li.
Under their proposal, Li would be allowed to leave his current home at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre and move to Winnipeg, where he would temporarily live at Health Sciences Centre in its locked PX3 ward.
Doctors are suggesting Li then be granted unsupervised passes in Winnipeg within the next 12 months, eventually transitioning to a placement in a high-security group-home facility in the city.
"There's no reason not to endorse these recommendations," defence lawyer Alan Libman said. “
'His level of anonymity would be increased living in (Winnipeg). We want to give Mr. Li the highest level of independence we possibly can'
-- WRHA's Ken Mackenzie
The review board will make their decision within a week.
The Crown is not opposed to what is being suggested, but cautioned perhaps things were moving too quickly. Prosecutor Colleen McDuff suggested Li should only be given supervised passes in Winnipeg after he moves to the city.
Two doctors, who have worked extensively with Li, told the board multiple tests show he is an extremely low risk to re-offend, knows the importance of taking his medication and has not suffered any hallucinations for more than a year.
He would continue to be supervised while taking his medications for schizophrenia and may benefit by moving to the bigger city and escaping the "stigma" of what he did.
"His level of anonymity would be increased living in (Winnipeg)," said Dr. Ken Mackenzie, manager of the forensic mental-health program at the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. "We want to give Mr. Li the highest level of independence we possibly can."
The proposed group home facility is staffed 24/7 and would involve a nightly curfew of 11 p.m. Li would also be given courses in relapse prevention and independent living while also being assigned a "proctor" in the community to help him with things such as banking, fitness and job searches.
Last year, Li was granted several freedoms and doctors say things have gone smoothly. They include being given unescorted passes into the city of Selkirk. Li always carries a cellphone with him and checks in with hospital staff every 30 minutes. There have been no reported incidents.
As well, Li has done several supervised trips into Winnipeg, Lockport and area beaches.
Dr. Steven Kremer said Li ultimately wishes to attend community college in Winnipeg to build on a computer-sciences degree he has from China.
"He has tolerated the increases in his liberty pretty well," Kremer said Monday.
Kremer said Li is always polite with staff and other patients, has shown "no evidence of any manipulative behaviour" and has demonstrated insight into his actions.
"He has expressed feelings of regret and remorse," he said.
Li has been described as a "model patient" who no longer suffers from the type of mental illness that triggered the July 2008 attack near Portage la Prairie.
Li was found not criminally responsible for the beheading of Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus near Portage. A judge found Li suffered hallucinations from untreated schizophrenia at the time of the unprovoked attack and ordered him held at the Selkirk centre.
McLean's family has been a vocal critic of Li's relaxed freedoms and has pushed for tougher federal legislation. McLean's mom, Carol de Delley, previously said she believes mentally ill killers such as Li must be held indefinitely in a hospital. She did not attend Monday's hearing, although other family members did. They left court, saying only they are frustrated by what they feel is their lack of a voice at these proceedings.
OTTAWA – Manitoba senior federal cabinet minister Shelly Glover expressed dismay late Monday at the idea the mentally ill man who beheaded a man on a bus almost seven years ago may soon be released to live in a group home in Winnipeg.
Glover released a statement several hours after Li’s treatment team at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre recommended to a provincial review board looking at Li’s case, that he be allowed to move first to Winnipeg’s Health Science Centre’s locked mental health ward and be given unescorted passes to go out into the city. Eventually they say he should move to a high-security group home in Winnipeg.
Related Items
Articles •Give Li more freedom: experts
"Our government stands firmly by our legislative changes through the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act and points out that this is exactly why we made them," Glover said. "Our Government has worked hard to ensure that those who break the law are held accountable for their actions; that penalties match the severity of crimes committed; and that the rights of victims come before the rights of criminals. It is unacceptable that dangerous and violent offenders are released into our communities, when they pose a threat to society. We made changes to the Not Criminally Responsible Act to ensure that dangerous offenders at risk of re-offending are kept behind bars, where they belong."
The Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act took effect last June, and requires someone found to be not criminally responsible for a criminal act can be designated by a court as high-risk to reoffend. If this designation is given, the person can’t be released from custory until a review board has a court revoke that designation.
