Earlier this week, the provincial review board agreed to loosen restrictions on Vince Li, a man found not criminally responsible for a grisly slaying in 2008.
In the wake of the developments, readers have inundated me with questions about mental illness, the Criminal Code and the system by which accused persons such as Vincent Li are reintegrated into society. In order to get the straight facts, I turned to Ken Mackenzie, manager of the forensic mental-health program at the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. His unit oversees the treatment and supervision of all persons found not criminally responsible (NCR) in a court.
How many people are there in Manitoba who have been found NCR for a criminal act?
Mackenzie said right now, there are 110 NCRs in Manitoba. About 75 live in the community, and the rest are in either the psychiatric unit of Health Sciences Centre or Selkirk Mental Health Centre.
Did all NCRs commit violent, gruesome slayings?
No, in fact, NCRs involve a wide range of crimes. Only a small portion of the total number committed heinous, 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, Mackenzie said he is not aware of any NCR responsible for a killing who 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 with 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 accused person, 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?
Following changes to the Criminal Code in 1991, 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 the psychiatrist the final word on whether to release an NCR?
No. In fact, 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 proven to be accurate in assessing potential threat, and are routinely 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, Mackenzie said. 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, Mackenzie said.
Still, how can you ensure na NCR is taking medication once released?
Once found NCR, the accused 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 a readmission to hospital.
Is Vincent Li a psychopath like Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olson or Robert Pickton?
Schizophrenia, the illness that Li suffers from, is characterized by a break from reality, delusions and hallucinations. It is clinically different from the disorder that afflicts infamous serial killers, who are generally considered psychopaths, Mackenzie said.
Psychopathy is part of a group of mental disorders that cannot be treated with medication. Psychopaths are never found not criminally responsible. This is proven by the fact that Canada's most notorious serial killers have been declared fit to stand trial.
Can an NCR get an absolute discharge from release conditions?
Anyone released under an NCR finding can, in the future, apply for an absolute discharge, Mackenzie said. However, those people responsible for particularly violent crimes are almost never granted discharges.
In addition, even among those who do receive discharges, 95 per cent voluntarily continue working with the forensic mental-health unit to help them monitor medication, he added.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I read that passage. Statistics are in Li's favour, but that doesn't make me feel any better about the situation.
The crime wasn't just violent... it was macabre. The circumstances of it alone justify institutionalization and direct supervision forever. It's not as if Li was experiencing hallucinations and determined McLean was an alien that needed to be beat down... he mutilated him and ate him- quite an alternative dimension.
And, despite the fact that the courts are suggesting he wasn't criminally responsible... I maintain he was. Yes, there were underlying factors that prompted him to 'act out'... but to my way of thinking, his condition doesn't give him a pass to behead some random kid on a bus because he thought he was from outer space.
It's interesting that Mackenzie refers to Picton et al as possessing a disorder (psychopathy). Why do we hold these people criminally responsible for their crimes when, obviously, the condition they have motivates them to act as they do?
The explanations offered here also pays no regard to the victim or the family. Again, my biggest beef with our weak judicial and penal system manifests itself: the victim simply becomes an afterthought.
oh boy. you think Li is getting a pass? I think that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of severe mental illness. -psychopaths know right from wrong. they just don't give a shit. and psychopathy is not treatable through medication. they lack empathy, and you can't instill moral traits in someone. -Li didn't know what he was doing was wrong, in fact, he thought he was performing the will of God and saving the world from demons.
you can maintain all you want that he was responsible; the court system and all the professionals involved do not. this is not weak judiciary revolving door penal system. this is actually doing something right. you don't incarcerate the mentally ill. we don't want to go back to the dark ages of justice. or at least I don't.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
oh boy. you think Li is getting a pass? I think that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of severe mental illness. -psychopaths know right from wrong. they just don't give a shit. and psychopathy is not treatable through medication. they lack empathy, and you can't instill moral traits in someone. -Li didn't know what he was doing was wrong, in fact, he thought he was performing the will of God and saving the world from demons.
you can maintain all you want that he was responsible; the court system and all the professionals involved do not. this is not weak judiciary revolving door penal system. this is actually doing something right. you don't incarcerate the mentally ill. we don't want to go back to the dark ages of justice. or at least I don't.
Who cares what he thought he was doing? He committed a horrific crime.
Paranoid schizophrenia? You don't know right from wrong, so you are not responsible for your actions. Psychopathic? You have a personality disorder that, among other things, makes you incapable of developing empathy, but you are responsible for your actions. If you are going to contend that one cannot be criminally responsible for their actions based on the condition they are diagnosed with... then it's not a stretch to argue the other shouldn't be criminally responsible as well given their psychological condition.
But to the main point... Li's capacity for violence is as extreme as we've seen. We aren't talking about him grabbing a baseball bat and swinging it at demons (I thought he said the kid was an alien)... we're talking about him mutilating someone and then eating him because of his delusions. To say he's unsafe is placing it mildly.
