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

[HamburgerBoy]

Easy: I've had you certified mentally unstable. I will now take away your freedoms and rights.

Still confused? How about revisiting the many who suggest that a given political ideology is a mental illness. Get it yet?

I'm strongly against most/all laws that would cause any kind of restriction on an individual for reasons of medical diagnosis of insanity/mental illness. I'm also strongly for locking murderers up for life, whether or not they're insane.

 

[jackstar7]

I get that you're stupid. The day HB murders and eats someone, then you'll have a point. Until then, your example is beyond stupid.

Sorry you're so focused on this individual case and uninterested in adjusting your scope to see the implications of removing the rights of citizens not deemed a danger.

Also, to answer in kind: fuck off.

 

[jackstar7]

I'm strongly against most/all laws that would cause any kind of restriction on an individual for reasons of medical diagnosis. I'm also strongly for locking murderers up for life, whether or not they're insane.

Well, I'm not going to embrace your authoritarian state. Please run for nothing.

 

[AJ.Akia]

damn,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-allowed-leave-mental-hospital--escort.html

Crazy is one thing; acting on it is entirely different. His next victim will be courtesy of the Canadian government.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Sorry you're so focused on this individual case and uninterested in adjusting your scope to see the implications of removing the rights of citizens not deemed a danger.

What rights are you specifically referring to?

 

[jackstar7]

What rights are you specifically referring to?

You're the one locking people up. Which rights do you want to deprive people of and under how many circumstances?

You mentioned murder being one, any others?

 

[Zaap]

Sorry you're so focused on this individual case and uninterested in adjusting your scope to see the implications of removing the rights of citizens not deemed a danger.

Also, to answer in kind: fuck off.

Once again dummy, the day HB or anyone else kills and eats an innocent person, I'm all for him being deemed a danger and locked up accordingly. Let the punishment fit the crime. 5 years and out does not fit this crime in any way shape or form.

Your dumb attempts to bring anything other than the actual subject into this are just you being stupid and nothing to do with anything.

 

[jackstar7]

Once again dummy, the day HB or anyone else kills and eats an innocent person, I'm all for him being deemed a danger and locked up accordingly. Let the punishment fit the crime. 5 years and out does not fit this crime in any way shape or form.

Your dumb attempts to bring anything other than the actual subject into this are just you being stupid and nothing to do with anything.

Great, you've stated your views on the matter clearly. ah heck off, dumbnuts.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You're the one locking people up. Which rights do you want to deprive people of and under how many circumstances?

You mentioned murder being one, any others?

Imprisonment is now a violation of one's rights in the context of murder? lol. I'm a pretty hardcore technology-worshiping libertarian idealist, so I could conceivably imagine a society where prisons don't exist, and all citizens are expected to prevent and publicize victimization by exercising their rights to self-defense and freedom of information. Perhaps Stephen King wrote a dystopian novel along those lines once.

 

[Zaap]

Great, you've stated your views on the matter clearly. ah heck off, dumbnuts.

And you've made a jackass of yourself as usual. You couldn't mount a coherent argument if your life depended on it.

 

[jackstar7]

Imprisonment is now a violation of one's rights in the context of murder? lol. I'm a pretty hardcore technology-worshiping libertarian idealist, so I could conceivably imagine a society where prisons don't exist, and all citizens are expected to prevent and publicize victimization by exercising their rights to self-defense and freedom of information. Perhaps Stephen King wrote a novel along those lines once.

You just stated that murder (without any clear qualifying) immediately means lifetime imprisonment according to you. You left no room for nuance or exception.

It's the damn certitude of your stance that's off-putting.

 

[jackstar7]

And you've made a jackass of yourself as usual. You couldn't mount a coherent argument if your life depended on it.

You offered none, so you get none, dumbnuts. Please ignore me. I add nothing to your worldview other than clutter. Not even entertainment. That's obvious.

 

[Zaap]

I add nothing to your worldview other than clutter. Not even entertainment. That's obvious.

I don't find myself disagreeing.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You just stated that murder (without any clear qualifying) immediately means lifetime imprisonment according to you. You left no room for nuance or exception.

It's the damn certitude of your stance that's off-putting.

Yeah, murder is a pretty serious crime, I don't feel bad for not picking and choosing when that's OK. As I've said, from a purely moral point of view, I can accept the concept that this cannibal is/was not an "evil" man but merely an unfortunately broken one. If we want to talk rehabilitation, I'm personally not a fan because human life is relatively easy to make but very difficult to fix, but I accept that it exists and can work. But then why focus on rehabilitating the insane? Why take such an issue with my initial hypothetical of the man that murders his wife over child support, when perhaps he too could be rehabilitated by keeping him away from marriage in the future, and teaching him lessons about the value of women and human life? Is there evidence that cold-blooded murderers are more difficult to rehabilitate than blatantly insane murderers, and if so, could that be explained due to a genetic proclivity towards sociopathy? And if THAT'S the case, can't it be argued that even sociopaths are not fully (if at all) morally responsible for their actions, being that they commit murder not due to any nebulous evil spirit, but because our existence is ultimately determined by biology? The entire concept of treating murderers differently because of issues out of their hand seems to come from an outdated concept of morality that ignores the world's nihilistic reality.