The law also allows to extend the length of time between review board hearings from one year to up to three, and can deny unescorted passes to the person.
Victims of the person must also be informed when the NCR person is released and their living arrangements.
Li, who has been incarcerated for seven years, will not be subjected to the provisions of the new law. When he was declared NCR, there was no legislative requirement to designate him as "high risk." As a result, there is no legal requirement right now for him to return to court to have that label revoked.
Last year when Li was first granted unescorted trips into Selkirk by the review board, Glover raged at the province and demanded an appeal. The province in turn accused her of trying to score political points on a serious issue of public safety.
Li was granted the unescorted trips and the review panel was told Monday they went smoothly.
Mental health advocates argue politicians are using mentally ill people as pawns to win votes but ignore the fact people found not criminally responsible are very unlikely to reoffend when they are given proper treatment and supervision.
Li killed Tim McLean in 2008 during a schizophrenic episode on a bus travelling between Edmonton and Winnipeg. He was found to be not criminally responsible and has been in the Selkirk Mental Health Centre ever since.
There should be a condition applied that anyone on the board that approves this release will face a mandatory 3 year sentence should this man injure or kill someone in the future.
There should be a condition applied that anyone on the board that approves this release will face a mandatory 3 year sentence should this man injure or kill someone in the future.
I'm hardly surprised that this is occurring.
Hopefully Li keeps on his meds never thinking he doesn't need them anymore. If he does lapse, we know his potential.
I am so stoked that rehab worked for him. The victims family must be elated too!
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
I wonder, if not held criminally responsible, is one held responsible in another sense, in any sense?
PJfan, I can't begin to comprehend the outrage, sorrow, (fill in the blank), that the family of the poor soul WHO WAS BEHEADED AND EATEN must feel, live with.
And the fact that politics are even playing a part in this? Stunning, the lack of humaneness and common sense.
Hedo, I've said it before and I'll say it again..If sense was common everyone would have it.
Politics be damned. It has gone too far that we as humans can have designated professionals to deem cannibal murderers successfully rehabbed. - Job saving at the very least
Comments
You mean I should entertain an outlandish comparison between an automobile accident and a gruesome murder that extended into mutilation and cannibalism without spinning the table back the other way?
My response was fair given the context offered to make a point.
you can disagree with anything you wish. but try exercising a little respect when doing so.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The comment that was made to me prefaced with, in your mind. I responded in kind. I'm not sure how you are reading that as disrespectful?
The Greyhound case isn't as unique as one might think:
Some guy attacks another guy with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire. A couple days after that attack, he kills a boarder from his house and eats body parts.
At least in the baseball bat attack, doctors say he can't be held criminally responsible because he was hearing voices and scared of aliens. He's a paranoid schizophrenic. If these acts were not crimes, I guess they were just accidents then? What else would you call them?
The victims aren't ill. One is scared and the other is just dead and partially digested. These victims and their loved ones would probably argue that there actually were crimes that occurred, but their needs are seemingly the least of our concerns and ultimately insignificant- although some would say this is an exaggeration.
http://videos.huffingtonpost.com/brutal ... -517685268
crimes WERE committed. But the perps just can't be held criminally responsible.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
So this is what I'm kind of getting at: can there actually be a crime if there is no criminal? Wouldn't these scenarios be more appropriately called 'mishaps' or 'accidents' given how we view the perpetrator?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I hear what you are saying. I realize there is a level of accountability demonstrated, but I'm speaking to the 'acts'. Are the dead 'victims of circumstances' or are they 'victims of a crime'? I think they would suggest the latter, but the courts seem to suggest the former?
By ruling that these two cannibals are not criminals they are essentially saying that no crime was committed as we move up the ladder of inference. How can these situations be called a crime without a criminal at the core of them?
so by your reasoning that if there is no criminal by your definition then there is no crime, if someone is raped and the rapist is never caught and/or never convicted, that person was never raped?
that is preposterous. a crime is an event. a criminal is defined by TWO things: as the person who is found guilty of perpetrating the act AND the person was able to determine right from wrong during said act.
eliminating the criminal from the equation does not by rule negate the crime itself.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Your first scenario makes no absolutely no sense to the context of the discussion and tells me you have missed the point miserably. To my way of thinking... if a rape has occurred and the rapist has not been caught... there has been a crime and a criminal has not been apprehended. In these two 'cannibal' situations... a person has been caught, but they have been deemed not criminally responsible for the act: rendering the event as an unfortunate event, but not a crime. For something to be a crime, the event must be perpetrated by a criminal.