You yourself said you wouldn't want him around your daughters. He is a huge risk and to my way of thinking, if the outspoken Li advocates want us to buy in on their suggestion that he is not a risk... then they should provide room and board for a while- let him live in their house among their family and prove it to us. I'll bet dollars to dimes that they wouldn't go this far to try and convince anyone of their 'certainty', yet we are supposed to simply accept their assertions and assume the risk that is inherent with affording him freedom.
Its a joke.
As I said earlier, I've eased off my initial position and would support Li in a comfortable hospital where he could be monitored and attended to. I'm just not all the way over to the other end of the spectrum where I think he should be ready to join society again because he takes some pills that make him better.
oh boy. you think Li is getting a pass? I think that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of severe mental illness. -psychopaths know right from wrong. they just don't give a shit. and psychopathy is not treatable through medication. they lack empathy, and you can't instill moral traits in someone. -Li didn't know what he was doing was wrong, in fact, he thought he was performing the will of God and saving the world from demons.
you can maintain all you want that he was responsible; the court system and all the professionals involved do not. this is not weak judiciary revolving door penal system. this is actually doing something right. you don't incarcerate the mentally ill. we don't want to go back to the dark ages of justice. or at least I don't.
He didn't think he was doing wrong.... Sorry Hugh, but I don't give a shit either. Dude needs to be locked up and the key thrown in Hudson Bay.
Who cares what he thought he was doing? He committed a horrific crime.
Paranoid schizophrenia? You don't know right from wrong, so you are not responsible for your actions. Psychopathic? You have a personality disorder that, among other things, makes you incapable of developing empathy, but you are responsible for your actions. If you are going to contend that one cannot be criminally responsible for their actions based on the condition they are diagnosed with... then it's not a stretch to argue the other shouldn't be criminally responsible as well given their psychological condition.
But to the main point... Li's capacity for violence is as extreme as we've seen. We aren't talking about him grabbing a baseball bat and swinging it at demons (I thought he said the kid was an alien)... we're talking about him mutilating someone and then eating him because of his delusions. To say he's unsafe is placing it mildly.
You yourself said you wouldn't want him around your daughters. He is a huge risk and to my way of thinking, if the outspoken Li advocates want us to buy in on their suggestion that he is not a risk... then they should provide room and board for a while- let him live in their house among their family and prove it to us. I'll bet dollars to dimes that they wouldn't go this far to try and convince anyone of their 'certainty', yet we are supposed to simply accept their assertions and assume the risk that is inherent with affording him freedom.
Its a joke.
As I said earlier, I've eased off my initial position and would support Li in a comfortable hospital where he could be monitored and attended to. I'm just not all the way over to the other end of the spectrum where I think he should be ready to join society again because he takes some pills that make him better.
I can't continue this discussion with people who are refusing to acknowledge the science, but rather do a disservice to everyone by further perpetuating the false stigma that mental illness is the fault of the afflicted. Vengeful witch hunts are a thing of the distant past. Welcome to the 21st century, where we treat illness instead of just trying to eliminate those who suffer from it.
Do some research on the topic, ANY. It would do you a world of good.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Who cares what he thought he was doing? He committed a horrific crime.
Paranoid schizophrenia? You don't know right from wrong, so you are not responsible for your actions. Psychopathic? You have a personality disorder that, among other things, makes you incapable of developing empathy, but you are responsible for your actions. If you are going to contend that one cannot be criminally responsible for their actions based on the condition they are diagnosed with... then it's not a stretch to argue the other shouldn't be criminally responsible as well given their psychological condition.
But to the main point... Li's capacity for violence is as extreme as we've seen. We aren't talking about him grabbing a baseball bat and swinging it at demons (I thought he said the kid was an alien)... we're talking about him mutilating someone and then eating him because of his delusions. To say he's unsafe is placing it mildly.
You yourself said you wouldn't want him around your daughters. He is a huge risk and to my way of thinking, if the outspoken Li advocates want us to buy in on their suggestion that he is not a risk... then they should provide room and board for a while- let him live in their house among their family and prove it to us. I'll bet dollars to dimes that they wouldn't go this far to try and convince anyone of their 'certainty', yet we are supposed to simply accept their assertions and assume the risk that is inherent with affording him freedom.
Its a joke.
As I said earlier, I've eased off my initial position and would support Li in a comfortable hospital where he could be monitored and attended to. I'm just not all the way over to the other end of the spectrum where I think he should be ready to join society again because he takes some pills that make him better.
I can't continue this discussion with people who are refusing to acknowledge the science, but rather do a disservice to everyone by further perpetuating the false stigma that mental illness is the fault of the afflicted. Vengeful witch hunts are a thing of the distant past. Welcome to the 21st century, where we treat illness instead of just trying to eliminate those who suffer from it.
Do some research on the topic, ANY. It would do you a world of good.
Lame.
