Not Criminally Responsible
Hugh Freaking Dillon
Posts: 14,010
http://www.cbc.ca/player/Shows/Shows/Doc+Zone/ID/2412726591/
Thirty Bills Unpaid and I have had many a discussion/argument about how people who are mentally ill and commit crimes should be treated after they are deemed "no longer a threat to themselves and society". I am on the fence about it sometimes, as with the Vince Li (Greyhound bus beheader/cannibal) case. On CBC recently (link above to video), a show called Doc Zone aired an episode called Not Criminally Responsible. It follows a man who randomly stabbed a woman six times outside of a Walmart in Cornwall, Ontario, not knowing her, not ever seeing her before in his life.
The devil told him to kill the prettiest girl in the mall.
He didn't even try to escape. He waited there and went with police without incident.
She survived, but upon watching this documentary, she is still very much in recovery. She can't speak about it without trembling and crying. The perpetrator has recently been released from his mental hospital, after undergoing 8 years of therapy and drug treatment. The staff at the hospital that were interviewed mentioned that they had never seen in all their years a man who was so far gone in his Obsessive Compulsive Disorder before, which didn't help his psychotic schizophrenia.
This guy, at this point in time, has accepted that he is sick, always will be sick, and knows he needs to take his meds to keep his wits about him. The victim says she wants him to be forever monitored to make sure he continues taking his medication so he never does anything like this again. I mean, really, what would be stopping him from one day deciding "I don't need these anymore". The nurses and experts agree that if he stopped taking them, he would return to his psychotic state in a very short time period; as much as 2 weeks, but likely a week or less.
I personally think that if he is to be released back into society, that even though he was not criminally responsible, we as a society have a responsibility to make sure he follows through with his requirements to stay mentally healthy and safe for the rest of the populace. I don't see any difference between probation for a released convict and probation for someone who is potentially murderous.
Should be allowed back into society, and if so, should he be monitored and tested regularly?
Thoughts?
Thirty Bills Unpaid and I have had many a discussion/argument about how people who are mentally ill and commit crimes should be treated after they are deemed "no longer a threat to themselves and society". I am on the fence about it sometimes, as with the Vince Li (Greyhound bus beheader/cannibal) case. On CBC recently (link above to video), a show called Doc Zone aired an episode called Not Criminally Responsible. It follows a man who randomly stabbed a woman six times outside of a Walmart in Cornwall, Ontario, not knowing her, not ever seeing her before in his life.
The devil told him to kill the prettiest girl in the mall.
He didn't even try to escape. He waited there and went with police without incident.
She survived, but upon watching this documentary, she is still very much in recovery. She can't speak about it without trembling and crying. The perpetrator has recently been released from his mental hospital, after undergoing 8 years of therapy and drug treatment. The staff at the hospital that were interviewed mentioned that they had never seen in all their years a man who was so far gone in his Obsessive Compulsive Disorder before, which didn't help his psychotic schizophrenia.
This guy, at this point in time, has accepted that he is sick, always will be sick, and knows he needs to take his meds to keep his wits about him. The victim says she wants him to be forever monitored to make sure he continues taking his medication so he never does anything like this again. I mean, really, what would be stopping him from one day deciding "I don't need these anymore". The nurses and experts agree that if he stopped taking them, he would return to his psychotic state in a very short time period; as much as 2 weeks, but likely a week or less.
I personally think that if he is to be released back into society, that even though he was not criminally responsible, we as a society have a responsibility to make sure he follows through with his requirements to stay mentally healthy and safe for the rest of the populace. I don't see any difference between probation for a released convict and probation for someone who is potentially murderous.
Should be allowed back into society, and if so, should he be monitored and tested regularly?
Thoughts?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
The man's illness is serious. It seemed to have gotten better with treatment, but without medication... this man poses a threat to society.
The man had very disappointing experiences with women- mainly in the form of rejection- that contributed somewhat to his hostile disposition towards them and, ultimately, his random attack on one of them.