 

[Zaap]

Anyway, to the actual subject, based on reality not someone's spewed made up garbage ... it amazes me sometimes bleeding hearts want every detail of a crime taken into consideration when its something like labeling a 'hate crime '. (And of course only when the sides victim/perp line up 'correctly'.)

So say if a guy kills someone else and shouts say a racial slur first... by all means, tack on an extra label 'hate' and with it of course additional punishment. No high horse arguments about denying anyone rights then. And okay... other than it not being applied equally, fair enough.

But then in this case... the details, hideous and gruesome are to just be discarded.

Shout a racial slur before killing someone? Terrible! Worthy of extra consideration and full punishment.

Behead.. and eat someone you murdered for no reason in cold blood? Oh come now! Discard such trivial details! That's no indication of someone's danger to society... not like using WORDS is!

Had this guy hurt someone's feelings with bad words before his crime... now THEN we could consider some real punishment tacked on.

 

[MrSquished]

It doesn't seem like Canadian Justice worked out well here.

 

[jackstar7]

Your "policy" if I may describe it as such lacks for science, study and learning and adaptation. I'd much prefer to work on study of and repair of those suffering from this kind of mental damage.

My path is also rather dark as I look to find the imperfections in the brain that spawn such horrors in the hopes of rooting them out of our species, rather than eradicating them after the fact.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Your "policy" if I may describe it as such lacks for science, study and learning and adaptation. I'd much prefer to work on study of and repair of those suffering from this kind of mental damage.

My path is also rather dark as I look to find the imperfections in the brain that spawn such horrors in the hopes of rooting them out of our species, rather than eradicating them after the fact.

I'm not against the scientific study of what makes someone a schizophrenic, a pedophile, or anything else. It would be amazing if we could discover and treat the problem before the fact. If a lab wants temporary release of a patient/prisoner under strict supervision and treatment for purposes of research, I'm fine with that being granted when merited. I'm a believer that empathy is always a positive trait to have, but sympathy is a different matter, and not something I see as being of net value in the context of cannibalistic murderers.

Your wording of "rooting them out of our species" is a little surprising to hear though. If there are genetic causes behind criminality or violent insanity, would you support eugenics measures (e.g. targeted birth control, sterilization, etc) in order to accomplish that?

 

[mindless1]

Good. People with mental health issues should find this encouraging and will hopefully be more inclined to get treatment rather than trying to fight their illness secretly until something terrible happens.

It isn't a hopeless situation to have mental illness.

Yeah sure, we can totally expect people dealing with schizophrenia to the extent that they're contemplating dismembering fellow human beings for no reason, to accurately assess their mental state and make that treatment plan.

NO! A person with at least that amount of sanity, won't want the stigma of being labeled as schizophrenic, and what if they are forced to take medication that has bad side effects? Many people with mental illness DO go off their meds because of the side effects. It's not like they just wake up one day and say to themselves "I think I'd rather be insane again", rather that unless there is a specific environmental cause that can be removed instead, managing mental illness is not an on/off switch flipped by a pill, makes a person different, not whole, so to some extent, in some cases it can be hopeless.

That's the problem right there. This isn't about this guy. This is about all the people dealing with lower level stuff who can be led to believe that their situation is hopeless and that there's no amount of treatment available that could help them.

No, this really is about this guy, We don't lock people away then become shocked that they're released if the worst thing they've done is become a victim to mental illness. This is about nobody else except those, mentally ill or not, that commit such gruesome, senseless crimes.

I hate to break it to you, but there are many people who remain batshit crazy until the day they die. Hope and optimism is a lovely notion but the reality is that if we look at all criminals like this, we have completely undermined the deterrence to crime. I'd be MUCH more comfortable with releasing a murderer from prison who wasn't severely mentally ill because at least that person has more control of themselves.

This guy wasn't some adolescent mind in a bad situation, rather a 40 year old with a college degree. If you make it that far in life and still can't cope with your own demons without beheading people, you're beyond hope.

Remember, just as there are sane people who commit crimes and others who don't, the same standard has to apply to those mentally ill. This is not a discussion about mental illness. This is one about a vicious murderer. Some murderers are short. Some are tall. Some have brown eyes, some have blue. Some like roast beef and some cry wee wee wee all the way home. Makes no difference to the victim.