Nobody is denying the illness. The only one denying anything is yourself with your eagerness to move Li into mainstream society as if nothing in the past matters.
My best friends brother is schizophrenic, but he was nowhere near the level that would have him remove someone's head from their neck and begin eating him.
This is an extreme case and should be treated as such. Put down your mental illness banner and look at the situation for what it is.
there is obviously an illness. The issue isn't the illness. It's weather or not a person, in this case, a murderer, can cope and live with such a severe mental illness in civilized society. And to me, clearly the answer is no.
A very good friend of mine is schizophrenic. We lived together at one point. I haven't seen him for years. He now lives on the streets in another city.
It's brutal. I'm not exactly sure how the family responded and to what degree he was responsive with regards to taking medication, but he has needed help and has gotten none.
I understand that some who take meds resume 'normal' brain activity. With this in mind, I support any program that seeks to serve the afflicted. In some cases, such as the one presented in the documentary, I support opportunities for reintegration into society. In Li's case, however, I feel given the extreme nature of his outburst, there is too much risk for society. Some other innocent person may just find themselves in the middle of one of his delusions.
We should take care of Li within a comfortable institution. I could likely even live with escorted trips to the mall or beach. But that's it. The reality is he's exceptionally dangerous when suffering episodes and nobody should be placed at risk because some people wish to roll the dice with him and grant him chunks of unlimited freedom.
The way I see it ... the problem is more with the law "not criminally responsible". So it appears to me everyone who is responsible for Vince Li is following the law ... so at some point he is going to get out, allowing him unescorted day passes just seems like the next step in the process ... to me 6 years or whatever it's been might be to soon, but in this case we'll just have to hope his doctors know what they are doing. Remember in Canada we only keep the very heinous behind bars for life ... just the way it is.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"So if the decision to grant Mr. Li more liberty is carefully analyzed and shown to reveal an unacceptable risk to public safety, it should be swiftly changed. But if the hue and cry in this case to protect public safety is, on careful analysis, really just code for a visceral desire to punish a mentally disordered person, that hue and cry should be resisted."
I'm curious how that "unacceptable risk" would manifest itself.
I don't think the goal here is to punish Li, it's more about keeping others safe from him, after he cut off someone's head and ATE HIM.
Mr. Butt can fuck himself (sometimes I crack myself up) with that last hue-and-cry commentary.
nobody here is denying science or illness! if you see it that way you're reading your feelings and not the words posted. it is a big risk to have a man like this in the general public. RESEARCH into mental illness shows that treatment is subjective and prone to "fits and starts" that would leave Mr Li and others at varying levels of risk from time to time. it sucks for this man to have his freedom curtailed for life, but isn't that the consequence for taking a life? "criminal responsibility" is a little insulting to the family of the victim, criminality it is not relevant to them. the people who lost the victim experience daily pain from what this man did and daily fear that he will be able to confer that pain on another family.
Who cares what he thought he was doing? He committed a horrific crime.
Paranoid schizophrenia? You don't know right from wrong, so you are not responsible for your actions. Psychopathic? You have a personality disorder that, among other things, makes you incapable of developing empathy, but you are responsible for your actions. If you are going to contend that one cannot be criminally responsible for their actions based on the condition they are diagnosed with... then it's not a stretch to argue the other shouldn't be criminally responsible as well given their psychological condition.
But to the main point... Li's capacity for violence is as extreme as we've seen. We aren't talking about him grabbing a baseball bat and swinging it at demons (I thought he said the kid was an alien)... we're talking about him mutilating someone and then eating him because of his delusions. To say he's unsafe is placing it mildly.
You yourself said you wouldn't want him around your daughters. He is a huge risk and to my way of thinking, if the outspoken Li advocates want us to buy in on their suggestion that he is not a risk... then they should provide room and board for a while- let him live in their house among their family and prove it to us. I'll bet dollars to dimes that they wouldn't go this far to try and convince anyone of their 'certainty', yet we are supposed to simply accept their assertions and assume the risk that is inherent with affording him freedom.
Its a joke.
As I said earlier, I've eased off my initial position and would support Li in a comfortable hospital where he could be monitored and attended to. I'm just not all the way over to the other end of the spectrum where I think he should be ready to join society again because he takes some pills that make him better.
I can't continue this discussion with people who are refusing to acknowledge the science, but rather do a disservice to everyone by further perpetuating the false stigma that mental illness is the fault of the afflicted. Vengeful witch hunts are a thing of the distant past. Welcome to the 21st century, where we treat illness instead of just trying to eliminate those who suffer from it.
Do some research on the topic, ANY. It would do you a world of good.
Lame.
Nobody is denying the illness. The only one denying anything is yourself with your eagerness to move Li into mainstream society as if nothing in the past matters.
My best friends brother is schizophrenic, but he was nowhere near the level that would have him remove someone's head from their neck and begin eating him.
