Greyhound Bus Cannibal rehabilitated after 4 years?
Comments
-
I used the word troll since it seems to be a common accepted word to call someone around this forum when people rub each other the wrong way.dignin said:
Says the person somehow linking this topic to "gay/lesbian"PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
I have nothing to say to someone that stands firm in saying "people who have C-sections for non-medical reasons are idiots"dignin said:
Say what?PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?paulonious said:
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.paulonious said:
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.paulonious said:I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
Again... our courts are a joke.
http://www.cbc.ca/kamloops/mt/2015/02/17/kamloops-mans-aboriginal-background-factors-into-reduced-sentence-for-fatal-traffic-accident/
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help.
Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
Blanket statements usurp people to question.
expand your mind or troll elsewhere
You sure are taking the c-section thing personal.
And I'm pretty sure I have a good grasp as to who the troll is around here. Glad to see you're out of the penalty box.
I am only linking this topic to "gay/lesbian" temporarily to provide an example of choices people make and genetic derived decisions that may go against public scrutiny.
the C-section is personal as I have 4 healthy children, 3 of them a c-sec for non-medical reasons.
So I guess I amend my statement to "I have a hard time communicating with someone who thinks that people are idiots for having c-secs for non-medical reasons.
So as not to de-rail,
this head chopping, crazy, zombie jebus loving cannibal needs to be locked up and key thrown away along with his quackery of doctors.0 -
Schizto Head Loppers can choose to seek treatment. True statement?paulonious said:
um, no, sexual orientation is biological.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
So do you have the same opinion about being gay/lesbian?paulonious said:
It almost feels like you are just arguing a point just for the sake of it.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
Your 10,000 comment is extreme exaggeration. If you feel our court system serves justice then we can agree to disagree. The small scale case I cited was used to complement the catalog of high profile cases that have most Canadians I know slapping their foreheads incredulously.paulonious said:
You can cherry pick absurdly stupid rulings all you want to make your point, but for every idiot decision made by one judge, there are 10,000 others that make sense but aren't reported on.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
I know we disagree here, but I do think they can be compared.paulonious said:I appreciate the road you are taking here, but I just personally dont believe the two diseases (and the person's ability to control their respective tendencies or impulses) are comparable. It really is that simple.
This type of psychosis is incredibly rare. Alcoholism is rampant. Most, if not all, courts agree that diminished capacity due to drunkeness, whether due to a one time binge or a disease, is not a viable legal excuse, and I tend to agree with that.
In both cases, you have people who's actions can be attributed to their affliction. While one might be extremely rare in comparison, that doesn't make it more legitimate- especially for the individual struggling with alcohol that makes a fatal decision under the influence.
And I don't hold much respect for our courts (as you know). I mean, why should I? In our city, we very recently had a guy with multiple driving offences and a suspended license kill a woman at a crosswalk trying to get to a casino. Initially, a judge really threw the book at him and sentenced him to 6 months in jail.
Seen as absurdly unjust, an appeal saw another idiot judge overturn that sentence and reduced the sentence to 6 months house arrest (critical of the first sentence as well). Hahahaha. He got grounded! Why? His aboriginal background needed to be taken into account. Why not just give him nothing- make him say sorry or something? A colossal joke... and hardly 'unique'.
Again... our courts are a joke.
http://www.cbc.ca/kamloops/mt/2015/02/17/kamloops-mans-aboriginal-background-factors-into-reduced-sentence-for-fatal-traffic-accident/
As much as health professionals call alcoholism a disease, which i disagree with, but for the discussion let's say it is. The main difference here is alcoholics KNOW they are ill, and are fully capable of making the choice to seek help for their addiction before they kill someone. Someone in Li's situation, however, did not have the luxury of knowing he needed help.
On that difference alone, these two cannot be compared.
But to your other point and on topic: are you saying that the health experts are right when they speak of mental illness as a disease, but wrong when they cite the opinion that alcoholism is a disease? You have consistently vouched for the competency and professionalism of the health experts as they support NCR verdicts, yet (at least here) seem prepared to dismiss them when their opinion is contrary to your beliefs.
Li KNEW he was hearing voices he had never heard before which to most might seem quite odd and certainly something to investigate at the very least. According to the media, he was not a dumb man with higher education in his background. The fact that he ignored them until they overcame him seems at a minimum as negligent as ignoring the intense physical and mental urges an alcoholic must battle on a daily basis.
These cases cannot be compared if you choose not to compare them. At a core level... two individuals stricken with a mind altering affliction that leads them to making decisions they normally wouldnt make IS comparable.
