Schizophrenic Canadian who beheaded bus passenger walks free, won’t be monitored.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

What a shitty argument "if he was American we wouldn't mind him having guns!" Yeah I am sure that's how that works.

Ots as accurate a statement as "guy kills someone, gets off scott free"

[PosPosPos]

Psychiatrists are quacks from my experience. I don't trust them one bit.

It's your choice to be wrong.

[Beet]

I sure feel for the family of the deceased. That has to hurt knowing the man who murdered your loved one in such a gruesome way is free to live his life as if it never happened. Oh and this man ate your loved one too. That's gotta feel really good to know.

- - - Updated - - -

Psychiatrists are quacks from my experience. I don't trust them one bit.

Well your experience isn't a good argument at all. And that's great you don't trust them one bit. Some people don't trust the government because they think they're lizard people in disguise. Also isn't your main account unbanned yet?

[kail]

I'd still consider him a threat to society if he's relying on downers. Are they going to at least check up on him every so often?

Schizophrenia has no cure, just a bandaid solution.

[Endus]

a civil commitment is usually an involuntary process that constrains your freedom. Youre not free to leave as long as the underlying conditions justifying your detention persist. Practically speaking, I don't think that's much different than being incarcerated.

Except that the commitment is based on the individual's mental health, not a specific sentence duration. If the doctors deem them healthy and safe to live on their own, the justification for commitment has ended. It works both ways; an individual who goes into irrational rages and assaults people might NEVER be safe to release, and stay in the institution much longer than they'd be imprisoned for an assault charge.

Saying he did not commit a crime doesn't mean he didn't do something wrong. The way you are spinning it is like the law pretty much condones what he did because he's viewed as insane. What he did was still extremely violent and heinous whether he was in his right mind or not. People have every right and reason to be extremely wary of the gov't simply allowing him free rein with no mandate to continue taking medication.

The events are obviously horrible and tragic. That doesn't change. However, the law is very clear, here. Li was not deemed to be criminally responsible for his actions. He was not guilty of that crime, and not sentenced to any jail term. He's an innocent man, under the eyes of the law.

[prwraith]

If you enter a plea of not guilty via insanity. You need to be in an insane asylum.

[zenkai]

If you enter a plea of not guilty via insanity. You need to be in an insane asylum.

Makes you wonder how many people defending him would ride the bus with him.

[Berndorf]

Except that the commitment is based on the individual's mental health, not a specific sentence duration. If the doctors deem them healthy and safe to live on their own, the justification for commitment has ended. It works both ways; an individual who goes into irrational rages and assaults people might NEVER be safe to release, and stay in the institution much longer than they'd be imprisoned for an assault charge.



The events are obviously horrible and tragic. That doesn't change. However, the law is very clear, here. Li was not deemed to be criminally responsible for his actions. He was not guilty of that crime, and not sentenced to any jail term. He's an innocent man, under the eyes of the law.

Innocent yet was still forced to be rehabilitated. Its not quite the same as someone who is tried for murder, found innocent then just gets to move on with their life. What happened here is not the same. He isn't responsible in the sense that a regular murder conviction would be but he was forced to do 8 years of rehabilitation due to the law recognizing extenuating circumstances which led him to do what he did. The law simply makes provision for people with mental illness. He wasn't just allowed to go right on with his life though on basis of being mentally insane though.

[Endus]

Innocent yet was still forced to be rehabilitated. Its not quite the same as someone who is tried for murder, found innocent then just gets to move on with their life. What happened here is not the same. He isn't responsible in the sense that a regular murder conviction would be but he was forced to do 8 years of rehabilitation due to the law recognizing extenuating circumstances which led him to do what he did. The law simply makes provision for people with mental illness. He wasn't just allowed to go right on with his life though on basis of being mentally insane though.

Again, the way you're phrasing this is just objectively incorrect. The commitment to an institution is based on the individuals (lack of) mental stability. Once they're stable and no longer deemed a danger, there's no justification for keeping them institutionalized. The process is meant to help that individual, it isn't an alternative sentence. Because, again, he was not found guilty of any crime.

[Berndorf]

Again, the way you're phrasing this is just objectively incorrect. The commitment to an institution is based on the individuals (lack of) mental stability. Once they're stable and no longer deemed a danger, there's no justification for keeping them institutionalized. The process is meant to help that individual, it isn't an alternative sentence. Because, again, he was not found guilty of any crime.

Its not though. Being found mentally ill enough to get not be sentenced as a regular person is not the same as being found innocent. The state recognizes he committed the act and has to spend as much time in an institution as is necessary for him to seen as not a serious threat to society. Even now, we have no idea if he will kill someone next week. Its fully dependent upon him taking his meds and having some concept of how dangerous he can become if he doesn't. I'm done debating this though, nothing left to say regarding this and not reading or responding to anything anyone else says on this thread.

[Endus]

Its not though. Being found mentally ill enough to get not be sentenced as a regular person is not the same as being found innocent.

