It's funny, but having gone from watching some of Being There (in the lounging thread) to now digging on Dexter, I have to say yet again that part of me can see being in that role of exacting "justice" toward those who dove in head-first.
A bit of background information may be valuable here.
First, the NCRMD verdict isn't some new-agey, do-gooder legal verdict. Even ancient civilizations recognized that it was not just to hold an individual responsible and enact punishment on them if they were unable to comprehend the act that they were accused of committing and its ramifications. In this group they typically included young children, adults so cognitively impaired that their limitations were obvious, and people that we would now consider mentally ill (but who would have been viewed differently at that time of course). The English courts have recognized an "insanity defense" since the mid-nineteenth century, with a definition fairly similar to the current one in the UK, Canada, and some other Commonwealth Countries. And it's worth noting that most of the American states also have a provision for an "insanity defense".
Second, unlike what some may think it is neither easy to get an NCRMD verdict, nor is it a free ride. In the majority of cases in which a mentally ill defendant is in court the defense doesn't even raise the issue, and when it it raised in most cases it is unsuccessful. The bar is really pretty high, although like may aspects of Canadian culture things are different in Quebec. (The courts in Quebec have made some really pretty questionable NCRMD findings in recent years.) When someone is found NCRMD they often end up spending more time either in custody, or under supervision, than if they had been found guilty in the first place for the offense, and the supervision of individuals under the Review Board is generally more stringent than those on probation.
But the most important aspect is the outcomes, because it's pretty clear that individuals found NCRMD and supervised under the Review Boards do better than those who strictly go through the criminal system. RB clients have a much lower rate of reoffending - for any crime (i.e. not just violent crimes), the reoffense rate is about 5%; more importantly, the rate of reoffending violently is about 1%, which is far less than reoffense rates for those jailed and then released to the community.
Unfortunately, the new provisions for designating some NCRMD clients as "high risk" will probably actually increase risk to the community. Lawyers of people who are charged are aware of these changes, of course, and may advise their clients against putting forward an NCRMD defense, knowing that they may be kept in custody much longer than had previously been the case. That means these individuals will instead go through the usual sentencing procedures, likely not get treatment for their illness while in custody, and get released at the end of their sentence more ill and more poorly equipped to deal with life out of a custodial facility. The Review Board system was already working pretty well in most cases to treat these individuals and reduce risk to the public, but the current government couldn't resist "fixing" a system that actually wasn't broken.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
A bit of background information may be valuable here.
First, the NCRMD verdict isn't some new-agey, do-gooder legal verdict. Even ancient civilizations recognized that it was not just to hold an individual responsible and enact punishment on them if they were unable to comprehend the act that they were accused of committing and its ramifications. In this group they typically included young children, adults so cognitively impaired that their limitations were obvious, and people that we would now consider mentally ill (but who would have been viewed differently at that time of course). The English courts have recognized an "insanity defense" since the mid-nineteenth century, with a definition fairly similar to the current one in the UK, Canada, and some other Commonwealth Countries. And it's worth noting that most of the American states also have a provision for an "insanity defense".
Second, unlike what some may think it is neither easy to get an NCRMD verdict, nor is it a free ride. In the majority of cases in which a mentally ill defendant is in court the defense doesn't even raise the issue, and when it it raised in most cases it is unsuccessful. The bar is really pretty high, although like may aspects of Canadian culture things are different in Quebec. (The courts in Quebec have made some really pretty questionable NCRMD findings in recent years.) When someone is found NCRMD they often end up spending more time either in custody, or under supervision, than if they had been found guilty in the first place for the offense, and the supervision of individuals under the Review Board is generally more stringent than those on probation.
But the most important aspect is the outcomes, because it's pretty clear that individuals found NCRMD and supervised under the Review Boards do better than those who strictly go through the criminal system. RB clients have a much lower rate of reoffending - for any crime (i.e. not just violent crimes), the reoffense rate is about 5%; more importantly, the rate of reoffending violently is about 1%, which is far less than reoffense rates for those jailed and then released to the community.
Unfortunately, the new provisions for designating some NCRMD clients as "high risk" will probably actually increase risk to the community. Lawyers of people who are charged are aware of these changes, of course, and may advise their clients against putting forward an NCRMD defense, knowing that they may be kept in custody much longer than had previously been the case. That means these individuals will instead go through the usual sentencing procedures, likely not get treatment for their illness while in custody, and get released at the end of their sentence more ill and more poorly equipped to deal with life out of a custodial facility. The Review Board system was already working pretty well in most cases to treat these individuals and reduce risk to the public, but the current government couldn't resist "fixing" a system that actually wasn't broken.
Lengthy posts explaining madness has no place in court. You chop off a head and eat it (flesh) you should be regarded as nothing.
1) the perception that Li is being let off scott free for a horrific crime, or 2) the concern for public safety, or 3) a bit of both
Admittedly, as I have said countless times, this crime rocked me in ways I care not discuss, but taking emotion of the event out of it, what do you do with someone who was found completely bonkers at the time of the crime, and now understands what happened and what he needs to do to prevent that again moving forward? Clearly, our justice system is set up to punish those with intent to commit the crime, which he had none. His brain turned on him, the same way other organs in our body do on a daily basis. He now knows how to control it. And despite what you may think, he will be heavily monitored for the rest of his life.
Do you keep him locked up for all eternity to placate the fearful/vengeful? If he is deemed no longer a danger to society, and by law he committed no crime,mthen he must ge released.
Keep in mind. This not our weak, "bleeding heart" parole system at play here. This is a team of mental health experts that have watched this man 24/7 for 7 years. This was not something that was carried out lightly. We aren't dealing with Hannibal Lecter here.
1) the perception that Li is being let off scott free for a horrific crime, or 2) the concern for public safety, or 3) a bit of both
Admittedly, as I have said countless times, this crime rocked me in ways I care not discuss, but taking emotion of the event out of it, what do you do with someone who was found completely bonkers at the time of the crime, and now understands what happened and what he needs to do to prevent that again moving forward? Clearly, our justice system is set up to punish those with intent to commit the crime, which he had none. His brain turned on him, the same way other organs in our body do on a daily basis. He now knows how to control it. And despite what you may think, he will be heavily monitored for the rest of his life.
Do you keep him locked up for all eternity to placate the fearful/vengeful? If he is deemed no longer a danger to society, and by law he committed no crime,mthen he must ge released.
Keep in mind. This not our weak, "bleeding heart" parole system at play here. This is a team of mental health experts that have watched this man 24/7 for 7 years. This was not something that was carried out lightly. We aren't dealing with Hannibal Lecter here.
A bit of background information may be valuable here.