Alcoholics know they have an affliction and can make the choice to get help.
Yeah, it sounds unbelievable and difficult for us non-voice-hearers to grasp, but it is a real thing.
Blanket statements usurp people to question.
Alcoholics can choose to seek treatment. True statement. Thats not a blanket statement. A blanket statement would be if i said something that thirty claimed i said, for example, tgat "all alcoholics are weak", which i do not believe, and know to be untrue. I also said i know how difficult it is to do so, and not only that, but to be successful is equally if not more difficult.
Dont let your passionate misinterpretation of something i said cause you to insult me.
Good day.
This is crazy. I still don't understand you position on whether you think the decision to let the
de-nogginizer cannibal out into society is the right decision.
What is your position?
My passionate misinterpretation of what your say is my fault as what you are saying I am not understanding correctly. Not an insult.
0 -
PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
You are totally losing me here with your arguments. The psychiatrist, or "quack" in your terminology, isn't claiming that Li is "cured" because of religious faith. Nothing you've posted provides any information on what the psychiatrist may have claimed; the article was only Li's point of view, and he clearly says that he's being treated with medication.oftenreading said:
I guess my idiosynchronism has pointed out a faith healer. Only a quack can surmise with the utmost professional contempt to dare say that a patient of theirs now accepts jebus as their saviour and therefore is cured.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
You appear to have an idiosyncratic definition of "quack". Most of us would understand it to mean someone without any actual training who fraudulently peddles an ineffective treatment, rather than a subspecialized physician who has successfully treated a patient's symptoms with an evidence-based medication.oftenreading said:
Yes, I know the interview is not by the psych. The quack shrink is the person/people? responsible for having reviewed this interview (along with other evidence I digress) and still deem it necessary to set this monster free. Quackism at its highest level.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:Pure madness. This loony bin and his quack shrink need to be both put away. All I took away from the entire article is as follows;
Who is the "quack shrink" you are referring to? You do realize that the interview isn't by his psychiatrist, right?oftenreading said:
Q. Do you have a spirituality?
A. I believe in Jesus Christ. He is my saviour. I try to follow God.
Q. When did you begin to experience schizophrenia?
A. I thought I heard the voice of God telling me to write down my journey. The voice told me that I was the third story of the Bible. That I was like the second coming of Jesus. I was to save people from a space-alien attack. That is why I travelled around the country. I am not sure of all the places I went to. I now know that it was schizophrenia I was suffering from.
Q. What helps you deal with stress?
A. Taking my medication. Exercising and doing Bible study with the chaplain here.
Q. How would you know you were getting sick again?
A. Hearing voices, stopping my medication and starting to believe in aliens. God would not tell me to do something bad.
Who is Chris Summerville?
CEO, Schizophrenia Society of Canada
executive director, Manitoba Schizophrenia Society certified psychosocial rehabilitation practitioner
ordained pastor with the Associated Gospel Churches of Canadanon-government director,
has served as a pastor, chaplain, teacher, administrator and mental-health service provider in Canada and the U.S.
I hope this is not considered de-railing the thread but a complicated subject like this loon must have all aspects discussed.
The psychiatrist, if we had actually heard from him or her, wouldn't claim that he was cured, only successfully treated, with medication.
But FYI, having a social support network, like within a church, will lower his risk of re-offending further.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
oftenreading said:
Glad his risk is lowered.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:oftenreading said:
I guess my idiosynchronism has pointed out a faith healer. Only a quack can surmise with the utmost professional contempt to dare say that a patient of theirs now accepts jebus as their saviour and therefore is cured.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
You appear to have an idiosyncratic definition of "quack". Most of us would understand it to mean someone without any actual training who fraudulently peddles an ineffective treatment, rather than a subspecialized physician who has successfully treated a patient's symptoms with an evidence-based medication.oftenreading said:
Yes, I know the interview is not by the psych. The quack shrink is the person/people? responsible for having reviewed this interview (along with other evidence I digress) and still deem it necessary to set this monster free. Quackism at its highest level.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:Pure madness. This loony bin and his quack shrink need to be both put away. All I took away from the entire article is as follows;
Who is the "quack shrink" you are referring to? You do realize that the interview isn't by his psychiatrist, right?oftenreading said:
Q. Do you have a spirituality?
A. I believe in Jesus Christ. He is my saviour. I try to follow God.
Q. When did you begin to experience schizophrenia?
A. I thought I heard the voice of God telling me to write down my journey. The voice told me that I was the third story of the Bible. That I was like the second coming of Jesus. I was to save people from a space-alien attack. That is why I travelled around the country. I am not sure of all the places I went to. I now know that it was schizophrenia I was suffering from.