This is an extreme case and should be treated as such. Put down your mental illness banner and look at the situation for what it is.
it's funny to me that you acknowledge yesterday that I'm apprehensive about being around the man in public should we to meet, AND that I also stated very clearly that I thought him being released a mere 6 years after the incident seemed too soon to me, and now you claim I'm eager to see him released. Which is it? Stop typing things for dramatic effect.
I'm not eager for anything except for Li to be treated fairly. There is NO REASON to keep someone locked up if they pose no further risk to society. He poses about the same risk as you do. He will be closely monitored and subject to constant scrutiny over whether he's taking his meds or not. You think that he misses a med on Wednesday that he goes ballistic and chops someone's head off on Thursday? it doesn't work that way. Vince Li is in no way going to be a "free" man as you think he will.
I have no mental illness banner. I have a human rights banner. I see exactly the situation as it is. It think I'm the only one not looking at this emotionally, but with a purely objective mind. Maybe if I was schzophrenic I'd be biased, but I'm not.
And stop with the "what about the family?" bullshit. If you think we need to consider how long someone is punished for based on suffering of the victim's family, then you are admitting you are out for vengeance. That's the very definition.
Look at the act if someone is criminally responsible for it, as that may mean they will do it again. Li won't. The act is therefore seperate from the future of Li.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
the act is seperate from his future? is it seperate from his past? "Li won't" how very reassuring. detaining someone and punishing someone aren't equal concepts so the vengeance thing is your idea, not mine
Li poses the same risk as I do? It's time to come home from the fair.
You're not even close to being objective with regards to this issue. Congratulations on being the self-proclaimed 21st century champion for people's rights. Let's go with the plan to integrate Li into public. In the event nothing goes wrong, then of course, I'll admit to being obtuse and medieval. In the event it doesn't go as smoothly as the 'experts' and you are claiming, then how about you quickly blame the old meds and tell us all how we can try again with some new meds?
And tell any people affected by his actions to 'suck it up' because our legal system is not designed to serve victims as much as it is to serve and work for the offenders. Isn't this the gist of what you were saying?
pretty amazing stuff im reading here. vince li is a mental case, a dangerous guy & someone who should not be walking around outside some mental facility. all of a sudden medications are given & violence is controlled? i highly doubt it. sure it'll zombify a guy... aka - the haldol shuffle
why in the world would these psychiatrists gamble on this guy? they want the prestige of being such great hardworking, forward thinking mental anguish healers. vote on it as a canadian society
do you want vince li walking the streets free as a jaybird in your city? this also means he will be living nearby & free to come & go as he pleases & may end up working at your local library or shopping center
i have ADHD/ADD can i rip someone's head off, eat on them & say i forgot my adderall or ritalin i wasn't paying attention at all when i removed their head off their shoulders again... i wasn't there paying attention i was daydreaming when satan herself demanded i get real frickin stupid & so i did i can't help myself, i wasn't paying attention, i was daydreaming & told to hurt someone & eat their flesh
Li poses the same risk as I do? It's time to come home from the fair.
You're not even close to being objective with regards to this issue. Congratulations on being the self-proclaimed 21st century champion for people's rights. Let's go with the plan to integrate Li into public. In the event nothing goes wrong, then of course, I'll admit to being obtuse and medieval. In the event it doesn't go as smoothly as the 'experts' and you are claiming, then how about you quickly blame the old meds and tell us all how we can try again with some new meds?
And tell any people affected by his actions to 'suck it up' because our legal system is not designed to serve victims as much as it is to serve and work for the offenders. Isn't this the gist of what you were saying?
This post is exactly why I stopped posting here a while ago. The same over the top melodramatic rhetoric and assumptions that couldn't be farther from the truth only because we disagree. Have fun playing internet without me.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i am 100% certain vince li & thirty bills unpaid are not at all on the same risk factor chart i've never met thirty bills unpaid, only read & traded ideas i've never met mr. vince li, only read about his terrible day where he murdered & ate on his victim's flesh on a greyhound bus
who would you want as a neighbor - vince or thirty bills unpaid?
i'd rather thirty bills unpaid be my neighbor than vince li can vince li & a guy hang out, throw back a few cold ones, spark a L-handed cigarette & chew the fat like a couple good ol' boys? i highly doubt it
Li poses the same risk as I do? It's time to come home from the fair.
You're not even close to being objective with regards to this issue. Congratulations on being the self-proclaimed 21st century champion for people's rights. Let's go with the plan to integrate Li into public. In the event nothing goes wrong, then of course, I'll admit to being obtuse and medieval. In the event it doesn't go as smoothly as the 'experts' and you are claiming, then how about you quickly blame the old meds and tell us all how we can try again with some new meds?
And tell any people affected by his actions to 'suck it up' because our legal system is not designed to serve victims as much as it is to serve and work for the offenders. Isn't this the gist of what you were saying?
This post is exactly why I stopped posting here a while ago. The same over the top melodramatic rhetoric and assumptions that couldn't be farther from the truth only because we disagree. Have fun playing internet without me.