First, the NCRMD verdict isn't some new-agey, do-gooder legal verdict. Even ancient civilizations recognized that it was not just to hold an individual responsible and enact punishment on them if they were unable to comprehend the act that they were accused of committing and its ramifications. In this group they typically included young children, adults so cognitively impaired that their limitations were obvious, and people that we would now consider mentally ill (but who would have been viewed differently at that time of course). The English courts have recognized an "insanity defense" since the mid-nineteenth century, with a definition fairly similar to the current one in the UK, Canada, and some other Commonwealth Countries. And it's worth noting that most of the American states also have a provision for an "insanity defense".
Second, unlike what some may think it is neither easy to get an NCRMD verdict, nor is it a free ride. In the majority of cases in which a mentally ill defendant is in court the defense doesn't even raise the issue, and when it it raised in most cases it is unsuccessful. The bar is really pretty high, although like may aspects of Canadian culture things are different in Quebec. (The courts in Quebec have made some really pretty questionable NCRMD findings in recent years.) When someone is found NCRMD they often end up spending more time either in custody, or under supervision, than if they had been found guilty in the first place for the offense, and the supervision of individuals under the Review Board is generally more stringent than those on probation.
But the most important aspect is the outcomes, because it's pretty clear that individuals found NCRMD and supervised under the Review Boards do better than those who strictly go through the criminal system. RB clients have a much lower rate of reoffending - for any crime (i.e. not just violent crimes), the reoffense rate is about 5%; more importantly, the rate of reoffending violently is about 1%, which is far less than reoffense rates for those jailed and then released to the community.
Unfortunately, the new provisions for designating some NCRMD clients as "high risk" will probably actually increase risk to the community. Lawyers of people who are charged are aware of these changes, of course, and may advise their clients against putting forward an NCRMD defense, knowing that they may be kept in custody much longer than had previously been the case. That means these individuals will instead go through the usual sentencing procedures, likely not get treatment for their illness while in custody, and get released at the end of their sentence more ill and more poorly equipped to deal with life out of a custodial facility. The Review Board system was already working pretty well in most cases to treat these individuals and reduce risk to the public, but the current government couldn't resist "fixing" a system that actually wasn't broken.
Lengthy posts explaining madness has no place in court. You chop off a head and eat it (flesh) you should be regarded as nothing.
Sorry, but I don't understand the first sentence of your comment. Care to rephrase?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
A bit of background information may be valuable here.
First, the NCRMD verdict isn't some new-agey, do-gooder legal verdict. Even ancient civilizations recognized that it was not just to hold an individual responsible and enact punishment on them if they were unable to comprehend the act that they were accused of committing and its ramifications. In this group they typically included young children, adults so cognitively impaired that their limitations were obvious, and people that we would now consider mentally ill (but who would have been viewed differently at that time of course). The English courts have recognized an "insanity defense" since the mid-nineteenth century, with a definition fairly similar to the current one in the UK, Canada, and some other Commonwealth Countries. And it's worth noting that most of the American states also have a provision for an "insanity defense".
Second, unlike what some may think it is neither easy to get an NCRMD verdict, nor is it a free ride. In the majority of cases in which a mentally ill defendant is in court the defense doesn't even raise the issue, and when it it raised in most cases it is unsuccessful. The bar is really pretty high, although like may aspects of Canadian culture things are different in Quebec. (The courts in Quebec have made some really pretty questionable NCRMD findings in recent years.) When someone is found NCRMD they often end up spending more time either in custody, or under supervision, than if they had been found guilty in the first place for the offense, and the supervision of individuals under the Review Board is generally more stringent than those on probation.
But the most important aspect is the outcomes, because it's pretty clear that individuals found NCRMD and supervised under the Review Boards do better than those who strictly go through the criminal system. RB clients have a much lower rate of reoffending - for any crime (i.e. not just violent crimes), the reoffense rate is about 5%; more importantly, the rate of reoffending violently is about 1%, which is far less than reoffense rates for those jailed and then released to the community.
Unfortunately, the new provisions for designating some NCRMD clients as "high risk" will probably actually increase risk to the community. Lawyers of people who are charged are aware of these changes, of course, and may advise their clients against putting forward an NCRMD defense, knowing that they may be kept in custody much longer than had previously been the case. That means these individuals will instead go through the usual sentencing procedures, likely not get treatment for their illness while in custody, and get released at the end of their sentence more ill and more poorly equipped to deal with life out of a custodial facility. The Review Board system was already working pretty well in most cases to treat these individuals and reduce risk to the public, but the current government couldn't resist "fixing" a system that actually wasn't broken.
Lengthy posts explaining madness has no place in court. You chop off a head and eat it (flesh) you should be regarded as nothing.
Sorry, but I don't understand the first sentence of your comment. Care to rephrase?
Care to? Will I? yes
As a judge you can not be expected to understand madness.
A bit of background information may be valuable here.
First, the NCRMD verdict isn't some new-agey, do-gooder legal verdict. Even ancient civilizations recognized that it was not just to hold an individual responsible and enact punishment on them if they were unable to comprehend the act that they were accused of committing and its ramifications. In this group they typically included young children, adults so cognitively impaired that their limitations were obvious, and people that we would now consider mentally ill (but who would have been viewed differently at that time of course). The English courts have recognized an "insanity defense" since the mid-nineteenth century, with a definition fairly similar to the current one in the UK, Canada, and some other Commonwealth Countries. And it's worth noting that most of the American states also have a provision for an "insanity defense".
Second, unlike what some may think it is neither easy to get an NCRMD verdict, nor is it a free ride. In the majority of cases in which a mentally ill defendant is in court the defense doesn't even raise the issue, and when it it raised in most cases it is unsuccessful. The bar is really pretty high, although like may aspects of Canadian culture things are different in Quebec. (The courts in Quebec have made some really pretty questionable NCRMD findings in recent years.) When someone is found NCRMD they often end up spending more time either in custody, or under supervision, than if they had been found guilty in the first place for the offense, and the supervision of individuals under the Review Board is generally more stringent than those on probation.
But the most important aspect is the outcomes, because it's pretty clear that individuals found NCRMD and supervised under the Review Boards do better than those who strictly go through the criminal system. RB clients have a much lower rate of reoffending - for any crime (i.e. not just violent crimes), the reoffense rate is about 5%; more importantly, the rate of reoffending violently is about 1%, which is far less than reoffense rates for those jailed and then released to the community.
Unfortunately, the new provisions for designating some NCRMD clients as "high risk" will probably actually increase risk to the community. Lawyers of people who are charged are aware of these changes, of course, and may advise their clients against putting forward an NCRMD defense, knowing that they may be kept in custody much longer than had previously been the case. That means these individuals will instead go through the usual sentencing procedures, likely not get treatment for their illness while in custody, and get released at the end of their sentence more ill and more poorly equipped to deal with life out of a custodial facility. The Review Board system was already working pretty well in most cases to treat these individuals and reduce risk to the public, but the current government couldn't resist "fixing" a system that actually wasn't broken.
No. You are wrong. It is easy to get a NCRMD verdict. It is hardly an exact science and it is ultimately opinion that is the determinant. We have plenty of 'professionals' eager to offer their expert opinions in favour of those needing one for self preservation on a lawyer's advice.