Q. What helps you deal with stress?
A. Taking my medication. Exercising and doing Bible study with the chaplain here.
Q. How would you know you were getting sick again?
A. Hearing voices, stopping my medication and starting to believe in aliens. God would not tell me to do something bad.
Who is Chris Summerville?
CEO, Schizophrenia Society of Canada
executive director, Manitoba Schizophrenia Society certified psychosocial rehabilitation practitioner
ordained pastor with the Associated Gospel Churches of Canadanon-government director,
has served as a pastor, chaplain, teacher, administrator and mental-health service provider in Canada and the U.S.
I hope this is not considered de-railing the thread but a complicated subject like this loon must have all aspects discussed.
But FYI, having a social support network, like within a church, will lower his risk of re-offending further.0 -
If you do actually want to know the name of the medication he is being treated with, I believe it was olanzapine, which is an oral antipsychotic medication. It's easily detected in the blood and a lab that tests for it will have a quantitative value within hours, which not only allows the treatment team to see if the patient is taking the medication or not, but gives an idea of how much is being taken. So for all of those who have been worried about "what happens if he goes off his medication?", the answer is - the treatment team would have proof very quickly if he went off his medication, and would intervene, likely to bring him back to hospital.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
So these demons that come and go....benjs said:
I don't believe in apologizing for empathetic behaviour. If you believe in the mind that can be changed throughout a lifetime, then you believe rehabilitation is a viable option for someone with clear mental illness. Simply put, if demons in your head are what made you act in a horrific way (which clearly medical experts believe to be the case), those demons should not be cause for a life sentence or death penalty (assuming you respond positively to medically-proposed treatment).PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Not making it personal to you man. I answered your quip directly with a more verbose response. It doesn't sound offensive what you think has to be said. I am offended that society can defend a cannibal eating de-noganizer and give itself a pat on the back for being empathetic.paulonious said:
Sorry if this sounds offensive, but it has to be said: you clearly have very little, if any, understanding of this case. Or possibly mental illness as a whole.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
I am merely trying to be as direct to you as this problem is to society and the legal system. All of a sudden this guy after getting arrested gets dropped into some ones hands and is in essence being told "deal with this because I won't/can't"paulonious said:
thanks for adding so much to the discussion.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
He chopped off a head. Deal with it.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.
What do you do with that? Forget the studies, empirical evidence, statistics et al. You chop off a head and eat flesh there is no rehab, there is no medicine, there is no PHD guy that can save you in the court - banished from society for life nothing else. Any judge behind a bench passes judgement on the facts the lawyers present - as well as a touch of their moral conviction.
I would hope that any attorney/doctor that is successful in advocating for a monster as such should verily be held accountable should a re-offence occur. We all know this won't happen. This is scary that society can now "cure" head loppers and cannibals with success.
Shame.
Are they real? and to who?
Clearly the medicine people believe with sound mind that demons can be eradicated. What is the name of the drug to cure them called again?my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
I don't post this stuff. I just google it.oftenreading said:
If you do actually want to know the name of the medication he is being treated with, I believe it was olanzapine, which is an oral antipsychotic medication. It's easily detected in the blood and a lab that tests for it will have a quantitative value within hours, which not only allows the treatment team to see if the patient is taking the medication or not, but gives an idea of how much is being taken. So for all of those who have been worried about "what happens if he goes off his medication?", the answer is - the treatment team would have proof very quickly if he went off his medication, and would intervene, likely to bring him back to hospital.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
So these demons that come and go....benjs said:
I don't believe in apologizing for empathetic behaviour. If you believe in the mind that can be changed throughout a lifetime, then you believe rehabilitation is a viable option for someone with clear mental illness. Simply put, if demons in your head are what made you act in a horrific way (which clearly medical experts believe to be the case), those demons should not be cause for a life sentence or death penalty (assuming you respond positively to medically-proposed treatment).PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Not making it personal to you man. I answered your quip directly with a more verbose response. It doesn't sound offensive what you think has to be said. I am offended that society can defend a cannibal eating de-noganizer and give itself a pat on the back for being empathetic.paulonious said:
Sorry if this sounds offensive, but it has to be said: you clearly have very little, if any, understanding of this case. Or possibly mental illness as a whole.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
I am merely trying to be as direct to you as this problem is to society and the legal system. All of a sudden this guy after getting arrested gets dropped into some ones hands and is in essence being told "deal with this because I won't/can't"paulonious said:
thanks for adding so much to the discussion.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
He chopped off a head. Deal with it.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.
