Vince Li - Greyhound Bus Attack

[Majestic12]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


False equivalency, want to try another logical fallacy? I haven't killed anyone so until I do so your argument is moot.

You cut off someones head and eat them? Yeah you should get locked up indefinitely. We aren't talking about some random guy who robbed a bank or dealt drugs. Those guys we can take a risk on because frankly the harm is far lesser. However he killed a human being and ate the guy. He should be locked up forever as a danger to society.

How do you think the family of the victim feels about this crazy cannibal running around in the streets while their son is buried?

Ok, let's try this one then. Dude has an undiagnosed heart condition, and suffers a heart attack while driving his car, and runs into a pedestrian, killing him.

He killed a human being. He should be locked up forever as a danger to society?

How do you think the family of the victim feels about this crazy driver driving around in the streets while their son is buried?

These sorts of conversations are just mind boggling as to how much more education is needed with respect to mental health in this country.

At the end of the day, I'm on the side of the experts who actually have worked with Vince Li, and who the court turns to to assist with these sorts of matters. If they choose to keep him monitored, I'll support that. If they choose to release him unconditionally, I'll be uncomfortable with that too, but I'll support it. I would definitely not support throwing him into the prison system, though.

Anyway, this is getting way off topic, so this will be my last post on Vince Li in this thread.

[01RedDX]

.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Would you rather have Vince Li babysit your kids, or the neighbor's kid with no history of violence or mental illness? Should be the same, right? Since Vince's doctors said he was good to go and he's a 'success'? Or would it not be the same because one of those people cut a guy's head off and ate them?

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by Majestic12


Ok, let's try this one then. Dude has an undiagnosed heart condition, and suffers a heart attack while driving his car, and runs into a pedestrian, killing him.

He killed a human being. He should be locked up forever as a danger to society?

How do you think the family of the victim feels about this crazy driver driving around in the streets while their son is buried?

These sorts of conversations are just mind boggling as to how much more education is needed with respect to mental health in this country.

At the end of the day, I'm on the side of the experts who actually have worked with Vince Li, and who the court turns to to assist with these sorts of matters. If they choose to keep him monitored, I'll support that. If they choose to release him unconditionally, I'll be uncomfortable with that too, but I'll support it. I would definitely not support throwing him into the prison system, though.

Anyway, this is getting way off topic, so this will be my last post on Vince Li in this thread.

Another false equivalence... The guy with the heart condition has no intent. The guy who chops off some dudes head and eats him has boatloads of intent even though he thinks he is fighting space monsters.

FYI your dear experts don't agree with you:

The most replicated and affirmed static variable associated with the prediction of future violence is a history of past violence.4,12,43,61,62 The risk of future violence increases linearly with the number of past violent acts.12 Persons who have acted aggressively because of their delusions in the past are likely to do so in the future.54 Janofsky63 found that violent behavior before admission to the hospital is correlated with violence as an inpatient in a psychiatric facility.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686644/

So yes for safety's sake lock him up be it in a cell or a padded room but don't let them back out into society.

[Majestic12]

Neat. This thread is revived. No, he has no intent. Are you kidding me? That's the very definition of what NCR is.

Section 16(1) of the Criminal Code:

No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

[Majestic12]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin




FYI your dear experts don't agree with you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2686644/
.

Dr. Alexander Simpson is the chief of forensic psychiatry at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, a University of Toronto teaching hospital. He had no involvement in Li's case, and doesn't want to speak about it directly.

"Obviously his type of case is absolutely within my area of work. But I don't know enough about him to be able to comment appropriately about his situation in particular," he says.

But Simpson says in general the recidivism rate — the likelihood that offenders will re-offend — for people who are under NCR orders is low. In fact, people held under an NCR are five times less likely to commit a later crime than people who are sent to prison for crimes and are released after they serve their time.

That's because people under an NCR order receive the appropriate medical care and supervision, he says. Unlike the penal system, where people serve a set sentence, in the NCR system people only attain more freedoms when their doctors and their review board are convinced that they mentally fit and not a threat to the public.

"In the forensic system and the forensic hospital review board system ... you only progress according to your clinical progress and safety," Simpson says.

Simpson says a Canadian research effort known as the national trajectory project found that people who go through the prison system have a 40 per cent chance of re-offending within three years of release. But for people who go through the NCR system, the rate is seven to nine per cent, he says.

People who are under NCR orders generally commit less serious crimes if they do re-offend — things like public disturbances, Simpson says. "Homicide recidivism for instance is incredibly rare."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...erts-1.2979284

[Majestic12]

Li’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Steven Kremer, told the review board Li is on medication and experiencing no symptoms or hallucinations. He has been diagnosed as having a 0.8 per cent chance of violently reoffending in the next seven years, according to risk assessments done on him.

“The privileges being asked for . . . would not place the public at high risk,” Kremer told the board. “He has done very well. He has been a robust responder. He understands if he were not to take his medication, he would experience a deterioration.”

Kremer and another psychiatrist described Li as a model patient who has had no incidents with staff or other patients and has shown great insight into what he’s done. Li has improved his English and taken several occupational therapy programs, including job training and meal preparation.

Crown attorney Susan Helenchilde said she had no grounds to oppose the recommendations.

“The Crown may not be opposed, but I certainly am,” de Delley said.

Chris Summerville, chief executive officer of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, also attended Monday’s hearing and has met with Li several times in the hospital. He spoke outside court and said he understands the public’s concerns but doesn’t believe they are at risk.

