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

[werepossum]

Agreed.

Look at what the US voted for.

Hi-yo!

lol +1

 

[werepossum]

There are significant limits to what I would be able to say, but I think in this case saying more would be obstructive to the critical point.

I have seen thousands of people with schizophrenia. I have not once ever seen any person who has cannibalized another human being. This case is an n of 1, even for the most forensically specialized psychiatrist. It is a fallacy to take any information from this case and apply it to our understanding of other mental health patients. To do so would only find justification to gratify our own wishes, not reality.

Edit: this is just a product of a google search, but has sources, if you would like a starting place for data on violence and persons with mental illness: http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php

Good point.

 

[jackstar7]

Schizophrenics most definitely. Very violent schizophrenics not so much but yes during training and during cross-coverage.

Let's put this another way. Let's say you were a psychiatrist who also owned property and was a landlord, and were given a bunch of applications for new tenants.

Application #1 was from a rich mother on behalf of a schizophrenic who had committed murder. You have no concerns about the rent coming in on time because it'd be coming from the rich mother, and her schizophrenic son/daughter had been given an absolute discharge.

Application #2 was from a working pharmacist who has a good credit record, and sufficient pay to pay for the property on a monthly basis.

Which would you choose? Do you honestly think all psychiatrists, even ones that deal with these patients every day, are going to be the good Samaritans and treat these two applicants identically? Maybe you think that they should, but it would be very naive of you to think all would.

You're reframing the discussion. I'm talking about society as a whole choosing to allow the most people be the most free, not my personal choices. I'm not in charge of such things.

 

[Darwin333]

Not sure what's the point of keeping that guy alive, really.

So you think that all mentally ill people that have no value to society should be put to death?

 

[werepossum]

So you think that all mentally ill people that have no value to society should be put to death?

You don't see the teensiest difference between this man who brutally murdered, dismembered, and cannibalized an innocent man in front of horrified onlookers who are no doubt traumatized for life on one hand and "all mentally ill people that have no value to society" on the other?

As interchange pointed out, this case is so extremely atypical of mental illness that making it representative of societal treatment of mental illness is nonsensical.

 

[1prophet]

Bet if the victim was a woman the bleeding hearts wouldn't be so vocal about releasing this person back into society, and that doesn't include the political shitstorm the judge and politicians supporting this would face, and last but not least I could see a "Willie Horton" type situation developing if this person relapses, and actually ends up doing more harm to other mental patients who could be released.

 

[WelshBloke]

Well we all know what the outcome is for the innocent guy who was killed, beheaded and eaten. He's still dead. I didn't need to have met the person (or visit his grave) to know that.

I'm curious, is there some professional opionion that contradicts this? Some trained pro that can tell us when that person is coming back from the dead? Maybe that person gets early release from death?

That he might do it again is bad enough, but it's beyond fucked up someone can murder and devour a person, and 5 measly years later walk free. Sure, it's Canada's justice system and they can do what they want, but it's still fucked up.

By all means though, pomposly cite your appeal to 'authority' on when his victim is coming back from the dead.

Wait... So the dead guy comes back if you lock the killer up for long enough?

Punishment for crimes only works if the perpetrator understands what he's doing. Its just plain cruelty to punish someone for something that they can't understand.

There's certainly an argument for detaining them until they are deemed no longer a risk to the public and that line is absolutely up for debate. But thats treatment not punishment.

 

[Eug]

You're reframing the discussion. I'm talking about society as a whole choosing to allow the most people be the most free, not my personal choices. I'm not in charge of such things.

No, I'm just providing an example to illustrate why your utopian view of psychiatry and psychiatrists is just not realistic.

Back to the original point: Plenty of psychiatrists would not want this guy living in their condo building, even after fellow psychiatrists and the judicial system gave him the all clear. Cuz well, he beheaded a guy and then licked the victim's blood off his fingers.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Wait... So the dead guy comes back if you lock the killer up for long enough?

Punishment for crimes only works if the perpetrator understands what he's doing. Its just plain cruelty to punish someone for something that they can't understand.

There's certainly an argument for detaining them until they are deemed no longer a risk to the public and that line is absolutely up for debate. But thats treatment not punishment.

How is that cruel? Is it cruel to euthanize a rabid dog? If anything, they have diminished capacity for suffering.

 

[jackstar7]

How is that cruel? Is it cruel to euthanize a rabid dog? If anything, they have diminished capacity for suffering.

Dogs are people, too?

 

[momeNt]

Dogs are people, too?

Sometimes more than people.

 

[WelshBloke]

How is that cruel? Is it cruel to euthanize a rabid dog? If anything, they have diminished capacity for suffering.

So if we locked you up indefinitely and didn't tell you why you wouldn't consider that cruel?