What do you do with that? Forget the studies, empirical evidence, statistics et al. You chop off a head and eat flesh there is no rehab, there is no medicine, there is no PHD guy that can save you in the court - banished from society for life nothing else. Any judge behind a bench passes judgement on the facts the lawyers present - as well as a touch of their moral conviction.
I would hope that any attorney/doctor that is successful in advocating for a monster as such should verily be held accountable should a re-offence occur. We all know this won't happen. This is scary that society can now "cure" head loppers and cannibals with success.
Shame.
Are they real? and to who?
Clearly the medicine people believe with sound mind that demons can be eradicated. What is the name of the drug to cure them called again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olanzapine0 -
no one seems to believe what I, and Li's own medical team, have been saying all along: being heavily monitored for life does not equate to checking in with a parole officer by phone once a week.oftenreading said:
If you do actually want to know the name of the medication he is being treated with, I believe it was olanzapine, which is an oral antipsychotic medication. It's easily detected in the blood and a lab that tests for it will have a quantitative value within hours, which not only allows the treatment team to see if the patient is taking the medication or not, but gives an idea of how much is being taken. So for all of those who have been worried about "what happens if he goes off his medication?", the answer is - the treatment team would have proof very quickly if he went off his medication, and would intervene, likely to bring him back to hospital.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
So these demons that come and go....benjs said:
I don't believe in apologizing for empathetic behaviour. If you believe in the mind that can be changed throughout a lifetime, then you believe rehabilitation is a viable option for someone with clear mental illness. Simply put, if demons in your head are what made you act in a horrific way (which clearly medical experts believe to be the case), those demons should not be cause for a life sentence or death penalty (assuming you respond positively to medically-proposed treatment).PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Not making it personal to you man. I answered your quip directly with a more verbose response. It doesn't sound offensive what you think has to be said. I am offended that society can defend a cannibal eating de-noganizer and give itself a pat on the back for being empathetic.paulonious said:
Sorry if this sounds offensive, but it has to be said: you clearly have very little, if any, understanding of this case. Or possibly mental illness as a whole.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
I am merely trying to be as direct to you as this problem is to society and the legal system. All of a sudden this guy after getting arrested gets dropped into some ones hands and is in essence being told "deal with this because I won't/can't"paulonious said:
thanks for adding so much to the discussion.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
He chopped off a head. Deal with it.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.
What do you do with that? Forget the studies, empirical evidence, statistics et al. You chop off a head and eat flesh there is no rehab, there is no medicine, there is no PHD guy that can save you in the court - banished from society for life nothing else. Any judge behind a bench passes judgement on the facts the lawyers present - as well as a touch of their moral conviction.
I would hope that any attorney/doctor that is successful in advocating for a monster as such should verily be held accountable should a re-offence occur. We all know this won't happen. This is scary that society can now "cure" head loppers and cannibals with success.
Shame.
Are they real? and to who?
Clearly the medicine people believe with sound mind that demons can be eradicated. What is the name of the drug to cure them called again?
Thank you for those details, oftenreading.
By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
The country never paid for his mutilated victim's funeral, but is set to not only release Li into the public, but support him financially as well as structure a team of professionals to guarantee the product of their work. Interesting.oftenreading said:
If you do actually want to know the name of the medication he is being treated with, I believe it was olanzapine, which is an oral antipsychotic medication. It's easily detected in the blood and a lab that tests for it will have a quantitative value within hours, which not only allows the treatment team to see if the patient is taking the medication or not, but gives an idea of how much is being taken. So for all of those who have been worried about "what happens if he goes off his medication?", the answer is - the treatment team would have proof very quickly if he went off his medication, and would intervene, likely to bring him back to hospital.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
So these demons that come and go....benjs said:
I don't believe in apologizing for empathetic behaviour. If you believe in the mind that can be changed throughout a lifetime, then you believe rehabilitation is a viable option for someone with clear mental illness. Simply put, if demons in your head are what made you act in a horrific way (which clearly medical experts believe to be the case), those demons should not be cause for a life sentence or death penalty (assuming you respond positively to medically-proposed treatment).PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
Not making it personal to you man. I answered your quip directly with a more verbose response. It doesn't sound offensive what you think has to be said. I am offended that society can defend a cannibal eating de-noganizer and give itself a pat on the back for being empathetic.paulonious said:
Sorry if this sounds offensive, but it has to be said: you clearly have very little, if any, understanding of this case. Or possibly mental illness as a whole.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
I am merely trying to be as direct to you as this problem is to society and the legal system. All of a sudden this guy after getting arrested gets dropped into some ones hands and is in essence being told "deal with this because I won't/can't"paulonious said:
thanks for adding so much to the discussion.PJfanwillneverleave1 said:
He chopped off a head. Deal with it.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.