In another thread I alluded to David Schoenborn who killed his three kids with a knife in a jealous rage just outside of my city in Merritt.
He is not mentally ill. He is a remorseless, soulless, scumbag drug user.
He's had several day passes already, but apparently, he is demanding more. He will get them.
A bit of background information may be valuable here.
First, the NCRMD verdict isn't some new-agey, do-gooder legal verdict. Even ancient civilizations recognized that it was not just to hold an individual responsible and enact punishment on them if they were unable to comprehend the act that they were accused of committing and its ramifications. In this group they typically included young children, adults so cognitively impaired that their limitations were obvious, and people that we would now consider mentally ill (but who would have been viewed differently at that time of course). The English courts have recognized an "insanity defense" since the mid-nineteenth century, with a definition fairly similar to the current one in the UK, Canada, and some other Commonwealth Countries. And it's worth noting that most of the American states also have a provision for an "insanity defense".
Second, unlike what some may think it is neither easy to get an NCRMD verdict, nor is it a free ride. In the majority of cases in which a mentally ill defendant is in court the defense doesn't even raise the issue, and when it it raised in most cases it is unsuccessful. The bar is really pretty high, although like may aspects of Canadian culture things are different in Quebec. (The courts in Quebec have made some really pretty questionable NCRMD findings in recent years.) When someone is found NCRMD they often end up spending more time either in custody, or under supervision, than if they had been found guilty in the first place for the offense, and the supervision of individuals under the Review Board is generally more stringent than those on probation.
But the most important aspect is the outcomes, because it's pretty clear that individuals found NCRMD and supervised under the Review Boards do better than those who strictly go through the criminal system. RB clients have a much lower rate of reoffending - for any crime (i.e. not just violent crimes), the reoffense rate is about 5%; more importantly, the rate of reoffending violently is about 1%, which is far less than reoffense rates for those jailed and then released to the community.
Unfortunately, the new provisions for designating some NCRMD clients as "high risk" will probably actually increase risk to the community. Lawyers of people who are charged are aware of these changes, of course, and may advise their clients against putting forward an NCRMD defense, knowing that they may be kept in custody much longer than had previously been the case. That means these individuals will instead go through the usual sentencing procedures, likely not get treatment for their illness while in custody, and get released at the end of their sentence more ill and more poorly equipped to deal with life out of a custodial facility. The Review Board system was already working pretty well in most cases to treat these individuals and reduce risk to the public, but the current government couldn't resist "fixing" a system that actually wasn't broken.
No. You are wrong. It is easy to get a NCRMD verdict. It is hardly an exact science and it is ultimately opinion that is the determinant. We have plenty of 'professionals' eager to offer their expert opinions in favour of those needing one for self preservation on a lawyer's advice.
In another thread I alluded to David Schoenborn who killed his three kids with a knife in a jealous rage just outside of my city in Merritt.
He is not mentally ill. He is a remorseless, soulless, scumbag drug user.
He's had several day passes already, but apparently, he is demanding more. He will get them.
He is just one.
I'll stand by my information. It's an uncommon verdict, and most of the time it is proffered by defense it is unsuccessful; thus, hard to get.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
1) the perception that Li is being let off scott free for a horrific crime, or 2) the concern for public safety, or 3) a bit of both
Admittedly, as I have said countless times, this crime rocked me in ways I care not discuss, but taking emotion of the event out of it, what do you do with someone who was found completely bonkers at the time of the crime, and now understands what happened and what he needs to do to prevent that again moving forward? Clearly, our justice system is set up to punish those with intent to commit the crime, which he had none. His brain turned on him, the same way other organs in our body do on a daily basis. He now knows how to control it. And despite what you may think, he will be heavily monitored for the rest of his life.
Do you keep him locked up for all eternity to placate the fearful/vengeful? If he is deemed no longer a danger to society, and by law he committed no crime,mthen he must ge released.
Keep in mind. This not our weak, "bleeding heart" parole system at play here. This is a team of mental health experts that have watched this man 24/7 for 7 years. This was not something that was carried out lightly. We aren't dealing with Hannibal Lecter here.
We aren't dealing with a strange man wandering the streets talking about space invaders either. We're talking about a guy who mutilated and ate a young man on a bus.
A bit of background information may be valuable here.
First, the NCRMD verdict isn't some new-agey, do-gooder legal verdict. Even ancient civilizations recognized that it was not just to hold an individual responsible and enact punishment on them if they were unable to comprehend the act that they were accused of committing and its ramifications. In this group they typically included young children, adults so cognitively impaired that their limitations were obvious, and people that we would now consider mentally ill (but who would have been viewed differently at that time of course). The English courts have recognized an "insanity defense" since the mid-nineteenth century, with a definition fairly similar to the current one in the UK, Canada, and some other Commonwealth Countries. And it's worth noting that most of the American states also have a provision for an "insanity defense".
Second, unlike what some may think it is neither easy to get an NCRMD verdict, nor is it a free ride. In the majority of cases in which a mentally ill defendant is in court the defense doesn't even raise the issue, and when it it raised in most cases it is unsuccessful. The bar is really pretty high, although like may aspects of Canadian culture things are different in Quebec. (The courts in Quebec have made some really pretty questionable NCRMD findings in recent years.) When someone is found NCRMD they often end up spending more time either in custody, or under supervision, than if they had been found guilty in the first place for the offense, and the supervision of individuals under the Review Board is generally more stringent than those on probation.
But the most important aspect is the outcomes, because it's pretty clear that individuals found NCRMD and supervised under the Review Boards do better than those who strictly go through the criminal system. RB clients have a much lower rate of reoffending - for any crime (i.e. not just violent crimes), the reoffense rate is about 5%; more importantly, the rate of reoffending violently is about 1%, which is far less than reoffense rates for those jailed and then released to the community.
Unfortunately, the new provisions for designating some NCRMD clients as "high risk" will probably actually increase risk to the community. Lawyers of people who are charged are aware of these changes, of course, and may advise their clients against putting forward an NCRMD defense, knowing that they may be kept in custody much longer than had previously been the case. That means these individuals will instead go through the usual sentencing procedures, likely not get treatment for their illness while in custody, and get released at the end of their sentence more ill and more poorly equipped to deal with life out of a custodial facility. The Review Board system was already working pretty well in most cases to treat these individuals and reduce risk to the public, but the current government couldn't resist "fixing" a system that actually wasn't broken.
Lengthy posts explaining madness has no place in court. You chop off a head and eat it (flesh) you should be regarded as nothing.
Sorry, but I don't understand the first sentence of your comment. Care to rephrase?
Care to? Will I? yes
As a judge you can not be expected to understand madness.
I'll assume you mean that "you" generally, since I'm certainly not a judge.
Who should deal with the issue then, if not a judge?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
A bit of background information may be valuable here.