Well, in the event you are reading this, I offer the following:
You're going on about everybody except for you is responding emotionally. Ironically though, in my opinion, it is you that speaks from emotion. And look at some of your comments before speaking to others and 'their' poor tactics (Li is as safe as you... have fun playing internet... go do some research and... welcome to the 21st century are ones that come to mind).
Ultimately, you have gotten pissy with people because they don't agree with you that (1) Li is safe and (2) that Li shouldn't be held criminally accountable for his beheading of Mclean.
You think he's safe, while others don't. You base your opinion on the fact that drugs have made Li functional and the 'experts' say he's safe. Others base their opinion on the fact that he has displayed the capacity to inflict harm on an unparalleled scale and they don't wish to run such a risk that is so reliant on medical personnel and medications. They can also point to several failures on the part of 'experts' that hardly promote confidence. You yourself said you wouldn't want him around your kids... so, at a very minimum, there is an argument here.
The second point in this discussion is not a slam dunk either. You say the courts and experts have definitively declared Li not criminally responsible for his crime so therefore, he is not. Legally, you are correct, but in plenty people's eyes, the court system- in particular the Canadian one- fails in many areas and I'm not one to simply buy in to every one of their legal philosophies, decisions or processes just because it is so.
I think that a crime did occur. And there was a victim and many others that think so too. Li has a mental illness which was the underlying causal factor for the crime that occurred. I'm of the opinion that while this is unfortunate, his mental illness doesn't completely absolve him for what he has done.
To validate what I was saying regarding the fact that I think Li is accountable for his actions, I offered some parallels when I said this: 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? I used the junkie suffering from withdrawls killing a store clerk in a botched robbery, an alcoholic drunk driver running over someone while impaired, and an enraged lover temporarily insane as examples of situations where people are suffering from some condition or affliction and commit crimes... to which we have no problem finding them criminally responsible.
It's interesting that you chose not to speak to this. The scenarios above are not so radically different from Li's that a discussion to discern the differences among the cases would be a waste of time: four people... all four out of their minds with various problems at the point of the crime... yet only schizophrenia works as a legal defence. Why not extend the line and afford the same level of understanding to others as well?
I think he and anyone else like him should be released back into society, but only if they are monitored closely to ensure that they are taking their meds, i.e., someone watches them take it every single day and/or do blood tests on a weekly basis. Anything less than that, then no one can ensure that they are taking their meds, and are therefore still a threat to society and should remain locked up.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Playing internet by myself... I'll answer my own question:
Canadian courts, in all their superior wisdom, do find people inebriated NCR for crimes they have committed: Guy Turcotte became a household name in Quebec in 2009, after he killed both his children. The cardiologist was in the process of divorcing his wife when he tried to commit suicide by drinking a litre of windshield washer fluid. He then stabbed his three-year-old daughter and five-year-old son a total of 47 times.
In 2012, he was charged with first degree murder. Though he had never been diagnosed with a mental illness, he was inebriated from consuming the washer fluid, and expert witnesses disagreed on whether or not Turcotte understood what he was doing. The jury found him not criminally responsible for the deaths of his children.
This case is one example that typifies the extreme failures of the Canadian justice system. We have collectively shoved our heads up our asses for having swung so far to the offender's end of the legal spectrum. It will only be a matter of time before someone kills someone in a rage over missing out on the last item for sale on Boxing Day and they will be found NCR: the subject was sleep deprived and had anticipated purchasing the XBox unit for the better part of a week. Combined with a slight case of dehydration and malnourishment- eating only M&Ms while camping out in line- the subject became deranged and therefore, did not know what he was doing.
According to the CMHA, mental illness does not lend itself to violence unless there are co-variants present that increase the risk of violent behaviour. The Canadian Mental Health Association suggests...
One of the strongest predictors of future violent behaviour is a past history of violence, whether it was experienced as an observer, a victim or a perpetrator.
In Li's case, he has a 'profound' past as a perpetrator. If the CMHA suggests this is the strongest predictor of future violent behaviour... I guess I'm inclined to stick with my 'gut' regarding what to do with Li. His unique display of violence, at a minimum, should warrant the most conservative approach to releasing him into the public and six years hardly seems that.
Topping it off, the likelihood of reoffending seems to be significantly higher than what was offered earlier. The CCR states that there is an estimated 80% recidivism rate for prisoners with severe mental illness.
In most facets of life, the biggest predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. If any portion of this old adage is true, and given the aforementioned taken from the 'experts'... releasing Li for any portions of unsupervised times seems foolhardy to me.
If you do something like what that guy did, you shouldn't be let out with unlimited freedom if your "illness" gets better or is controlled. You should be heavily monitored, if not some degree of locked up for the rest of your life.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
If you do something like what that guy did, you shouldn't be let out with unlimited freedom if your "illness" gets better or is controlled. You should be heavily monitored, if not some degree of locked up for the rest of your life.