What do you do with that? Forget the studies, empirical evidence, statistics et al. You chop off a head and eat flesh there is no rehab, there is no medicine, there is no PHD guy that can save you in the court - banished from society for life nothing else. Any judge behind a bench passes judgement on the facts the lawyers present - as well as a touch of their moral conviction.
I would hope that any attorney/doctor that is successful in advocating for a monster as such should verily be held accountable should a re-offence occur. We all know this won't happen. This is scary that society can now "cure" head loppers and cannibals with success.
Shame.
Are they real? and to who?
Clearly the medicine people believe with sound mind that demons can be eradicated. What is the name of the drug to cure them called again?
I have to question the level of certainty Li's team of health professionals possess when at the same time they speak of his low level of risk to the public... they speak of the safeguards they are structuring to ensure he doesn't relapse. It sounds as if they are really going to take extra precautions with Li to support their claims; however, if they are so certain Li is sound to reintegrate back into society and truly does not pose any risks.. then why the extra careful monitoring?
The typical monitoring of mentally ill adults yields occurrences of relapses- it's not perfect. Why dies Li receive the extra support? Obviously, it's because of the potential he possesses. The risk management plan most assuredly has calculated the risk Li carries and as such, the additional precautions have been implemented.
What am I trying to say? I'm saying if he warrants extra support or his own custom curriculum... then he is not ready to be unsupervised.
Has anybody bothered pointing out the fact that originally, Li thought he was hearing God's voice before things twisted out of control. And now he's more devout than ever? Are we certain that he would be able to distinguish 'that voice' as a symptom of his illness versus a message from his lord? Typically, religious people find the lord speaking to them in a variety of manners (cloud shapes, timely songs on the radio, etc.). I'm not so sure 'that voice' would be something triggering a need to tell medical help versus perhaps embracing it as a special moment in his relationship with the god he worships.
* As a side, I discovered the Westboro Baptist Church made plans to protest McLean's funeral. Man I think these people are some of the lowest forms of life on the planet.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/extremist-church-to-be-blocked-at-border-report-1.314065"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
I am heading out to a 7:00 meeting so will answer in more detail later, as your points deserve a proper response, TBU. Briefly, my response would be that the treatment/monitoring proposed by Li's treatment team and discussed at his RB hearings is not unusual for a RB client being gradually reintegrated back into society; in fact, from what I've seen it seems to be pretty typical.
And I can wholeheartedly agree with you about the Westboro Baptist Church.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
So just briefly going with that tangent - the Westboro woman actually said "Here's what I know. He is dead and God does not do that to people that serve in his truth".
So no member of the Westboro church has ever died? And if they did die, what does that mean about their "service in his truth"??? Inexplicable logic indeed.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Living, breathing, pieces of excrement. No other way to desribe the WBC.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
-
Back to your points, TBU - you've essentially said that if Mr. Li really is high risk, why is he getting intensive services to support his reintegration?
The provincial Review Boards are inherently very conservative (small "c") bodies. Virtually everyone progresses slowly (if at all) through this system. If they are initially in hospital on a custodial order it generally takes some time of stability before being considered for a conditional discharge (which can still involve hospitalization while awaiting an appropriate community placement), and then typically much more time living in the community with intensive supports before consideration would be given to stepping down those supports to see how proactive the individual was in taking care of their own health without support staff leading that. I haven't seen any details on exactly what is proposed for Li, but it would be entirely typical even for an individual found NCR on a lesser charge (say, a simply assault or even a non-violent crime) to move from no access outside the hospital, to supervised grounds access, to unsupervised grounds access, to supervised brief times in the community, extending to longer periods, before there would be consideration given for any unsupervised visits.
Ideally, where services exist, this is also done for the non-forensic psychiatric population moving from an inpatient stay toward discharge, where warranted by the clinical picture.
