Canada, guy who killed, beheaded and ate greyhound passenger allowed leave hospital

[PokerGuy]

There's truth to that, of course. There is a chance he can reoffend. I think the fact of there being a "11% recidivism rate in 35 years" among mentally ill is a pretty good bar, though. Compared to studies that show 68% reoffending rate within just 3 years for mentally sane criminals.

You can't just throw all mental illness related offenses in a bucket together and compare recidivism rates. This wasn't just some run of the mill offense that might be related to mental illness. Some mental illness can be very effectively treated, it depends on a lot of factors. A more apt comparison would be to look at the recidivism rate among those convicted of child molestation or rape. There is really no "cure" for whatever drives people to molest children, and recidivism rate is around 45% within the first 5 years, probably much higher in the long run.

Now add in the fact that there's no way to ensure that this guy continues to take medications or seeks additional help if things deteriorate, and what you have is essentially a ticking time bomb loose on the streets. It may never go off, but I wouldn't count on it.

Those opposed to his release keep harping this. It's been mentioned at least a half dozen times in this topic. Let me perhaps be the first to say, I would not feel uncomfortable.

Then's fine for you, but I suspect you're part of a small minority. Remember, this is a person that has shown that he can snap with no provocation whatsoever and go completely nuts and stab / behead you. There is no way to make sure he's taking any meds (and no way to know if the meds will even work effectively for him or not), and there might not be any indications that things are going wrong. Even if there are and you notice strange or alarming behavior, there's nothing you can do about it, you are stuck living next to a potential time bomb.

This isn't just a case of stigma associated with mental illness coupled with an irrational fear. This is very rational legitimate concern and fear, and I for certain would not want to have that kind of danger near me if I could avoid it. Would you leave your child alone with a known child sex offender after they've been released?

 

[jackstar7]

You can't just throw all mental illness related offenses in a bucket together and compare recidivism rates. This wasn't just some run of the mill offense that might be related to mental illness. Some mental illness can be very effectively treated, it depends on a lot of factors. A more apt comparison would be to look at the recidivism rate among those convicted of child molestation or rape. There is really no "cure" for whatever drives people to molest children, and recidivism rate is around 45% within the first 5 years, probably much higher in the long run.

Now add in the fact that there's no way to ensure that this guy continues to take medications or seeks additional help if things deteriorate, and what you have is essentially a ticking time bomb loose on the streets. It may never go off, but I wouldn't count on it.



Then's fine for you, but I suspect you're part of a small minority. Remember, this is a person that has shown that he can snap with no provocation whatsoever and go completely nuts and stab / behead you. There is no way to make sure he's taking any meds (and no way to know if the meds will even work effectively for him or not), and there might not be any indications that things are going wrong. Even if there are and you notice strange or alarming behavior, there's nothing you can do about it, you are stuck living next to a potential time bomb.

This isn't just a case of stigma associated with mental illness coupled with an irrational fear. This is very rational legitimate concern and fear, and I for certain would not want to have that kind of danger near me if I could avoid it. Would you leave your child alone with a known child sex offender after they've been released?

The fear level associated with this is wildly disproportionate with regards to the likelihood of it affecting you. To describe this fear as legitimate and rational is... I mean why are you trying to make choices for all the people that might actually live near someone like this? Why can't they make those choices for themselves? Instead you want to infringe on the rights of someone deemed to be not a danger.

Next you're going to say they don't deserve to own guns.

 

[Nashemon]

Nope.

Perhaps I've read too many 1950's comic books. Thank you for giving me reason to research the illness myself.

You can't just throw all mental illness related offenses in a bucket together and compare recidivism rates. This wasn't just some run of the mill offense that might be related to mental illness. Some mental illness can be very effectively treated, it depends on a lot of factors. A more apt comparison would be to look at the recidivism rate among those convicted of child molestation or rape. There is really no "cure" for whatever drives people to molest children, and recidivism rate is around 45% within the first 5 years, probably much higher in the long run.

Now add in the fact that there's no way to ensure that this guy continues to take medications or seeks additional help if things deteriorate, and what you have is essentially a ticking time bomb loose on the streets. It may never go off, but I wouldn't count on it.



Then's fine for you, but I suspect you're part of a small minority. Remember, this is a person that has shown that he can snap with no provocation whatsoever and go completely nuts and stab / behead you. There is no way to make sure he's taking any meds (and no way to know if the meds will even work effectively for him or not), and there might not be any indications that things are going wrong. Even if there are and you notice strange or alarming behavior, there's nothing you can do about it, you are stuck living next to a potential time bomb.

This isn't just a case of stigma associated with mental illness coupled with an irrational fear. This is very rational legitimate concern and fear, and I for certain would not want to have that kind of danger near me if I could avoid it. Would you leave your child alone with a known child sex offender after they've been released?