Why do you think that schizophrenics have a diminished capacity for suffering?

Or are you talking about rabid dogs?

 

[Zaap]

A coworker and I discussed this story in great detail when it came out. Imagine, if you can, living a normal life, not aware of a lurking mental illness that suddenly manifests out one day causing you to do something terrible and unforgivable to another human being. Now aware of this illness, you seek treatment. You want to get better. You don't want to do this thing you did, that you don't even remember doing. After 5 years, you are deemed by certified doctors and the state to be perfectly functional under medication. Relief sets over you. You can finally go home and try to live a normal life.

Aww how sweet. Happily ever after.

What's with all this imagine happy endings stuff? All this is is picking and choosing levels of mental illness to fit a narritive...

"Gee shucks....imagine being mentally ill enough to do something terrible to someone else... but -oh how convienient- sane enough to want to seek help and yada yada..."

Okay, well now how about imagine someone mentally ill enough to kill someone, and deciding that 5 years with lots of attention, free room and board and 'now go lead a normal life you awesome person!' Sounds like a hell of an awesome deal so why the fuck not??

That may sound CRAZY to you or others, but that's probably because you AREN'T.

But your little pick and choose the good you want with the bad you want unfortunately isn't up to anyone to decide.

For someone *actually* mentally ill, this whole situation may sound just fucking great... in fact, what the hell are they waiting for? Being perfectly rational when convienient for the sake of your tied up with ribbons and bows argument just possibly isn't part of someone's ACTUAL mental illness.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So if we locked you up indefinitely and didn't tell you why you wouldn't consider that cruel?

Why do you think that schizophrenics have a diminished capacity for suffering?

Or are you talking about rabid dogs?

Are you saying that most people deemed insane at the point of a crime are also insane during their sentencing? I'm doubtful of that.

 

[Zaap]

Punishment for crimes only works if the perpetrator understands what he's doing. Its just plain cruelty to punish someone for something that they can't understand.

More pick and choose. So the person doesn't understand what he did... but he's cured and able to lead a perfectly normal life?

The point about the outcome by the way was just responding to the point that no one can truly know the outcome without knowing the person. Well, one outcome we know for sure is the other person is dead... it was a very deliberate action regardless of mental state, and its not just about punishement or treatment.

I personally don't believe 5 years for actions as hideous as this is just enough for either thing. Punishment or treatment.

And the details of this case very much matter.

Someone else pointed it out, and they are spot on. Brutally killing and cannibalizing someone is NOT typical mental illness. That's something extremely severe.

The people making this out to be something that just anyone with a mental illness is likely to do are the ones doing the most disservice to the mentally ill.

NO, sorry. I don't believe for a second that most people with a mental illness are just another of this guy.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

More pick and choose. So the person doesn't understand what he did... but he's cured and able to lead a perfectly normal life?

The point about the outcome by the way was just responding to the point that no one can truly know the outcome without knowing the person. Well, one outcome we know for sure is the other person is dead... it was a very deliberate action regardless of mental state, and its not just about punishement or treatment.

I personally don't believe 5 years for actions as hideous as this is just enough for either thing. Punishment or treatment.

And the details of this case very much matter.

Someone else pointed it out, and they are spot on. Brutally killing and cannibalizing someone is NOT typical mental illness. That's something extremely severe.

The people making this out to be something that just anyone with a mental illness is likely to do are the ones doing the most disservice to the mentally ill.

NO, sorry. I don't believe for a second that most people with a mental illness are just another of this guy.

Gee wilikers, Zaap! Why didn't they call YOU to testify against this guy?

 

[WelshBloke]

Are you saying that most people deemed insane at the point of a crime are also insane during their sentencing?

Why does that matter?

All that matters is that you were insane when you committed the act.

 

[WelshBloke]

More pick and choose. So the person doesn't understand what he did... but he's cured and able to lead a perfectly normal life?

Well that's the thing with treatment, its supposed to make you better.
You're sane, can you understand why he stabbed, beheaded and cannibalized someone? If I told you that you'd done it to someone 5 years ago you'd suddenly have clarity over why you did it even though you don't recall it?

Well, one outcome we know for sure is the other person is dead... it was a very deliberate action regardless of mental state, and its not just about punishement or treatment.

It wasn't a deliberate act. The person doing it had no control at the time. You can even say that after treatment that the person who did it doesn't exist any more.

If its not punishment or treatment what is it? Public safety? I agree that thats a very important part of what happens. Which is why I'd want him fully assessed before release and monitored after.

Someone else pointed it out, and they are spot on. Brutally killing and cannibalizing someone is NOT typical mental illness. That's something extremely severe.