And let's be honest here - there's been outrage from some members of this forum, and some members of the public, over what is proposed at this point. Do you seriously expect that the hospital could get away with proposing limited or no supervision or support even they felt it was clinically warranted? You can't have your cake and eat it too.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
1. That's not what I was saying. I said if Li is 'not' a risk... why the 'extra' intensive services to support his reintegration (from what I have read, his release would receive an extra quality of servicing)?oftenreading said:Back to your points, TBU - you've essentially said that if Mr. Li really is high risk, why is he getting intensive services to support his reintegration?
And let's be honest here - there's been outrage from some members of this forum, and some members of the public, over what is proposed at this point. Do you seriously expect that the hospital could get away with proposing limited or no supervision or support even they felt it was clinically warranted? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
2. You spoke to what I was saying in your second passage. Ultimately, this is a sell job- just one I'm not buying.
I disagree with the decisions being made, however I'm going to have to accept them. In the event things go well for a very, very long time... I'll concede that I was wrong and tip my hat to the experts and to people such as yourself.
Of course, if things do not go well, the 'experts' might have to go crawl under a rock (I guess yourself too).
I'm glad we agree that the WBC are brutal.
"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
Yes, sorry - that was my typo - I did mean to have the "not" so my sentence didn't really make sense. I try to proof read, but.....Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
1. That's not what I was saying. I said if Li is 'not' a risk... why the 'extra' intensive services to support his reintegration (from what I have read, his release would receive an extra quality of servicing)?oftenreading said:Back to your points, TBU - you've essentially said that if Mr. Li really is high risk, why is he getting intensive services to support his reintegration?
And let's be honest here - there's been outrage from some members of this forum, and some members of the public, over what is proposed at this point. Do you seriously expect that the hospital could get away with proposing limited or no supervision or support even they felt it was clinically warranted? You can't have your cake and eat it too.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
You get to tip a hat and I get a rock?? Tough crowd.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
1. That's not what I was saying. I said if Li is 'not' a risk... why the 'extra' intensive services to support his reintegration (from what I have read, his release would receive an extra quality of servicing)?oftenreading said:Back to your points, TBU - you've essentially said that if Mr. Li really is high risk, why is he getting intensive services to support his reintegration?
And let's be honest here - there's been outrage from some members of this forum, and some members of the public, over what is proposed at this point. Do you seriously expect that the hospital could get away with proposing limited or no supervision or support even they felt it was clinically warranted? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
2. You spoke to what I was saying in your second passage. Ultimately, this is a sell job- just one I'm not buying.
I disagree with the decisions being made, however I'm going to have to accept them. In the event things go well for a very, very long time... I'll concede that I was wrong and tip my hat to the experts and to people such as yourself.
Of course, if things do not go well, the 'experts' might have to go crawl under a rock (I guess yourself too).
I'm glad we agree that the WBC are brutal.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Hahaha!oftenreading said:
You get to tip a hat and I get a rock?? Tough crowd.Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
1. That's not what I was saying. I said if Li is 'not' a risk... why the 'extra' intensive services to support his reintegration (from what I have read, his release would receive an extra quality of servicing)?oftenreading said:Back to your points, TBU - you've essentially said that if Mr. Li really is high risk, why is he getting intensive services to support his reintegration?
And let's be honest here - there's been outrage from some members of this forum, and some members of the public, over what is proposed at this point. Do you seriously expect that the hospital could get away with proposing limited or no supervision or support even they felt it was clinically warranted? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
2. You spoke to what I was saying in your second passage. Ultimately, this is a sell job- just one I'm not buying.
I disagree with the decisions being made, however I'm going to have to accept them. In the event things go well for a very, very long time... I'll concede that I was wrong and tip my hat to the experts and to people such as yourself.
Of course, if things do not go well, the 'experts' might have to go crawl under a rock (I guess yourself too).
I'm glad we agree that the WBC are brutal.
Tell you what? PJ40... you and Hugh can pelt me with smaller rocks for 15 seconds."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
They would have to be very small rocks. The kind that would float.
I'm anti-violence, you know.my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Then I will listen to Nickleback on my headphones for the trip down.oftenreading said:They would have to be very small rocks. The kind that would float.
I'm anti-violence, you know."My brain's a good brain!"0 -
That's pretty harsh. Wouldn't you rather have the rocks?my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0
-
Of course, but I'm trying to find the middle way. Something non-violent... yet somehow still a consequence of some significance.oftenreading said:That's pretty harsh. Wouldn't you rather have the rocks?
Li will likely eat someone anyways. I'm feeling safe.
(kidding)"My brain's a good brain!"0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help