A very serious crime was committed. Generally speaking, once someone has crossed that line, I'm not normally in favour of responding kindly to them regardless of 'motivating factors'. With regards to this individual case, I was not so readily eager to dismiss the factors contributing to the guy's breakdown and assault.
The one 'troubling' component of the program was that he had sought help at the hospital just prior to the attack and they sent him along his way. He had recognized he was losing it, but medical staffers dismissed the plea for help.
I don't understand mental illness well enough. I feel that in this case, there was a definitive mental illness. In many other cases, I have not been of the mindset to accept it as a defence because I didn't view it as legitimate from what I understood from the information I could access.
"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
So how do we know this guy will stay on his meds? How often must he be monitored? The question of how to care for someone like this is perplexing. It's not like they chose have a mental disorder anymore than someone chooses to have any other kind of illness and yet the safety of others needs to be considered.
Quite a difficult conundrum, HFD.
my guess is that his mental illness/breakdown was not CAUSED by his repeated rejection from women, it was merely the way his illness acted when he could no longer control it. if you remember that his mother was, from what he described, incredibly mentally unstable and emotionally abusive to him and his brothers, it's hard not to sympathize with this guy's upbringing. I don't know if psychosis is a predetermined condition, or if it has mitigating factors (like life experiences) that bring it on. I'd have to look more into that.
But do you think he should be set free and monitored? or should he be kept behind locked doors even though he can now function in society with the help of medication?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I never said his breakdown was CAUSED by repeated rejection- I said it was a contributor to his hostility (he said so himself).
Let me ask you: are you confident that this guy can manage the aspects of his life to be safe within society? If there is a shadow of doubt and somebody might get hurt or killed because he cannot function... then that is taking a pretty big risk.
I guess I'm thinking of an environment almost like an old age home for people with potential for violence such as this. Comfort, but limited freedoms and supervision.
edit: I couldnt get the video to play either.
fair enough. I misinterpreted what you meant.
no, I'm not confident. I think he should be free, but still monitored and tested regularly to make sure he's still mentally sound. No different than a person who has liver/kidney issues to get dialysis daily. I don't see any other way around it. To me that's a requirement of their freedom. Same with Vince Li. If the guy has the CHOICE to make on his own to go off his meds, that's like giving the guy a gun and pointing out the target.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
not criminally responsible. had it been a person who could distinguish right from wrong, I would hope that would get more than that. But we're talking about Canada's penal system. He might be given a Burger King coupon and told "now, Jimmy, don't do that again".
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
correct
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
To a point.
In this particular case, we have managed to establish a sense of normalcy and hold the OCD and paranoia at bay. But there has been no 'cure' here... there has only been 'management'.
With this said, I'm not sure granting portions of unsupervised freedom is wise. While it might work well for the mentally ill person, this comes at the risk of potentially placing innocent people in harm's way. This is not a gamble I'm in favour of. As I said before, I guess I would advocate for an institution much like a retirement home: comfort, assistance, and supervised outings.
^^^ A very reasonable suggestion.
My friends and I laugh at the American feeds on t.v. and their commercials..."if your one set of meds have you down, (don't get off them and get a real life with real friends), just try this med, with the med you are already on and we have testimonials from some of the users...........cue in the side effects. NICE!
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
We are a pill popping nation! :fp: And I love them
Maybe you were just in a cranky mood or being flippant when you wrote this, but the thread is about debilitating mental illness, not just someone who is "down". But if that is how you feel about people with mental illness, maybe you should be the one going to an island? Then you wouldn't have to deal with it.
Have you ever listened to the scroll of potential side effects?
Holy crap!
Ooops, my bad. People who have mental illness and have voices telling them to kill, should not be in society. Cutting off a head of a sleeping passenger on a bus, the example from one story in this thread about the lady being stabbed.....just because. You may want them in your world, but not me. Meds or no meds.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
it might have been presented a little harshly, but the concept does have merit. The 'island' is obviously not the solution for mentally ill people, but a 'home' certainly is.
We typically do not 'quarantine' healthy people when a viral outbreak threatens society. We contain the threat.
Too bad that wasn't what you were referring too. Nice backpedal, though.