Well, that would be a definite no, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this. Leaving a child alone with a known child molestor is somehow comparible to an ill man living next door? Check your strawman on that one.

I realize the reoffending rate is different for different crimes. Repeat homicide is as low as 1.5%. Theft much higher. In a way, it proves harsher penalties deter crime. A second murder is more likely to land a life sentence without parole.

Also, several people seem to be misrepresenting how long the guy has been under surveillence. Some are trying to sell it as 5 years, but this happened in 2008. His trial ended in March 2009. So, he has spent 8 years in a mental health facility, receiving treatment, being under watch, slowly inching toward this full release. But some people want him locked up forever, or will never accept the idea of mental illness being used as a defense for anything, because in their world, criminals can't be victims.

 

[PokerGuy]

The fear level associated with this is wildly disproportionate with regards to the likelihood of it affecting you.

You appear to be very confused about the nature of the conversation. Of course it doesn't affect me personally, does some injustice committed to someone somewhere else affect you personally? No, but that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion about it.

To describe this fear as legitimate and rational is...

Completely rational and well founded.

I mean why are you trying to make choices for all the people that might actually live near someone like this? Why can't they make those choices for themselves?

First, I'm not sure what posts you're reading, but I haven't said anything about making choices for all the people, nor have I said anything about them not being able to make those choices themselves. In fact though, most people actually affected by this won't have a choice in the matter. This guy will be released and live near them etc and there's really nothing they can do about it. Heck, they likely won't even know about it. Given the choice, I'd say the vast majority of people given the choice "would you want to live next to a guy who stabbed, beheaded and ate some random victim for no reason or not" would say "uh, no". That's completely logical.

Instead you want to infringe on the rights of someone deemed to be not a danger.

Infringe on what rights exactly? Is putting someone in jail for murder infringing on their rights? Just because someone has deemed him not to be a danger doesn't mean he's not actually a danger -- especially if he stops taking his meds. There's nothing in place to prevent that.

Next you're going to say they don't deserve to own guns.

Correct, people who have been shown to be a danger to society by committing violent crimes or showing severe mental illness leading to violence should not own guns. Not sure why that would be controversial.

 

[PokerGuy]

Well, that would be a definite no, but I'm not sure what that has to do with this. Leaving a child alone with a known child molestor is somehow comparible to an ill man living next door? Check your strawman on that one.

What it has to do with it is that you are making a choice to take a significant risk. That child offender might be perfectly reformed, in which case your child is perfectly safe with them. I'm not taking that gamble though. Same thing here. Whatever was going on in this guy's head that lead him to stab, behead and eat a stranger for no reason might be completely gone.... or it might not be. I certainly wouldn't gamble my life or that of my family on that one.

I realize the reoffending rate is different for different crimes. Repeat homicide is as low as 1.5%. Theft much higher. In a way, it proves harsher penalties deter crime. A second murder is more likely to land a life sentence without parole.

I doubt harsher penalties are the main driver of recidivism rates, especially when it comes to mental illness or sex crimes. The impulse to do abhorrent things is there for some people when it isn't for others (or they control those impulses better), I doubt the penalties play a significant role.

Also, several people seem to be misrepresenting how long the guy has been under surveillence. Some are trying to sell it as 5 years, but this happened in 2008. His trial ended in March 2009. So, he has spent 8 years in a mental health facility, receiving treatment, being under watch, slowly inching toward this full release.

And when he's no longer under care, surveillance and not forced to take medication that might be helping him? What's to prevent a complete relapse or him just snapping again? We already know from empirical evidence that someone who has committed a serious crime is much more likely to commit another serious crime than someone who hasn't. Obviously he's a higher risk than a random person.

But some people want him locked up forever, or will never accept the idea of mental illness being used as a defense for anything, because in their world, criminals can't be victims.

I don't know about locked up forever, but at the very least continuously monitored, medicated (if he's on meds, I don't know) etc. Definitely not just set loose.

 

[Nashemon]

And when he's no longer under care, surveillance and not forced to take medication that might be helping him? What's to prevent a complete relapse or him just snapping again? We already know from empirical evidence that someone who has committed a serious crime is much more likely to commit another serious crime than someone who hasn't. Obviously he's a higher risk than a random person.

Perhaps. I'm just inclined to trust the judgment of those responsible for passing such judgment. Those trusted with the decision believe strongly enough that he will continue to take the medication and by doing so that he isn't a threat to himself or others. I can't sit here and say whether he may or may not. He is human. And like all of us he does have free will. He does make mistakes. I don't pretend to know everything about mental illness. I am empathic, though. I would love to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. That not everyone is self-serving. I hope there's no one at the clinic quite as trusting as I am, but I'm sure there are enough checks and balances that the correct decision was made. I know that's not possible for everyone put faith in, though.