First, the NCRMD verdict isn't some new-agey, do-gooder legal verdict. Even ancient civilizations recognized that it was not just to hold an individual responsible and enact punishment on them if they were unable to comprehend the act that they were accused of committing and its ramifications. In this group they typically included young children, adults so cognitively impaired that their limitations were obvious, and people that we would now consider mentally ill (but who would have been viewed differently at that time of course). The English courts have recognized an "insanity defense" since the mid-nineteenth century, with a definition fairly similar to the current one in the UK, Canada, and some other Commonwealth Countries. And it's worth noting that most of the American states also have a provision for an "insanity defense".
Second, unlike what some may think it is neither easy to get an NCRMD verdict, nor is it a free ride. In the majority of cases in which a mentally ill defendant is in court the defense doesn't even raise the issue, and when it it raised in most cases it is unsuccessful. The bar is really pretty high, although like may aspects of Canadian culture things are different in Quebec. (The courts in Quebec have made some really pretty questionable NCRMD findings in recent years.) When someone is found NCRMD they often end up spending more time either in custody, or under supervision, than if they had been found guilty in the first place for the offense, and the supervision of individuals under the Review Board is generally more stringent than those on probation.
But the most important aspect is the outcomes, because it's pretty clear that individuals found NCRMD and supervised under the Review Boards do better than those who strictly go through the criminal system. RB clients have a much lower rate of reoffending - for any crime (i.e. not just violent crimes), the reoffense rate is about 5%; more importantly, the rate of reoffending violently is about 1%, which is far less than reoffense rates for those jailed and then released to the community.
Unfortunately, the new provisions for designating some NCRMD clients as "high risk" will probably actually increase risk to the community. Lawyers of people who are charged are aware of these changes, of course, and may advise their clients against putting forward an NCRMD defense, knowing that they may be kept in custody much longer than had previously been the case. That means these individuals will instead go through the usual sentencing procedures, likely not get treatment for their illness while in custody, and get released at the end of their sentence more ill and more poorly equipped to deal with life out of a custodial facility. The Review Board system was already working pretty well in most cases to treat these individuals and reduce risk to the public, but the current government couldn't resist "fixing" a system that actually wasn't broken.
No. You are wrong. It is easy to get a NCRMD verdict. It is hardly an exact science and it is ultimately opinion that is the determinant. We have plenty of 'professionals' eager to offer their expert opinions in favour of those needing one for self preservation on a lawyer's advice.
In another thread I alluded to David Schoenborn who killed his three kids with a knife in a jealous rage just outside of my city in Merritt.
He is not mentally ill. He is a remorseless, soulless, scumbag drug user.
He's had several day passes already, but apparently, he is demanding more. He will get them.
He is just one.
I'll stand by my information. It's an uncommon verdict, and most of the time it is proffered by defense it is unsuccessful; thus, hard to get.
I should rephrase: it isn't easy to get as much as it is desirable to get.
The stats you presented are skewed somewhat. Statistics might suggest an uncommon verdict, but if we threw out the multitude of defences seeking such a favorable ruling (given there is not much to lose pursuing one) and focused on the cases where there might actually be a legitimate reason to deliberate NCR... we would find several cases that discredit the notion of holding people unaccountable for their crimes.
In this particular case, I believe Li is ill. In the other case I just presented, I'm not buying that shithead as ill. As I said before, there are others as well.
This subject is just wa-a-a-a-y to weird for me (although it shouldn't be because technically would a "Greyhound Bus Cannibal" be a bus that eats other buses?). Anyway, all I can say is, at least the guy didn't eat the bus.
I wonder if the same person who was making sure our boy was taking his meds in the first place will be there daily to make sure he is taking them again.
A nice home for people like him, with a nice barbed wire fence, three nice meals, a nice sky and trees to look at, and some nice person making sure he gets his meds. Nice!
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
I wonder if the same person who was making sure our boy was taking his meds in the first place will be there daily to make sure he is taking them again.
A nice home for people like him, with a nice barbed wire fence, three nice meals, a nice sky and trees to look at, and some nice person making sure he gets his meds. Nice!
This subject is just wa-a-a-a-y to weird for me (although it shouldn't be because technically would a "Greyhound Bus Cannibal" be a bus that eats other buses?). Anyway, all I can say is, at least the guy didn't eat the bus.
This subject is just wa-a-a-a-y to weird for me (although it shouldn't be because technically would a "Greyhound Bus Cannibal" be a bus that eats other buses?). Anyway, all I can say is, at least the guy didn't eat the bus.
In Canada, a person would receive a tougher sentence for eating part of a bus than one would eating part of the guy sitting beside you on the bus. We simply don't tolerate that bullshit. Good day, eh.
1) the perception that Li is being let off scott free for a horrific crime, or 2) the concern for public safety, or 3) a bit of both
Admittedly, as I have said countless times, this crime rocked me in ways I care not discuss, but taking emotion of the event out of it, what do you do with someone who was found completely bonkers at the time of the crime, and now understands what happened and what he needs to do to prevent that again moving forward? Clearly, our justice system is set up to punish those with intent to commit the crime, which he had none. His brain turned on him, the same way other organs in our body do on a daily basis. He now knows how to control it. And despite what you may think, he will be heavily monitored for the rest of his life.
Do you keep him locked up for all eternity to placate the fearful/vengeful? If he is deemed no longer a danger to society, and by law he committed no crime,mthen he must ge released.
Keep in mind. This not our weak, "bleeding heart" parole system at play here. This is a team of mental health experts that have watched this man 24/7 for 7 years. This was not something that was carried out lightly. We aren't dealing with Hannibal Lecter here.
A bit of background information may be valuable here.
First, the NCRMD verdict isn't some new-agey, do-gooder legal verdict. Even ancient civilizations recognized that it was not just to hold an individual responsible and enact punishment on them if they were unable to comprehend the act that they were accused of committing and its ramifications. In this group they typically included young children, adults so cognitively impaired that their limitations were obvious, and people that we would now consider mentally ill (but who would have been viewed differently at that time of course). The English courts have recognized an "insanity defense" since the mid-nineteenth century, with a definition fairly similar to the current one in the UK, Canada, and some other Commonwealth Countries. And it's worth noting that most of the American states also have a provision for an "insanity defense".
Second, unlike what some may think it is neither easy to get an NCRMD verdict, nor is it a free ride. In the majority of cases in which a mentally ill defendant is in court the defense doesn't even raise the issue, and when it it raised in most cases it is unsuccessful. The bar is really pretty high, although like may aspects of Canadian culture things are different in Quebec. (The courts in Quebec have made some really pretty questionable NCRMD findings in recent years.) When someone is found NCRMD they often end up spending more time either in custody, or under supervision, than if they had been found guilty in the first place for the offense, and the supervision of individuals under the Review Board is generally more stringent than those on probation.
But the most important aspect is the outcomes, because it's pretty clear that individuals found NCRMD and supervised under the Review Boards do better than those who strictly go through the criminal system. RB clients have a much lower rate of reoffending - for any crime (i.e. not just violent crimes), the reoffense rate is about 5%; more importantly, the rate of reoffending violently is about 1%, which is far less than reoffense rates for those jailed and then released to the community.