You have tried to say otherwise with a couple of pretty fancy definitions, but Merriam-Webster's definitions of a criminal are not quite in line with yours and tend to support what I am saying:
1. one who has committed a crime and 2. a person who has been convicted of a crime
So, as for your assertion that my line of reasoning is preposterous... I would suggest that this would be only to your way of thinking. My reasoning is solid and if you cannot follow my line of logic then that is your problem. If we are not holding anyone criminally accountable for an event then one can suggest there has been no crime. Therefore, these 'events' we are growing accustomed can be more accurately described as accidents: unfortunate events where a guy happens to cross paths with a mentally unstable person who decides to mutilate them.
With the aforementioned said... I call bullshit, once again. I'm all for helping those who need help; however, once they cross the line and commit a grievous crime... then they are now a criminal and I don't give a shit what has made them do it (voices, paranoia, momentary lapse of reason, temporary insanity, bout of jealous rage, or whatever).
"if there is no criminal there is no crime, just an unfortunate event". yeah, and MY reasoning is flawed. saying your reasoning is solid doesn't make it so, my friend.
what I actually said was "if the rapist is never convicted", which is the same as no one being held accountable for a crime, thereby stating the same as you, that therefore the rape was not a crime, it was a mere happenstance. and to me, that is preposterous.
you're just using silly reasoning to get your point across, that holding someone not criminally responsible somehow diminishes the plight of the victim, which is debatable at best.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
laughable.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
and you can't say you are for those who need help, and then say "except....". That's like going to a cancer fundraiser and saying "oh, but I won't give money to anyone with stage 4". that's not being "all for helping" anything or anyone.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You actually said, "if someone is raped and the rapist is never caught and/or never convicted, that person was never raped?" So... my original point stands. To the second part which I never initially addressed: if the person was not convicted... then that would mean there was no crime/rape committed according to our legal system's processes. The accused would have been found innocent of the charges.
It is not a stretch to suggest the victim and the survivors find issues with forgiving sentences that find people not criminally responsible for the violent acts perpetrated against them or their loved ones.
Not quite. Not at all in fact. Using the example you present to me... it would be like going to a cancer fundraiser and saying, "Please don't use any of my money on the deceased- they're past the point of any relief or help." Cannibals don't need help- they need incarceration. More importantly, their survivors need closure to their pain- they don't need to continually oppose the processes that wish to help the murderers that mutilated their children.
no, your original point does not stand. by your reasoning if someone is not criminally responsible for a crime (whether a person is not caught or is not convicted, either way, no one is legally responsible for that crime by your definition), then that crime is not a crime, so my point stands. and that point is that your point is preposterous.
and no, it does not mean no crime happened. it means that particular person was not guilty of it. how can you possibly keep defending this immensely flawed logic? it's not even logic!
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
but they died of the disease you are giving money to help find a cure for. jesus.
so you are now equating the mentally ill with the dead. great. big applause over here. might as well just burn them all then. I guess I'll be reporting to the stake along with most of the rest of my family.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You don't think cannibals belong with rapists and child murderers?
You pardon mentally ill people because they are incapable of knowing what they are doing. How about the really, really stupid people that are found criminally responsible for acts they might have been responsible for, but unable to stop. For example, what about the woman who leaves her newborn in the car as she shops? She might have loved that newborn as much as a mother could love a baby... but she is so damn stupid that she is incapable of understanding or anticipating the hazards of leaving her child in a car with the sun baking down on it. Even though most of the public has the capacity to be above such an incident... this dummy really did the best she could, but it was all she was capable of.
Maybe we should excuse stupid people from being criminally responsible as well? It's not their fault they are stupid. Trust me when I say some stupidity is as legitimate as a mental illness. You likely wouldn't want to draw the line to account for stupid people. Maybe you do- I don't know. But a line needs to be drawn somewhere and I think that line starts at the crime regardless of factors.
