Greyhound Bus Cannibal rehabilitated after 4 years?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

When I say rather incongruent... I'm being nice.

no, you're being an argumentative troll.

DONE.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

When I say rather incongruent... I'm being nice.

no, you're being an argumentative troll.

DONE.

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.

HughFreakingDillon

winnipegfreepress.com/local/give-li-more-freedom-experts-293794771.html?cx_navSource=d-more-news

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.

HughFreakingDillon

and my very own MP is opposing this. with she being a former police officer and conservative politician, I'm not surprised.

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.

Jason P

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Jason P said:

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.

PJfanwillneverleave1

I am so stoked that rehab worked for him.
The victims family must be elated too!

hedonist

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.

PJfanwillneverleave1

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

hedonist

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 fantasy, of course! )

oftenreading

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.

PJfanwillneverleave1

oftenreading said:

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.

HughFreakingDillon

So, besides Thirty, what is the issue for you?

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.

PJfanwillneverleave1

paulonious said:

So, besides Thirty, what is the issue for you?

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.

He chopped off a head. Deal with it.

oftenreading

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

oftenreading said:

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?

PJfanwillneverleave1

oftenreading said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

oftenreading said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

oftenreading said:

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.

oftenreading

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

paulonious said:

So, besides Thirty, what is the issue for you?

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.

I'll choose number three.