Unfortunately, the new provisions for designating some NCRMD clients as "high risk" will probably actually increase risk to the community. Lawyers of people who are charged are aware of these changes, of course, and may advise their clients against putting forward an NCRMD defense, knowing that they may be kept in custody much longer than had previously been the case. That means these individuals will instead go through the usual sentencing procedures, likely not get treatment for their illness while in custody, and get released at the end of their sentence more ill and more poorly equipped to deal with life out of a custodial facility. The Review Board system was already working pretty well in most cases to treat these individuals and reduce risk to the public, but the current government couldn't resist "fixing" a system that actually wasn't broken.
No. You are wrong. It is easy to get a NCRMD verdict. It is hardly an exact science and it is ultimately opinion that is the determinant. We have plenty of 'professionals' eager to offer their expert opinions in favour of those needing one for self preservation on a lawyer's advice.
In another thread I alluded to David Schoenborn who killed his three kids with a knife in a jealous rage just outside of my city in Merritt.
He is not mentally ill. He is a remorseless, soulless, scumbag drug user.
He's had several day passes already, but apparently, he is demanding more. He will get them.
He is just one.
I'll stand by my information. It's an uncommon verdict, and most of the time it is proffered by defense it is unsuccessful; thus, hard to get.
I should rephrase: it isn't easy to get as much as it is desirable to get.
The stats you presented are skewed somewhat. Statistics might suggest an uncommon verdict, but if we threw out the multitude of defences seeking such a favorable ruling (given there is not much to lose pursuing one) and focused on the cases where there might actually be a legitimate reason to deliberate NCR... we would find several cases that discredit the notion of holding people unaccountable for their crimes.
In this particular case, I believe Li is ill. In the other case I just presented, I'm not buying that shithead as ill. As I said before, there are others as well.
Desirable in certain circumstances, for certain people - yes, I'd agree with that. Mostly only for the most serious violent crimes where the alternative is a murder conviction, though, since defendants know (or find out) that for the less serious offences they are likely to have more time in custody or longer supervision under the RB than if they served a sentence. And some individuals absolutely refuse to consider an NCR defense anyway on general principle (of not wanting to be viewed as mentally ill).
There are lots of things I could say pertaining to your middle paragraph but apparently nothing I can make short enough that this post won't get unwieldy (and boring for some on this thread).
For your last bit - well, the judges decide on the verdict, and being human I'm sure they've gotten it wrong some times. I don't think you're the only one with concerns about the AS case. However, I also don't think this means that the option of an NCRMD verdict is unfounded, and I think the outcome data on individuals found NCR is pretty impressive. The primary goal of the Review Board process is to protect public safety and in general they do that, in fact better than the criminal justice system, and not just the Canadian criminal justice system but the American as well.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Like many observers, I have always assumed the Conservative government's efforts to more harshly punish citizens found not criminally responsible for their crimes because of mental illness was part of a cynical but deliberate strategy to pander for votes.
The theory is pretty sound. There are many votes to be had by demonizing NCRs (which is unjust), portraying them as a threat to public safety (which is empirically untrue) and prescribing new, tougher sentences to make society safer (which they don't).
It makes sense for the Tories to play this card now, with a federal election expected this year. Yes, it's a bunch of hooey, but it's hard to deny the political benefits.
However, recently an alternate theory has arisen. Specifically, the possibility the Tories actually believe the nonsense they are spouting.
Case in point: Heritage Minister Shelly Glover, Manitoba's senior federal government representative, issued a statement Tuesday denouncing a decision by the Criminal Code Review Board to allow Vincent Li -- found NCR for the 2008 murder and dismemberment of Tim McLean -- to move to a secure mental-health hospital in Winnipeg and have unescorted passes.
Li's physicians stated he is a low risk to reoffend, is very good at taking his medication and has not suffered any further hallucinations. In other words, he poses no threat.
Glover was incensed by this. "It is unacceptable that dangerous and violent offenders are released into our communities," Glover said, echoing comments last year, in which she said giving Li greater freedoms was an "insult" to McLean's family.
It has always been disappointing that Glover puts so much effort into misrepresenting NCR protocols. As a former police officer, you would think Glover would have a either a healthy respect for the law, or at least a deep understanding of it.
That doesn't seem to be the case. Even with proof Li is not a threat, Glover and other federal Tories have made it their cause to oppose every stage of his treatment.
Listening to Glover and others rage against Li, I've now come to the conclusion this isn't a ploy. It is, in fact, exactly how and what they think.
Last year, when the Li story was top of mind for many Canadians, I had an opportunity to talk with Glover and other prominent Conservatives. I asked them if they wanted to honour the victims and give their families greater meaning in the wake of unspeakable tragedy, why not involve them in a new campaign to improve mental-health services?
Imagine the families of victims standing alongside federal ministers, announcing substantial new government funds to expand forensic mental-health services, improve access to psychiatric care and educate the public on the reality of mental illness. Would this not give grieving families a positive purpose and an opportunity to honour their loved ones with the knowledge more was being done to prevent similar tragedies?
In each case, the answer from Glover and other Tories was the same: NCRs are criminals and must be punished. Moreover, that punishment was really the only valid response.
It is only possible to come to this conclusion by ignoring or dismissing all of the relevant facts to the contrary.
Of course, in addition to ignoring all the facts, you have to come from a place where the satisfaction of punishing someone not responsible for their behaviour is the only public policy goal. Not making society safer. Not making this a more just society. Just punishment for the sake of punishment.
You can see this in the much-celebrated Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, a law written by the Tories in response to the Li case. The new act requires NCRs deemed high-risk to get court approval for release. Currently, those decisions are made by the Criminal Code Review Board.
Does this law make society safer? No, not really. Does it make it harder for NCRs to be released? Not exactly. It does, however, create the impression the government is getting tougher, which is probably enough for now.
Glover surely knows any decision on Li's release is being made on the basis of scientific and legal facts, and with full consideration of public safety. Ranting about the injustice of that system, while ignoring all the facts, is simply unacceptable, to use Glover's own words.
To be perfectly honest, it was easier to respect Glover and her Tory colleagues when it seemed as if their efforts to keep Li incarcerated were more political strategy than deeply held beliefs.
Unfortunately, the awful truth is now evident: Glover and the Conservatives believe what they are saying. And it's ugly.
dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca
■How many people are there in Manitoba who have been found NCR for a criminal act?
There are 110 NCRs in Manitoba. About 75 live in the community, and the rest are in the psychiatric unit of Health Sciences Centre or the Selkirk Mental Health Centre. ■Did all NCRs commit violent, gruesome murders?
No. NCRs involve a wide range of crimes. Only a small portion committed violent crimes. ■Do NCRs, once they are released, ever reoffend?