“His risk of reoffending is very low. Vince is not a criminal, he’s a patient. Patients get better, and Vince has been an ideal patient,” he said.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ince-li-passes

[Majestic12]

Here's another one, from the daugther of a victim that witnessed her father get butchered by someone else. Take it from someone that's actually been there.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/w...iving-vince-li

[FraserB]

Results of another study showing the lower recidivism rates.

http://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca...heet-ENG_0.pdf

The Justice Department did their own study and found under 10% recidivism for NCR cases, while the rate spiked to 60% for those aged 18-25 in the regular justice system.

[Majestic12]

Finally, there's this one:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/...74371506000307


Among the 1768 people under
observation 3 years after the index verdict, 16.7% (n = 295)
had committed a new offence, regardless of whether they
were still under the purview of the RB. This rate went up to
20.3% (267/1319) 3 years following conditional discharge,
and to 21.8% (207/949) 3 years following absolute discharge.
In the 3 years following the index verdict, Ontario and British
Columbia had similar recidivism rates, but in Quebec the rate
was more than twice as high: 21.5% (229/1063) of people
from Quebec, 9.5% (21/221) of those from British Columbia,
and 9.3% (45/484) of those from Ontario had perpetrated
a new offence, regardless of their disposition status
(Figure 1A). People who had committed a severe offence
for their index NCRMD verdict had the lowest recidivism
rates (Figure 1B) of all groups: 3 years following the index
offence, only 6.0% (10/159) committed a new offence of
any kind. The recidivism rate was higher among people
who committed a less severe index offence against a person
(15.3%; /151/988) or people who committed index offences
that were not against a person (21.6%; 134/621).
The recidivism rate when only reoffences against a person
not classified as severe were considered (8.8% after 3 years;
154/1755) was similar to the recidivism rate when only
reoffences that were not against a person were considered
(10.5% after 3 years; 186/1765; Figure 1C). Almost
one-third (29%) of these offences against a person involved
threats. The recidivism rate for a severe violent offence
within 3 years was extremely low: 0.6% (9/1611).

[CompletelyNumb]

Such a waste of resources and money. NCR? Sure, let's feel bad for him. As we execute him.

Some crimes shouldn't qualify for rehabilitation. Beheading is one of them.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb
Such a waste of resources and money. NCR? Sure, let's feel bad for him. As we execute him.

Some crimes shouldn't qualify for rehabilitation. Beheading is one of them.

So you propose to abolish a system you feel is a waste of money and resources, yet in the same sentence you promote another that wastes a huge amount of resources with no tangible benefits?

Do you think all the studies on recidivism rates are faked?

[tirebob]

I actually feel really sorry for this fellow. Mental illness is real. It isn't like he is an evil psychopath. He didn't just decide to lose his mind and kill and take a bite out of someone. For lack of a better word, his demons got hold of him.

I can't pretend I am comfortable with dumping him on the street with zero follow up and assistance, but if he truly does have his illness under control and has some form of support system in place, I definitely would support his chance at a semi normal life again. I hold no hate for him.

[CompletelyNumb]

Originally posted by FraserB


So you propose to abolish a system you feel is a waste of money and resources, yet in the same sentence you promote another that wastes a huge amount of resources with no tangible benefits?

I promote the procedure, not the current system that invokes it. It can be done a lot cheaper.

And yes, I know that goes against the majority of members here

[FraserB]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb


I promote the procedure, not the current system that invokes it. It can be done a lot cheaper.

And yes, I know that goes against the majority of members here

I assume that to cut the cost you would be in favor of cutting down appeals and not requiring a special trial process?

I also assume that you are also fine with convicting and executing innocent people at an even higher rate than happens now?

All so some people can feel that, while the process isn't actually a deterrent to crime, there is some kind of revenge or retribution has taken place.

[CompletelyNumb]

Originally posted by FraserB
I assume that to cut the cost you would be in favor of cutting down appeals and not requiring a special trial process?

In concrete cases like this, yes.

I also assume that you are also fine with convicting and executing innocent people at an even higher rate than happens now?

I see no reason why wrongful convictions would increase.

All so some people can feel that, while the process isn't actually a deterrent to crime, there is some kind of revenge or retribution has taken place.

Fiscal policy, not emotional. Feelings are the cause of this mess in the first place. I'm suggesting to remove them entirely. But if you want to mention it's not a deterrent, which is true, I can also say there's a 0% occurrence of reoffence after execution.

[Majestic12]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb


In concrete cases like this, yes.

Wtf is a concrete case? Are you then also in favour of executing people that aren't found guilty in a court of law? If so, what's the standard by which these people should be judged, in your world?

[CompletelyNumb]

Originally posted by Majestic12
Wtf is a concrete case?

Dozens saw him do it. There was never any doubt he was guilty of committing the act of beheading. I'd call that pretty concrete.

Are you then also in favour of executing people that aren't found guilty in a court of law?

I'm not in favour of executing people that did not commit a vile offence such as this.

Odd you'd suggest that. You're an odd person.

[Majestic12]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb


Dozens saw him do it. There was never any doubt he was guilty of committing the act of beheading. I'd call that pretty concrete.



I'm not in favour of executing people that did not commit a vile offence such as this.

Odd you'd suggest that. You're an odd person.

You didn't answer. Are you in favour of executing people who haven't been found guilty in a court of law? It's a yes or no question.

[tirebob]

Originally posted by CompletelyNumb


Dozens saw him do it. There was never any doubt he was guilty of committing the act of beheading. I'd call that pretty concrete.



I'm not in favour of executing people that did not commit a vile offence such as this.

Odd you'd suggest that. You're an odd person.

He was found not criminally responsible... Even if you changed the law allowing execution, he would not be executed.