But if the person isn't responsible because of an illness out of his control, and then can be monitored to have said illness under control with medication (and of course assuming there is solid enough evidence to show that the medication would have that affect), what would be the point of keeping them locked up? It would just be a lifetime of punishment/revenge for something the person couldn't help doing. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. But yes, that they are taking their medication should be heavily monitored for the rest of their lives.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
Earlier this week, the provincial review board agreed to loosen restrictions on Vince Li, a man found not criminally responsible for a grisly slaying in 2008.
In the wake of the developments, readers have inundated me with questions about mental illness, the Criminal Code and the system by which accused persons such as Vincent Li are reintegrated into society. In order to get the straight facts, I turned to Ken Mackenzie, manager of the forensic mental-health program at the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. His unit oversees the treatment and supervision of all persons found not criminally responsible (NCR) in a court.
How many people are there in Manitoba who have been found NCR for a criminal act?
Mackenzie said right now, there are 110 NCRs in Manitoba. About 75 live in the community, and the rest are in either the psychiatric unit of Health Sciences Centre or Selkirk Mental Health Centre.
Did all NCRs commit violent, gruesome slayings?
No, in fact, NCRs involve a wide range of crimes. Only a small portion of the total number committed heinous, 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, Mackenzie said he is not aware of any NCR responsible for a killing who 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 with 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 accused person, 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?
Following changes to the Criminal Code in 1991, 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 the psychiatrist the final word on whether to release an NCR?
No. In fact, 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 proven to be accurate in assessing potential threat, and are routinely 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, Mackenzie said. 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, Mackenzie said.
Still, how can you ensure na NCR is taking medication once released?
Once found NCR, the accused 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 a readmission to hospital.
Is Vincent Li a psychopath like Paul Bernardo, Clifford Olson or Robert Pickton?
Schizophrenia, the illness that Li suffers from, is characterized by a break from reality, delusions and hallucinations. It is clinically different from the disorder that afflicts infamous serial killers, who are generally considered psychopaths, Mackenzie said.
Psychopathy is part of a group of mental disorders that cannot be treated with medication. Psychopaths are never found not criminally responsible. This is proven by the fact that Canada's most notorious serial killers have been declared fit to stand trial.
Can an NCR get an absolute discharge from release conditions?
Anyone released under an NCR finding can, in the future, apply for an absolute discharge, Mackenzie said. However, those people responsible for particularly violent crimes are almost never granted discharges.
In addition, even among those who do receive discharges, 95 per cent voluntarily continue working with the forensic mental-health unit to help them monitor medication, he added.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I read that passage. Statistics are in Li's favour, but that doesn't make me feel any better about the situation.
The crime wasn't just violent... it was macabre. The circumstances of it alone justify institutionalization and direct supervision forever. It's not as if Li was experiencing hallucinations and determined McLean was an alien that needed to be beat down... he mutilated him and ate him- quite an alternative dimension.
And, despite the fact that the courts are suggesting he wasn't criminally responsible... I maintain he was. Yes, there were underlying factors that prompted him to 'act out'... but to my way of thinking, his condition doesn't give him a pass to behead some random kid on a bus because he thought he was from outer space.
It's interesting that Mackenzie refers to Picton et al as possessing a disorder (psychopathy). Why do we hold these people criminally responsible for their crimes when, obviously, the condition they have motivates them to act as they do?
The explanations offered here also pays no regard to the victim or the family. Again, my biggest beef with our weak judicial and penal system manifests itself: the victim simply becomes an afterthought.
-psychopaths know right from wrong. they just don't give a shit. and psychopathy is not treatable through medication. they lack empathy, and you can't instill moral traits in someone.
-Li didn't know what he was doing was wrong, in fact, he thought he was performing the will of God and saving the world from demons.
you can maintain all you want that he was responsible; the court system and all the professionals involved do not. this is not weak judiciary revolving door penal system. this is actually doing something right. you don't incarcerate the mentally ill. we don't want to go back to the dark ages of justice. or at least I don't.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Paranoid schizophrenia? You don't know right from wrong, so you are not responsible for your actions.
Psychopathic? You have a personality disorder that, among other things, makes you incapable of developing empathy, but you are responsible for your actions. If you are going to contend that one cannot be criminally responsible for their actions based on the condition they are diagnosed with... then it's not a stretch to argue the other shouldn't be criminally responsible as well given their psychological condition.
But to the main point... Li's capacity for violence is as extreme as we've seen. We aren't talking about him grabbing a baseball bat and swinging it at demons (I thought he said the kid was an alien)... we're talking about him mutilating someone and then eating him because of his delusions. To say he's unsafe is placing it mildly.
You yourself said you wouldn't want him around your daughters. He is a huge risk and to my way of thinking, if the outspoken Li advocates want us to buy in on their suggestion that he is not a risk... then they should provide room and board for a while- let him live in their house among their family and prove it to us. I'll bet dollars to dimes that they wouldn't go this far to try and convince anyone of their 'certainty', yet we are supposed to simply accept their assertions and assume the risk that is inherent with affording him freedom.