The recidivism rate for criminals released from the corrections system is very high -- estimates range from 40 to 50 per cent. For NCRs, the recidivism rate is between 10 to 15 per cent. However, for those NCRs hospitalized for the most violent crimes, the recidivism rate nationally is almost zero. In Manitoba, no NCR responsible for a killing committed another violent crime after being released. The majority of "crimes" committed by NCR upon release are violations of the conditions of release: failure to take medication, leaving the jurisdiction without permission, failing to abstain from drugs or alcohol. ■Can NCRs be released into the community after a period of time or do they stay locked up in hospital?
The goal, following a finding of NCR, is to eventually reintegrate that person into society. However, to receive a release order, the Criminal Code Review Board must be satisfied there is no threat to the community, there is no ongoing threat to the person found NCR, and all of the supports needed by that person in the community are available. ■Who decides if and when an NCR is ever released from hospital?
Authority for release of an NCR falls to the Criminal Code Review Board in each province. The boards hold annual hearings on anyone admitted to hospital under an NCR order and accept submissions from attending psychiatrists, mental-health workers, lawyers representing the accused person, the Crown and victim-impact statements. ■Is the opinion of a psychiatrist the final word on release of an NCR?
No. Rather than relying on the discretion or opinion of any one psychiatrist, the mental-health system relies on two internationally recognized protocols for measuring the probability of violence in psychiatric patients. These protocols have been very accurate in assessing potential threat and are used in mental-health systems around the world. ■Can a person found NCR for an act of violence be forced to take medication?
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevents the Crown from forcing anyone to take medication against their wishes. However, the board makes medication a condition in all release orders, with no exceptions. An accused person can refuse, but they will not be released. ■Still, how can you ensure an NCR is taking medication once released?
and the most important fact of all that most people either don't know or choose to ignore, is the answer to the last question in my previous post:
Once found NCR, that person is under the supervision of the forensic mental-health system for, in most cases, the rest of their lives. Release conditions demand NCRs report regularly to mental-health workers, or get regular visits at home. In instances where there is any concern about a person's ability to manage medication, a release order will specify it is to be administered by injection. This ensures regular contact with a health-care professional. Failure to take medication almost always triggers readmission to hospital.
Chop off someones head and eat them, you should go to a facility for life. period. full stop. end of discussion... seems pretty reasonable to me, and i am about as liberal as they come
i dont need studies... i dont need stats... i dont need experts... i dont need politicians... i certainly dont need mental health professionals... all i need is a little common sense on this one
and the most important fact of all that most people either don't know or choose to ignore, is the answer to the last question in my previous post:
Once found NCR, that person is under the supervision of the forensic mental-health system for, in most cases, the rest of their lives. Release conditions demand NCRs report regularly to mental-health workers, or get regular visits at home. In instances where there is any concern about a person's ability to manage medication, a release order will specify it is to be administered by injection. This ensures regular contact with a health-care professional. Failure to take medication almost always triggers readmission to hospital.
So... after 3 or 4 years... Li thinks to himself, "You know what? I don't need these meds anymore. I'm feeling like a brand new man." And... he lapses into that individual that was felt compelled to dismember and eat another human being. And... he does something. Won't that be something?
The article you posted claimed there was 'proof' he was not a threat. Bullshit. How can you have proof for something such as this? There is a risk and the article reflected on recidivism rates of 10-15% and for those NCRs hospitalized for the most violent crimes, the recidivism rate nationally is almost zero.
Well, pshew! We can be thankful for that I guess. 'Almost' zero. But I noticed 'the most violent crimes' wasn't very well defined. Like... does the writer describe 'the most violent crimes' as Li's and ones such as his? There's not a lot of crimes like that one. Do regular violent crimes like stabbings and strangulations count as part of 'the most violent crimes'?
The world is a funny place. It sounds as if people believe that this is fantastic and we should be thrilled about the release of a guy who mutilated a young man, ate his body parts (storing other parts in his pockets), and had to be contained on the bus he had just traumatized- let's not forget about the part where he waved a severed head around and tried to get at others with his knife (it could have been worse).
I'm just not thrilled about this. Li's biggest advocates should be helpful in his transition to mainstream society: they should have him in their homes- maybe allow them to babysit their kids for extra cash. If there's no risk... it shouldn't be a problem and could demonstrate to the public that Li truly is someone we can feel comfortable lurking in our midst or sitting beside on a bus.
Well, first off, if he all of a sudden decides not to take his meds, what, do you think he automatically just snaps back into cannibal mode like its headache medicine that stops being effective four hours after your last dose. Sure, they are just going to take his word for it that he is taking the meds. Gimme a break.
No one. Not ONE person is saying this is "fantastic". No one is thrilled about it. But it happened. And this is how society is and should be dealing with it. Seriously dude, your melodramatic ridiculousness sounds so foolish.
Your last paragraph is such cliche nonsense. So typical of people who are so highly fearful of rehabilitation.
Chop off someones head and eat them, you should go to a facility for life. period. full stop. end of discussion... seems pretty reasonable to me, and i am about as liberal as they come
i dont need studies... i dont need stats... i dont need experts... i dont need politicians... i certainly dont need mental health professionals... all i need is a little common sense on this one
You dont need to be liberal to understand this situation. This has zero to do with being a conservative on our justice issues. This is not a justice issue.
"You certainly dont need mental health professionals"?
Well, first off, if he all of a sudden decides not to take his meds, what, do you think he automatically just snaps back into cannibal mode like its headache medicine that stops being effective four hours after your last dose. Sure, they are just going to take his word for it that he is taking the meds. Gimme a break.
No one. Not ONE person is saying this is "fantastic". No one is thrilled about it. But it happened. And this is how society is and should be dealing with it. Seriously dude, your melodramatic ridiculousness sounds so foolish.
Your last paragraph is such cliche nonsense. So typical of people who are so highly fearful of rehabilitation.
Well... I'll try to be careful here so that you don't begin to pout and walk away from the site again.
What are you talking about? You are referencing the 'event', while I made reference to his impending release... to which... I'll repeat: some people here- such as yourself- are pleased/ happy/ or content that the courts and professionals have deemed Li fit for reintegration. Your enthusiasm for this decision has not been contained in the event you feel it has.
And I'm not fearful of rehabilitation. I'm simply against it in cases where people are mutilated and eaten.
Call me foolish and melodramatic (with a well-placed 'dude' thrown in for good measure) all you want. I'm not going to call you some 'head-up-his-ass-bleeding-heart-liberal-idiot' for supporting Li's release in retaliation. I'll respectfully let you have your opinion.
The mental health field is still an art and not a science and is mostly experimentation on the fly... therefore there are no guarantee's... and there are no guarantee's that this person will not revert back to his former mind state for whatever reason (Stop taking meds, etc)
And when a man cuts off someone's head and eats them, I need guarantees before he is let out in public... seems pretty simple to me
But hey, I am sure he needs some sponsors in the community so maybe some of you can help instead of arguing about it
Comments
(a fantasy, of course!