I am a walking side effect TBU!!!!
as a person who takes medication to balance the chemicals in my brain properly to keep myself from eating a bullet, I find this incredibly ignorant and offensive.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Please, let's have constructive discussion about this. Saying things like "just send them all to an island" is a tad antiquated, and doesn't belong in any serious discussion on the topic.
Now, how does society deal with this? I'm not sure. On one hand, being not criminally responsible means that he is not being punished for the act, rather the whole point is rehabilitation. And if he's rehabilitated, then what right does society have in keeping the person incarcerated? I mean, if someone is deemed healthy after an operation, we send them home. Is there still a potential danger that person's condition may relapse at some point? Of course. Do we keep them in the hospital? No, we don't.
I understand in this situation, it's a public safety issue, but MP glover didn't mention that in her statement; she only spoke about respect for the victim's family. What should come first? People's feelings or someone's freedom?
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/MP-Glover-calls-on-province-to-appeal-Lis-greater-freedoms-247874991.html
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
While I eased off my initial stance regarding how we should deal with Li, there is absolutely no way it is prudent to allow him into mainstream society under his own care.
Ridiculous.
In the event they do move forward with their plan and he hurts someone, the 'professionals' that have eagerly afforded such a move should be considered negligent. If they feel so strongly about endorsing such a move, then staking their career on it should not be a problem. This guy mutilated and ate an innocent person... and six years later we feel that he's fit for society?
People's feelings or someone's freedom? It's a little deeper than that. You express 'feelings' as one might if McLean's mother had her feelings hurt after being insulted by some hurtful comments. She had her son violently taken from the earth in unspeakable fashion. Let's more accurately refer to these 'feelings' as pain, loss, and suffering. And as to pain, loss, and suffering... yes... we owe people the opportunity to heal and we owe them justice.
Secondly, when one severs the head of a person and then proceeds to eat them... they forfeit any freedoms 'normal' people enjoy. Quite clearly, they are a threat to public safety. Medications might make Li not see other humans as aliens that need to be mutilated and eaten, but do you want Li- out for the duration of a day- walking through a mall hallway to get to a bathroom and coming into contact with your daughter en route?
But yes, I agree with you. I think 6 years is too soon to tell if Li is fit for society, but I also air on the side of trusting the professionals who are treating him who obviously not only have the credentials to make such a recommendation, but also the one on one contact that none of us have.
If I saw him on the street, yes, of course I'd probably be scared for my safety and that of my loved ones. That's only natural. But to keep a man locked up because of the fears of society is not in the best interests of justice.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
there are quite a few folks who have done horrific murders because satan told them too. does that mean they should be pilled up, treated for a number of years in a mental institution & set free to stroll through the green grass in the city park sunday afternoon?
he is a dangerous, manipulative head case.
"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
I recognize that the legal system- complete with so many of its numerous flaws and deficiencies- holds people unaccountable for their part in some events such as this one given their 'medical' history. However, I'm not so quick to simply forgive and dismiss because the way I see things, if we look at the event itself... the beheading and mutilation was a crime. It wasn't an 'accident' and regardless of conditions that pushed him to act, Li is at the root of this crime.
If we wish to excuse Li from his part in the event due to his illness, then why can't we extend that argument to other scenarios?
Why hold drunk drivers responsible for running over people in intersections? They were drunk and incapable of practicing better judgement while intoxicated. Why would we hold them 'criminally' responsible for their acts when they were not in their right mind when they committed it and never meant to hurt anyone?
Why hold the angered husband responsible for killing his wife and lover as he discovered them in the act? Couldn't a case be made that he was temporarily insane after becoming enraged and therefore, not responsible for his actions in such a state?
What about the junkie who kills a storeowner for money that he needed to buy the drugs that would minimize the withdrawl symptoms that were wreaking havoc with his body?
The line here is more arbitrary than one might be willing to concede. I feel badly for people with mental illnesses, but I am not willing to overlook their part in a brutal murder because they weren't taking their medications... just as I am not willing to overlook the causal factors for drunk drivers, junkies, and enraged lovers who commit crimes.