Its a joke.
As I said earlier, I've eased off my initial position and would support Li in a comfortable hospital where he could be monitored and attended to. I'm just not all the way over to the other end of the spectrum where I think he should be ready to join society again because he takes some pills that make him better.
Do some research on the topic, ANY. It would do you a world of good.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Nobody is denying the illness. The only one denying anything is yourself with your eagerness to move Li into mainstream society as if nothing in the past matters.
My best friends brother is schizophrenic, but he was nowhere near the level that would have him remove someone's head from their neck and begin eating him.
This is an extreme case and should be treated as such. Put down your mental illness banner and look at the situation for what it is.
It's brutal. I'm not exactly sure how the family responded and to what degree he was responsive with regards to taking medication, but he has needed help and has gotten none.
I understand that some who take meds resume 'normal' brain activity. With this in mind, I support any program that seeks to serve the afflicted. In some cases, such as the one presented in the documentary, I support opportunities for reintegration into society. In Li's case, however, I feel given the extreme nature of his outburst, there is too much risk for society. Some other innocent person may just find themselves in the middle of one of his delusions.
We should take care of Li within a comfortable institution. I could likely even live with escorted trips to the mall or beach. But that's it. The reality is he's exceptionally dangerous when suffering episodes and nobody should be placed at risk because some people wish to roll the dice with him and grant him chunks of unlimited freedom.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/he-beheaded-a-man-but-heres-why-vince-li-deserves-our-compassion/article17266850/
The way I see it ... the problem is more with the law "not criminally responsible". So it appears to me everyone who is responsible for Vince Li is following the law ... so at some point he is going to get out, allowing him unescorted day passes just seems like the next step in the process ... to me 6 years or whatever it's been might be to soon, but in this case we'll just have to hope his doctors know what they are doing. Remember in Canada we only keep the very heinous behind bars for life ... just the way it is.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I'm curious how that "unacceptable risk" would manifest itself.
I don't think the goal here is to punish Li, it's more about keeping others safe from him, after he cut off someone's head and ATE HIM.
Mr. Butt can fuck himself (sometimes I crack myself up) with that last hue-and-cry commentary.
No code.
it is a big risk to have a man like this in the general public. RESEARCH into mental illness shows that treatment is subjective and prone to "fits and starts" that would leave Mr Li and others at varying levels of risk from time to time. it sucks for this man to have his freedom curtailed for life, but isn't that the consequence for taking a life? "criminal responsibility" is a little insulting to the family of the victim, criminality it is not relevant to them. the people who lost the victim experience daily pain from what this man did and daily fear that he will be able to confer that pain on another family.
I'm not eager for anything except for Li to be treated fairly. There is NO REASON to keep someone locked up if they pose no further risk to society. He poses about the same risk as you do. He will be closely monitored and subject to constant scrutiny over whether he's taking his meds or not. You think that he misses a med on Wednesday that he goes ballistic and chops someone's head off on Thursday? it doesn't work that way. Vince Li is in no way going to be a "free" man as you think he will.
I have no mental illness banner. I have a human rights banner. I see exactly the situation as it is. It think I'm the only one not looking at this emotionally, but with a purely objective mind. Maybe if I was schzophrenic I'd be biased, but I'm not.
And stop with the "what about the family?" bullshit. If you think we need to consider how long someone is punished for based on suffering of the victim's family, then you are admitting you are out for vengeance. That's the very definition.
Look at the act if someone is criminally responsible for it, as that may mean they will do it again. Li won't. The act is therefore seperate from the future of Li.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
detaining someone and punishing someone aren't equal concepts so the vengeance thing is your idea, not mine
You're not even close to being objective with regards to this issue. Congratulations on being the self-proclaimed 21st century champion for people's rights. Let's go with the plan to integrate Li into public. In the event nothing goes wrong, then of course, I'll admit to being obtuse and medieval. In the event it doesn't go as smoothly as the 'experts' and you are claiming, then how about you quickly blame the old meds and tell us all how we can try again with some new meds?
And tell any people affected by his actions to 'suck it up' because our legal system is not designed to serve victims as much as it is to serve and work for the offenders. Isn't this the gist of what you were saying?
sure it'll zombify a guy... aka - the haldol shuffle
why in the world would these psychiatrists gamble on this guy? they want the prestige of being such great hardworking, forward thinking mental anguish healers. vote on it as a canadian society
do you want vince li walking the streets free as a jaybird in your city? this also means he will be living nearby & free to come & go as he pleases & may end up working at your local library or shopping center
"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
can i rip someone's head off, eat on them & say i forgot my adderall or ritalin
i wasn't paying attention at all when i removed their head off their shoulders
again... i wasn't there paying attention
i was daydreaming when satan herself demanded i get real frickin stupid
& so i did
i can't help myself, i wasn't paying attention, i was daydreaming & told to hurt someone & eat their flesh
sorry...