First, the NCRMD verdict isn't some new-agey, do-gooder legal verdict. Even ancient civilizations recognized that it was not just to hold an individual responsible and enact punishment on them if they were unable to comprehend the act that they were accused of committing and its ramifications. In this group they typically included young children, adults so cognitively impaired that their limitations were obvious, and people that we would now consider mentally ill (but who would have been viewed differently at that time of course). The English courts have recognized an "insanity defense" since the mid-nineteenth century, with a definition fairly similar to the current one in the UK, Canada, and some other Commonwealth Countries. And it's worth noting that most of the American states also have a provision for an "insanity defense".
Second, unlike what some may think it is neither easy to get an NCRMD verdict, nor is it a free ride. In the majority of cases in which a mentally ill defendant is in court the defense doesn't even raise the issue, and when it it raised in most cases it is unsuccessful. The bar is really pretty high, although like may aspects of Canadian culture things are different in Quebec. (The courts in Quebec have made some really pretty questionable NCRMD findings in recent years.) When someone is found NCRMD they often end up spending more time either in custody, or under supervision, than if they had been found guilty in the first place for the offense, and the supervision of individuals under the Review Board is generally more stringent than those on probation.
But the most important aspect is the outcomes, because it's pretty clear that individuals found NCRMD and supervised under the Review Boards do better than those who strictly go through the criminal system. RB clients have a much lower rate of reoffending - for any crime (i.e. not just violent crimes), the reoffense rate is about 5%; more importantly, the rate of reoffending violently is about 1%, which is far less than reoffense rates for those jailed and then released to the community.
Unfortunately, the new provisions for designating some NCRMD clients as "high risk" will probably actually increase risk to the community. Lawyers of people who are charged are aware of these changes, of course, and may advise their clients against putting forward an NCRMD defense, knowing that they may be kept in custody much longer than had previously been the case. That means these individuals will instead go through the usual sentencing procedures, likely not get treatment for their illness while in custody, and get released at the end of their sentence more ill and more poorly equipped to deal with life out of a custodial facility. The Review Board system was already working pretty well in most cases to treat these individuals and reduce risk to the public, but the current government couldn't resist "fixing" a system that actually wasn't broken.
1) the perception that Li is being let off scott free for a horrific crime, or
2) the concern for public safety, or
3) a bit of both
Admittedly, as I have said countless times, this crime rocked me in ways I care not discuss, but taking emotion of the event out of it, what do you do with someone who was found completely bonkers at the time of the crime, and now understands what happened and what he needs to do to prevent that again moving forward? Clearly, our justice system is set up to punish those with intent to commit the crime, which he had none. His brain turned on him, the same way other organs in our body do on a daily basis. He now knows how to control it. And despite what you may think, he will be heavily monitored for the rest of his life.
Do you keep him locked up for all eternity to placate the fearful/vengeful? If he is deemed no longer a danger to society, and by law he committed no crime,mthen he must ge released.
Keep in mind. This not our weak, "bleeding heart" parole system at play here. This is a team of mental health experts that have watched this man 24/7 for 7 years. This was not something that was carried out lightly. We aren't dealing with Hannibal Lecter here.
www.headstonesband.com
As a judge you can not be expected to understand madness.
In another thread I alluded to David Schoenborn who killed his three kids with a knife in a jealous rage just outside of my city in Merritt.
He is not mentally ill. He is a remorseless, soulless, scumbag drug user.
He's had several day passes already, but apparently, he is demanding more. He will get them.
He is just one.
I'll choose number three.
Who should deal with the issue then, if not a judge?
The stats you presented are skewed somewhat. Statistics might suggest an uncommon verdict, but if we threw out the multitude of defences seeking such a favorable ruling (given there is not much to lose pursuing one) and focused on the cases where there might actually be a legitimate reason to deliberate NCR... we would find several cases that discredit the notion of holding people unaccountable for their crimes.
In this particular case, I believe Li is ill. In the other case I just presented, I'm not buying that shithead as ill. As I said before, there are others as well.
A nice home for people like him, with a nice barbed wire fence, three nice meals, a nice sky and trees to look at, and some nice person making sure he gets his meds. Nice!
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
Makes sense to me.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Why? Why do this?
In Canada, a person would receive a tougher sentence for eating part of a bus than one would eating part of the guy sitting beside you on the bus. We simply don't tolerate that bullshit. Good day, eh.
www.headstonesband.com
There are lots of things I could say pertaining to your middle paragraph but apparently nothing I can make short enough that this post won't get unwieldy (and boring for some on this thread).
For your last bit - well, the judges decide on the verdict, and being human I'm sure they've gotten it wrong some times. I don't think you're the only one with concerns about the AS case. However, I also don't think this means that the option of an NCRMD verdict is unfounded, and I think the outcome data on individuals found NCR is pretty impressive. The primary goal of the Review Board process is to protect public safety and in general they do that, in fact better than the criminal justice system, and not just the Canadian criminal justice system but the American as well.
The ugly truth has been revealed.
Like many observers, I have always assumed the Conservative government's efforts to more harshly punish citizens found not criminally responsible for their crimes because of mental illness was part of a cynical but deliberate strategy to pander for votes.
The theory is pretty sound. There are many votes to be had by demonizing NCRs (which is unjust), portraying them as a threat to public safety (which is empirically untrue) and prescribing new, tougher sentences to make society safer (which they don't).
It makes sense for the Tories to play this card now, with a federal election expected this year. Yes, it's a bunch of hooey, but it's hard to deny the political benefits.
However, recently an alternate theory has arisen. Specifically, the possibility the Tories actually believe the nonsense they are spouting.
Case in point: Heritage Minister Shelly Glover, Manitoba's senior federal government representative, issued a statement Tuesday denouncing a decision by the Criminal Code Review Board to allow Vincent Li -- found NCR for the 2008 murder and dismemberment of Tim McLean -- to move to a secure mental-health hospital in Winnipeg and have unescorted passes.
Li's physicians stated he is a low risk to reoffend, is very good at taking his medication and has not suffered any further hallucinations. In other words, he poses no threat.
Glover was incensed by this. "It is unacceptable that dangerous and violent offenders are released into our communities," Glover said, echoing comments last year, in which she said giving Li greater freedoms was an "insult" to McLean's family.
It has always been disappointing that Glover puts so much effort into misrepresenting NCR protocols. As a former police officer, you would think Glover would have a either a healthy respect for the law, or at least a deep understanding of it.
That doesn't seem to be the case. Even with proof Li is not a threat, Glover and other federal Tories have made it their cause to oppose every stage of his treatment.
Listening to Glover and others rage against Li, I've now come to the conclusion this isn't a ploy. It is, in fact, exactly how and what they think.
Last year, when the Li story was top of mind for many Canadians, I had an opportunity to talk with Glover and other prominent Conservatives. I asked them if they wanted to honour the victims and give their families greater meaning in the wake of unspeakable tragedy, why not involve them in a new campaign to improve mental-health services?