My gawd, man. Read my posts instead of skimming.
You made a rather incongruent comparison that was faulty on many levels. I tried to illustrate what the actual comparison was that you were trying to make (that I was only willing to help to a point):
Cancer= wish to help.
Mentally ill= wish to help.
Dead cancer patient= no help from me (they are beyond it).
Mentally ill guy who mutilates and eats people= no help from me (they are beyond it).
When I say rather incongruent... I'm being nice.
Did you read what you have written? How the fuck does your point stand? You're talking, but you're not saying anything.
If a guy is not guilty of a crime... then how was there a crime? I know we typically might still call it a crime, but why? Whether right or wrong, we pat the victims on the head and call the situation a crime (so maybe this makes them feel better?), but we deal with it as if it was a tragic accident.
And Hugh... you are talking to me as if I have gone through my life without having my personal/family experiences dealing with mental illness. Let's stick to the content. I'm not above mental illness- I understand it more than I care to share.
no, you're being an argumentative troll.
DONE.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
That's fine, but before we are, I find it comical that you talk of trolling?
Your position essentially centered on your opinion that you never really supported, what amounted to name calling, and some ill-formed parallels that didn't offer much in disputing what I was getting at (your Cancer fundraiser analogy). You spoke around it, but you never directly addressed what I was saying to any degree of satisfaction. If you didn't have the energy or time to discuss the idea, you probably should have left it alone.
Remember when you offered TWO (you used caps for emphasis) definitions for the term criminal that seemed to support what you were saying, but Merriam-Webster's more accurate definitions seemed to support what I was saying?
And do you remember you used terms to dismiss my assertion instead of presenting arguments to the contrary? Laughable, preposterous, silly, and now trolling were a few that I recall.
I realize what I was saying might not be something you liked hearing, but when comparing our tactics, for the second time this discussion... you might have wished to refer to Merriam-Webster. Your idea of trolling might actually be a little different than what most people think.
Vince Li, the mentally ill man found not criminally responsible for a random killing on board a Greyhound bus, could soon be living in Winnipeg and walking the streets without supervision.
Li's medical team made two major recommendations Monday as he appeared before the provincial review board for his annual hearing. They are the boldest proposed steps yet in his seven-year case and came on the heels of what they described as a "fairly good year" for Li.
Under their proposal, Li would be allowed to leave his current home at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre and move to Winnipeg, where he would temporarily live at Health Sciences Centre in its locked PX3 ward.
Doctors are suggesting Li then be granted unsupervised passes in Winnipeg within the next 12 months, eventually transitioning to a placement in a high-security group-home facility in the city.
"There's no reason not to endorse these recommendations," defence lawyer Alan Libman said.
“
'His level of anonymity would be increased living in (Winnipeg). We want to give Mr. Li the highest level of independence we possibly can'
-- WRHA's Ken Mackenzie
The review board will make their decision within a week.
The Crown is not opposed to what is being suggested, but cautioned perhaps things were moving too quickly. Prosecutor Colleen McDuff suggested Li should only be given supervised passes in Winnipeg after he moves to the city.
Two doctors, who have worked extensively with Li, told the board multiple tests show he is an extremely low risk to re-offend, knows the importance of taking his medication and has not suffered any hallucinations for more than a year.
He would continue to be supervised while taking his medications for schizophrenia and may benefit by moving to the bigger city and escaping the "stigma" of what he did.
"His level of anonymity would be increased living in (Winnipeg)," said Dr. Ken Mackenzie, manager of the forensic mental-health program at the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. "We want to give Mr. Li the highest level of independence we possibly can."
The proposed group home facility is staffed 24/7 and would involve a nightly curfew of 11 p.m. Li would also be given courses in relapse prevention and independent living while also being assigned a "proctor" in the community to help him with things such as banking, fitness and job searches.
Last year, Li was granted several freedoms and doctors say things have gone smoothly. They include being given unescorted passes into the city of Selkirk. Li always carries a cellphone with him and checks in with hospital staff every 30 minutes. There have been no reported incidents.