"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 said ow myhead
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
i am 100% certain vince li & thirty bills unpaid are not at all on the same risk factor chart
i've never met thirty bills unpaid, only read & traded ideas
i've never met mr. vince li, only read about his terrible day where he murdered & ate on his victim's flesh on a greyhound bus
who would you want as a neighbor - vince or thirty bills unpaid?
i'd rather thirty bills unpaid be my neighbor than vince li
can vince li & a guy hang out, throw back a few cold ones, spark a L-handed cigarette & chew the fat like a couple good ol' boys?
i highly doubt it
"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
You're going on about everybody except for you is responding emotionally. Ironically though, in my opinion, it is you that speaks from emotion. And look at some of your comments before speaking to others and 'their' poor tactics (Li is as safe as you... have fun playing internet... go do some research and... welcome to the 21st century are ones that come to mind).
Ultimately, you have gotten pissy with people because they don't agree with you that (1) Li is safe and (2) that Li shouldn't be held criminally accountable for his beheading of Mclean.
You think he's safe, while others don't. You base your opinion on the fact that drugs have made Li functional and the 'experts' say he's safe. Others base their opinion on the fact that he has displayed the capacity to inflict harm on an unparalleled scale and they don't wish to run such a risk that is so reliant on medical personnel and medications. They can also point to several failures on the part of 'experts' that hardly promote confidence. You yourself said you wouldn't want him around your kids... so, at a very minimum, there is an argument here.
The second point in this discussion is not a slam dunk either. You say the courts and experts have definitively declared Li not criminally responsible for his crime so therefore, he is not. Legally, you are correct, but in plenty people's eyes, the court system- in particular the Canadian one- fails in many areas and I'm not one to simply buy in to every one of their legal philosophies, decisions or processes just because it is so.
I think that a crime did occur. And there was a victim and many others that think so too. Li has a mental illness which was the underlying causal factor for the crime that occurred. I'm of the opinion that while this is unfortunate, his mental illness doesn't completely absolve him for what he has done.
To validate what I was saying regarding the fact that I think Li is accountable for his actions, I offered some parallels when I said this: 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? I used the junkie suffering from withdrawls killing a store clerk in a botched robbery, an alcoholic drunk driver running over someone while impaired, and an enraged lover temporarily insane as examples of situations where people are suffering from some condition or affliction and commit crimes... to which we have no problem finding them criminally responsible.
It's interesting that you chose not to speak to this. The scenarios above are not so radically different from Li's that a discussion to discern the differences among the cases would be a waste of time: four people... all four out of their minds with various problems at the point of the crime... yet only schizophrenia works as a legal defence. Why not extend the line and afford the same level of understanding to others as well?
"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
Canadian courts, in all their superior wisdom, do find people inebriated NCR for crimes they have committed: Guy Turcotte became a household name in Quebec in 2009, after he killed both his children. The cardiologist was in the process of divorcing his wife when he tried to commit suicide by drinking a litre of windshield washer fluid. He then stabbed his three-year-old daughter and five-year-old son a total of 47 times.
In 2012, he was charged with first degree murder. Though he had never been diagnosed with a mental illness, he was inebriated from consuming the washer fluid, and expert witnesses disagreed on whether or not Turcotte understood what he was doing. The jury found him not criminally responsible for the deaths of his children.
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2013-2014/the-man-who-hears-voices
This case is one example that typifies the extreme failures of the Canadian justice system. We have collectively shoved our heads up our asses for having swung so far to the offender's end of the legal spectrum. It will only be a matter of time before someone kills someone in a rage over missing out on the last item for sale on Boxing Day and they will be found NCR: the subject was sleep deprived and had anticipated purchasing the XBox unit for the better part of a week. Combined with a slight case of dehydration and malnourishment- eating only M&Ms while camping out in line- the subject became deranged and therefore, did not know what he was doing.
One of the strongest predictors of future violent behaviour is a past history of violence, whether it was experienced as an observer, a victim or a perpetrator.
http://www.cmha.ca/mental_health/violence-and-mental-illness/#.Uxjzh8x8HXo
In Li's case, he has a 'profound' past as a perpetrator. If the CMHA suggests this is the strongest predictor of future violent behaviour... I guess I'm inclined to stick with my 'gut' regarding what to do with Li. His unique display of violence, at a minimum, should warrant the most conservative approach to releasing him into the public and six years hardly seems that.
Topping it off, the likelihood of reoffending seems to be significantly higher than what was offered earlier. The CCR states that there is an estimated 80% recidivism rate for prisoners with severe mental illness.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/comio/Legislation.html
In most facets of life, the biggest predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. If any portion of this old adage is true, and given the aforementioned taken from the 'experts'... releasing Li for any portions of unsupervised times seems foolhardy to me.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.