As far as his guilt for the crime he was accused of, it is. He was found to not be criminally responsible for his actions, which is an acquittal, not a guilty verdict.

The state recognizes he committed the act and has to spend as much time in an institution as is necessary for him to seen as not a serious threat to society. Even now, we have no idea if he will kill someone next week.

This is nonsense, since what you're describing happened, and his doctors have determined that he's healthy and safe, which is why he's been given progressively greater freedom, leading up to this.

[unfilteredJW]

Got a nice big eyeroll for all the psychiatric professionals in this thread.

[Nasuem]

Seriously, this is crystal clear. He was deemed not criminally responsible. Meaning he DID NOT commit a crime.

This is literally what a "not criminally responsible" plea involves.

I'd wager the family of the beheaded man would take exception with that explanation.

What it means is that some liberal psychologists who believe no one can do any wrong, told the justice system he wasn't responsible for his crime.

Never mind he brought a knife with him (premeditation?) and attacked someone who couldn't see him coming (seems pretty sane).

- - - Updated - - -

Makes you wonder how many people defending him would ride the bus with him.

Haha, top quote of the day. Exactly. Just like walled in millionaires telling everyone else how great unfettered illegal immigration is.

He WILL hurt someone else, it's just a matter of when. Bleeding hearts are destroying the West.

[Endus]

I'd wager the family of the beheaded man would take exception with that explanation.

That's an appeal to emotion, not an argument. The facts are that the case was tried, in court, and he was deemed to not be criminally responsible. Saying his family might not like that verdict doesn't overrule that verdict.

What it means is that some liberal psychologists who believe no one can do any wrong, told the justice system he wasn't responsible for his crime.

1> Why the hell would they be "liberal"? This isn't partisan at all.
2> They made the case that he wasn't criminally responsible. They had to convince the court they were right.

[Nasuem]

That's an appeal to emotion, not an argument. The facts are that the case was tried, in court, and he was deemed to not be criminally responsible. Saying his family might not like that verdict doesn't overrule that verdict.



1> Why the hell would they be "liberal"? This isn't partisan at all.
2> They made the case that he wasn't criminally responsible. They had to convince the court they were right.

I never said any of that overruled the verdict but just because it happened through legal channels doesn't make it any less insane that this man is now walking free.

I understand court procedure and how they present a case, excuse my pedestrian summation.

Anyways, this man will re-offend. I'll be big enough not to come back with "I told you so".

[Xecks]

Cue the people who don't recognize the important part of a "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea.

heh that doesnt mean hes not a danger if he ever slips and doesnt take his meds. i know people with the same condition. i wouldnt trust them either if they got off their meds.

- - - Updated - - -

Got a nice big eyeroll for all the psychiatric professionals in this thread.

heh let me give you my creds. i suffer from schitzo effective disorder. same thing almost as the man that beheaded someone. im just more in control is all. i take my meds and use thought techniques to control it. if i wasnt in control cause i diddnt take my meds i would be a clear and present danger to those around me. if this guy ever gets off his meds for even a few days hes a danger period.

[Shaqthefat]

Many of anything are dangerous... just curious how many is "many"? 500? 1000?

200,000 cases per year in the US alone

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I never said any of that overruled the verdict but just because it happened through legal channels doesn't make it any less insane that this man is now walking free.

I understand court procedure and how they present a case, excuse my pedestrian summation.

Anyways, this man will re-offend. I'll be big enough not to come back with "I told you so".

I'm still not clear on how this is a "liberal" issue.

Also, anyone who is not:

a) A trained mental health professional
and
b) familiar with the patient and his treatment up to this point

really has no basis to make any claims regarding the likelihood of this man offending again.

- - - Updated - - -

heh let me give you my creds. i suffer from schitzo effective disorder. same thing almost as the man that beheaded someone. im just more in control is all. i take my meds and use thought techniques to control it. if i wasnt in control cause i diddnt take my meds i would be a clear and present danger to those around me. if this guy ever gets off his meds for even a few days hes a danger period.

Does the government monitor that you take your pills?

Should we lock you up just in case?

[Irian]

If he was mentally unstable and is now properly treated then yes, that's...well, mostly safe.

People do not behead others on a bus when they are in their right mind. He's gone through years of treatment. His punishment is living with the fact that his instability caused someone to lose their life in a horrible way, which is likely enough for him to never live a normal life again. As someone who has mentally insane family members, I've seen firsthand how much they can damage someone's sense of judgement and how difficult it is to deal with.

That being said...not sure about the idea of not monitoring him. Maybe not for his entire life, but loose monitoring and at least monthly check-ups had best be in the future to make sure freedom doesn't make him lapse.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

That being said...not sure about the idea of not monitoring him. Maybe not for his entire life, but loose monitoring and at least monthly check-ups had best be in the future to make sure freedom doesn't make him lapse.

That's what they've been doing for the last couple of years