Imagine the families of victims standing alongside federal ministers, announcing substantial new government funds to expand forensic mental-health services, improve access to psychiatric care and educate the public on the reality of mental illness. Would this not give grieving families a positive purpose and an opportunity to honour their loved ones with the knowledge more was being done to prevent similar tragedies?
In each case, the answer from Glover and other Tories was the same: NCRs are criminals and must be punished. Moreover, that punishment was really the only valid response.
It is only possible to come to this conclusion by ignoring or dismissing all of the relevant facts to the contrary.
Of course, in addition to ignoring all the facts, you have to come from a place where the satisfaction of punishing someone not responsible for their behaviour is the only public policy goal. Not making society safer. Not making this a more just society. Just punishment for the sake of punishment.
You can see this in the much-celebrated Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, a law written by the Tories in response to the Li case. The new act requires NCRs deemed high-risk to get court approval for release. Currently, those decisions are made by the Criminal Code Review Board.
Does this law make society safer? No, not really. Does it make it harder for NCRs to be released? Not exactly. It does, however, create the impression the government is getting tougher, which is probably enough for now.
Glover surely knows any decision on Li's release is being made on the basis of scientific and legal facts, and with full consideration of public safety. Ranting about the injustice of that system, while ignoring all the facts, is simply unacceptable, to use Glover's own words.
To be perfectly honest, it was easier to respect Glover and her Tory colleagues when it seemed as if their efforts to keep Li incarcerated were more political strategy than deeply held beliefs.
Unfortunately, the awful truth is now evident: Glover and the Conservatives believe what they are saying. And it's ugly.
dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca
■How many people are there in Manitoba who have been found NCR for a criminal act?
There are 110 NCRs in Manitoba. About 75 live in the community, and the rest are in the psychiatric unit of Health Sciences Centre or the Selkirk Mental Health Centre.
■Did all NCRs commit violent, gruesome murders?
No. NCRs involve a wide range of crimes. Only a small portion committed violent crimes.
■Do NCRs, once they are released, ever reoffend?
The recidivism rate for criminals released from the corrections system is very high -- estimates range from 40 to 50 per cent. For NCRs, the recidivism rate is between 10 to 15 per cent. However, for those NCRs hospitalized for the most violent crimes, the recidivism rate nationally is almost zero. In Manitoba, no NCR responsible for a killing committed another violent crime after being released. The majority of "crimes" committed by NCR upon release are violations of the conditions of release: failure to take medication, leaving the jurisdiction without permission, failing to abstain from drugs or alcohol.
■Can NCRs be released into the community after a period of time or do they stay locked up in hospital?
The goal, following a finding of NCR, is to eventually reintegrate that person into society. However, to receive a release order, the Criminal Code Review Board must be satisfied there is no threat to the community, there is no ongoing threat to the person found NCR, and all of the supports needed by that person in the community are available.
■Who decides if and when an NCR is ever released from hospital?
Authority for release of an NCR falls to the Criminal Code Review Board in each province. The boards hold annual hearings on anyone admitted to hospital under an NCR order and accept submissions from attending psychiatrists, mental-health workers, lawyers representing the accused person, the Crown and victim-impact statements.
■Is the opinion of a psychiatrist the final word on release of an NCR?
No. Rather than relying on the discretion or opinion of any one psychiatrist, the mental-health system relies on two internationally recognized protocols for measuring the probability of violence in psychiatric patients. These protocols have been very accurate in assessing potential threat and are used in mental-health systems around the world.
■Can a person found NCR for an act of violence be forced to take medication?
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevents the Crown from forcing anyone to take medication against their wishes. However, the board makes medication a condition in all release orders, with no exceptions. An accused person can refuse, but they will not be released.
■Still, how can you ensure an NCR is taking medication once released?
www.headstonesband.com
Once found NCR, that person is under the supervision of the forensic mental-health system for, in most cases, the rest of their lives. Release conditions demand NCRs report regularly to mental-health workers, or get regular visits at home. In instances where there is any concern about a person's ability to manage medication, a release order will specify it is to be administered by injection. This ensures regular contact with a health-care professional. Failure to take medication almost always triggers readmission to hospital.
www.headstonesband.com
i dont need studies... i dont need stats... i dont need experts... i dont need politicians... i certainly dont need mental health professionals... all i need is a little common sense on this one
The article you posted claimed there was 'proof' he was not a threat. Bullshit. How can you have proof for something such as this? There is a risk and the article reflected on recidivism rates of 10-15% and for those NCRs hospitalized for the most violent crimes, the recidivism rate nationally is almost zero.
Well, pshew! We can be thankful for that I guess. 'Almost' zero. But I noticed 'the most violent crimes' wasn't very well defined. Like... does the writer describe 'the most violent crimes' as Li's and ones such as his? There's not a lot of crimes like that one. Do regular violent crimes like stabbings and strangulations count as part of 'the most violent crimes'?
The world is a funny place. It sounds as if people believe that this is fantastic and we should be thrilled about the release of a guy who mutilated a young man, ate his body parts (storing other parts in his pockets), and had to be contained on the bus he had just traumatized- let's not forget about the part where he waved a severed head around and tried to get at others with his knife (it could have been worse).
I'm just not thrilled about this. Li's biggest advocates should be helpful in his transition to mainstream society: they should have him in their homes- maybe allow them to babysit their kids for extra cash. If there's no risk... it shouldn't be a problem and could demonstrate to the public that Li truly is someone we can feel comfortable lurking in our midst or sitting beside on a bus.
No one. Not ONE person is saying this is "fantastic". No one is thrilled about it. But it happened. And this is how society is and should be dealing with it. Seriously dude, your melodramatic ridiculousness sounds so foolish.
Your last paragraph is such cliche nonsense. So typical of people who are so highly fearful of rehabilitation.
www.headstonesband.com
"You certainly dont need mental health professionals"?
Common sense indeed.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
What are you talking about? You are referencing the 'event', while I made reference to his impending release... to which... I'll repeat: some people here- such as yourself- are pleased/ happy/ or content that the courts and professionals have deemed Li fit for reintegration. Your enthusiasm for this decision has not been contained in the event you feel it has.
And I'm not fearful of rehabilitation. I'm simply against it in cases where people are mutilated and eaten.
Call me foolish and melodramatic (with a well-placed 'dude' thrown in for good measure) all you want. I'm not going to call you some 'head-up-his-ass-bleeding-heart-liberal-idiot' for supporting Li's release in retaliation. I'll respectfully let you have your opinion.
To question the parameters of this man's release isn't insane, silly, sensenationalized or unfounded.
It's actually reasonable.
And when a man cuts off someone's head and eats them, I need guarantees before he is let out in public... seems pretty simple to me
But hey, I am sure he needs some sponsors in the community so maybe some of you can help instead of arguing about it
But I forgot, nobody gives a shit about victims