As well, Li has done several supervised trips into Winnipeg, Lockport and area beaches.
Dr. Steven Kremer said Li ultimately wishes to attend community college in Winnipeg to build on a computer-sciences degree he has from China.
"He has tolerated the increases in his liberty pretty well," Kremer said Monday.
Kremer said Li is always polite with staff and other patients, has shown "no evidence of any manipulative behaviour" and has demonstrated insight into his actions.
"He has expressed feelings of regret and remorse," he said.
Li has been described as a "model patient" who no longer suffers from the type of mental illness that triggered the July 2008 attack near Portage la Prairie.
Li was found not criminally responsible for the beheading of Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus near Portage. A judge found Li suffered hallucinations from untreated schizophrenia at the time of the unprovoked attack and ordered him held at the Selkirk centre.
McLean's family has been a vocal critic of Li's relaxed freedoms and has pushed for tougher federal legislation. McLean's mom, Carol de Delley, previously said she believes mentally ill killers such as Li must be held indefinitely in a hospital. She did not attend Monday's hearing, although other family members did. They left court, saying only they are frustrated by what they feel is their lack of a voice at these proceedings.
www.headstonesband.com
winnipegfreepress.com/local/Glover-criticizes-prospect-of-Lis-release-293822981.html?cx_navSource=d-popular-views
OTTAWA – Manitoba senior federal cabinet minister Shelly Glover expressed dismay late Monday at the idea the mentally ill man who beheaded a man on a bus almost seven years ago may soon be released to live in a group home in Winnipeg.
Glover released a statement several hours after Li’s treatment team at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre recommended to a provincial review board looking at Li’s case, that he be allowed to move first to Winnipeg’s Health Science Centre’s locked mental health ward and be given unescorted passes to go out into the city. Eventually they say he should move to a high-security group home in Winnipeg.
Related Items
Articles
•Give Li more freedom: experts
"Our government stands firmly by our legislative changes through the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act and points out that this is exactly why we made them," Glover said. "Our Government has worked hard to ensure that those who break the law are held accountable for their actions; that penalties match the severity of crimes committed; and that the rights of victims come before the rights of criminals. It is unacceptable that dangerous and violent offenders are released into our communities, when they pose a threat to society. We made changes to the Not Criminally Responsible Act to ensure that dangerous offenders at risk of re-offending are kept behind bars, where they belong."
The Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act took effect last June, and requires someone found to be not criminally responsible for a criminal act can be designated by a court as high-risk to reoffend. If this designation is given, the person can’t be released from custory until a review board has a court revoke that designation.
The law also allows to extend the length of time between review board hearings from one year to up to three, and can deny unescorted passes to the person.
Victims of the person must also be informed when the NCR person is released and their living arrangements.
Li, who has been incarcerated for seven years, will not be subjected to the provisions of the new law. When he was declared NCR, there was no legislative requirement to designate him as "high risk." As a result, there is no legal requirement right now for him to return to court to have that label revoked.
Last year when Li was first granted unescorted trips into Selkirk by the review board, Glover raged at the province and demanded an appeal. The province in turn accused her of trying to score political points on a serious issue of public safety.
Li was granted the unescorted trips and the review panel was told Monday they went smoothly.
Mental health advocates argue politicians are using mentally ill people as pawns to win votes but ignore the fact people found not criminally responsible are very unlikely to reoffend when they are given proper treatment and supervision.
Li killed Tim McLean in 2008 during a schizophrenic episode on a bus travelling between Edmonton and Winnipeg. He was found to be not criminally responsible and has been in the Selkirk Mental Health Centre ever since.
www.headstonesband.com
Hopefully Li keeps on his meds never thinking he doesn't need them anymore. If he does lapse, we know his potential.
The victims family must be elated too!
PJfan, I can't begin to comprehend the outrage, sorrow, (fill in the blank), that the family of the poor soul WHO WAS BEHEADED AND EATEN must feel, live with.
And the fact that politics are even playing a part in this? Stunning, the lack of humaneness and common sense.
Politics be damned. It has gone too far that we as humans can have designated professionals to deem cannibal murderers successfully rehabbed. - Job saving at the very least