 

[HeXen]

Wow, if anyone is following this did they ever find out what triggered him to do this? .

yeah it's called schizophrenia. In severe cases it can lead to murder. Any kind of stimuli from sounds to smells can lead to delusions and hallucinations. It's something that can be triggered later on in life, one can exhibits symptoms at any age

 

[Murloc]

in my country this was normal too until we had a serial killer. The law changed pretty fast, now dangerous people can be kept under care with various levels of freedom, for life. These freedoms have sometimes been abused. I guess it's hard to find a balance.

 

[mindless1]

Ultimately what we're talking about here is believing that the mental health care professionals involved in advocating for Mr. Li's (restricted) freedom have done their job properly - better than all of us on the Internet who've never met the guy but have read an article on what he did 5 years ago do.

Make no mistake - that's what's happening here. You've all decided you know what the outcome should be for someone you've never met and never will meet, and are disregarding what the people who have and are trained in this area are saying. Yes, they make mistakes and perhaps Mr. Li will harm someone else. It comes down to whether you trust your nation's institutions and the people who work in them. Or if you just prefer making off-the-cuff decisions for the world from behind your computer.

Sometimes professionals get their heads stuck so far up their asses that they lose all sense of reality. I am SURE that they want to feel they are victorious over his mental illness. I am sure Mr Li feels it's in his best interests to say and do things that look normal and harmless. He also managed to do that right up until he beheaded someone, yet he had to suspect it was coming because he was walking around with a big knife.

Know which doctors tend to work at mental wards long enough to be put in a case like this? The low achievers, who can't cut it in private practice. Tell me that you think everyone who graduates with a degree is competent and I'll laugh my ass off.

Li had a degree. Was he competent?

 

[yllus]

What does society gain by freeing this guy other than warm fuzzies? He'll (hopefully) be under monitor for the rest of his life, which means extra resources will be dedicated to him. Doubtful this guy will ever hold a job that pays back more than he receives in tax dollars. This is Canada so from a personal standpoint, I don't care what they do. I don't feel personally bothered in any way by this guy being free, and in all honesty if he killed again, I still wouldn't care knowing that thousands of people are murdered around the world on a daily basis. I just don't understand the objective basis for EVER valuing an irrational criminal's life over a rational criminal's one. It's basically a kind of religious morality taking precedence over the most functional/efficient method.

I think society gains something when the happiness of each of its members is maximized (with reasonable limits). What we're basically arguing here is whether his happiness and freedom are worth the risk he presents to society. I think the people who've interacted with him and who have to state in front of a court that he's ready for release are a better judge than you or I are of that.

I actually do appreciate your desire for efficiency and cleanliness of solutions here though. My mind works the same way despite what it may seem; I'm a software developer by trade and the, um, analog-ness of humans sometimes really annoys me. Thing is though, the way I see it, the only way a government and its courts can avoid becoming monstrous is to have flexibility and be able to go case-by-case. Mandatory sentencing has been an abject failure in most regards.

Some times professionals get their heads stuck so far up their asses that they lose all sense of reality. I am SURE that they want to feel they are victorious over his mental illness. I am sure Mr Li feels it's in his best interests to say and do things that look normal and harmless. He also managed to do that right up until he beheaded someone, yet he had to suspect it was coming because he was walking around with a big knife.

Know which doctors tend to work at mental wards long enough to be put in a case like this? The low achievers, who can't cut it in private practice. Tell me that you think everyone who graduates with a degree is competent and I'll laugh my ass off.

Li had a degree. Was he competent?

That's entirely true; a lot of social workers and mental care professionals have a great degree of sympathy and want these folks to return to a normal life; possibly before they're actually ready. But I think your caricature of folks who work in the public health sector is off; especially for a country like Canada, where 100% of doctors are in fact in public employ...

 

[Maxima1]

Three generations of imbeciles are enough!

 

[mindless1]

I think society gains something when the happiness of each of its members is maximized (with reasonable limits). What we're basically arguing here is whether his happiness and freedom are worth the risk he presents to society. I think the people who've interacted with him and who have to state in front of a court that he's ready for release are a better judge than you or I are of that.

It's called putting on an act. Don't we all stay on our best behavior with a carrot dangled in front as the prize?

Aren't most prisoners doing this before they are released, yet most become repeat offenders? Estimates are that 3/4ths of released inmates were arrested again within 5 years. I think the error rate is alarmingly high if we're assuming releases are due to readiness for release, opposed to space and financial constraints of (any kind of) incarceration, freeing up a bed.

Ultimately it should be the public, the majority who decide if the doctors have enough power to grant him freedom and in this case I don't think law has kept up with mental health issues, that legislators don't think a lot about people who senselessly behead strangers for no reason. We do need a new "guilty with mental defect" class, where if they're cured enough to leave the mental ward, they're good to go to prison.