The people making this out to be something that just anyone with a mental illness is likely to do are the ones doing the most disservice to the mentally ill.

NO, sorry. I don't believe for a second that most people with a mental illness are just another of this guy.

Is anyone saying that?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Information regarding the legal aspects behind his release

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-decision-in-beheading-case/article33995562/

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Information regarding the legal aspects behind his release

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-decision-in-beheading-case/article33995562/

Nice to know that this wasn't just a bizarre one off release of an dangerous murderer, but established Canadian Law that will guarantee it happens again.

"Dr. Andrew Haag, a forensic psychologist in Edmonton who has been studying NCR designations intensively for the past three years, says the standard is extremely high, and NCR cases account for less than 1 per cent of all criminal files."

 

[PokerGuy]

I understand that if someone is mentally ill they might not be able to understand what they were doing at the time, it's the basis of "not guilty by reason of insanity". There is also the safety of the rest of society to consider. The fact is, there is no real cure for this man's condition. Some experts might feel he's OK to be released again, but the reality is there is no way to know for certain because there's no cure or test to measure whether he'll snap again at some point. He might stop taking meds again and do the same thing a month from now, or he might never offend again.

We have mountains of evidence to show that the best indicator of future actions is past behavior. That doesn't mean someone can't be rehabilitated and that someone who has done something bad should always permanently be locked away, but with something like what this guy this, there is absolutely no way you could convince me that he's "safe" to release back into society. In fact, if you were to ask those who signed off on his release, I'd be willing to bet that if they were honest even they would not feel comfortable having this crazy guy living near or with them. Instead, they turned him loose on other potential victims.

 

[bshole]

I understand that if someone is mentally ill they might not be able to understand what they were doing at the time, it's the basis of "not guilty by reason of insanity". There is also the safety of the rest of society to consider. The fact is, there is no real cure for this man's condition. Some experts might feel he's OK to be released again, but the reality is there is no way to know for certain because there's no cure or test to measure whether he'll snap again at some point. He might stop taking meds again and do the same thing a month from now, or he might never offend again.

We have mountains of evidence to show that the best indicator of future actions is past behavior. That doesn't mean someone can't be rehabilitated and that someone who has done something bad should always permanently be locked away, but with something like what this guy this, there is absolutely no way you could convince me that he's "safe" to release back into society. In fact, if you were to ask those who signed off on his release, I'd be willing to bet that if they were honest even they would not feel comfortable having this crazy guy living near or with them. Instead, they turned him loose on other potential victims.

IKR.... he picks up some innocent girl in a bar, she offers to give him head, he takes it the wrong way and literally takes her head. It certainly is a conundrum.

 

[Nashemon]

I understand that if someone is mentally ill they might not be able to understand what they were doing at the time, it's the basis of "not guilty by reason of insanity". There is also the safety of the rest of society to consider. The fact is, there is no real cure for this man's condition. Some experts might feel he's OK to be released again, but the reality is there is no way to know for certain because there's no cure or test to measure whether he'll snap again at some point. He might stop taking meds again and do the same thing a month from now, or he might never offend again.

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.

We have mountains of evidence to show that the best indicator of future actions is past behavior. That doesn't mean someone can't be rehabilitated and that someone who has done something bad should always permanently be locked away, but with something like what this guy this, there is absolutely no way you could convince me that he's "safe" to release back into society. In fact, if you were to ask those who signed off on his release, I'd be willing to bet that if they were honest even they would not feel comfortable having this crazy guy living near or with them. Instead, they turned him loose on other potential victims.

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. Perhaps I wouldn't befriend him, but him living next door wouldn't bother me. Shit, I'd gladly trade him for the deadbeat neighbors I have now. Of course I can't speak for anyone else on this. Some people are just fearful or paranoid over every little thing that happens around them and make it their business over who, in all manners of speaking, can and can't live in their neighborhood.

 

[Nashemon]

Aww how sweet. Happily ever after.

What's with all this imagine happy endings stuff? All this is is picking and choosing levels of mental illness to fit a narritive...

"Gee shucks....imagine being mentally ill enough to do something terrible to someone else... but -oh how convienient- sane enough to want to seek help and yada yada..."

Okay, well now how about imagine someone mentally ill enough to kill someone, and deciding that 5 years with lots of attention, free room and board and 'now go lead a normal life you awesome person!' Sounds like a hell of an awesome deal so why the fuck not??

That may sound CRAZY to you or others, but that's probably because you AREN'T.

But your little pick and choose the good you want with the bad you want unfortunately isn't up to anyone to decide.

For someone *actually* mentally ill, this whole situation may sound just fucking great... in fact, what the hell are they waiting for? Being perfectly rational when convienient for the sake of your tied up with ribbons and bows argument just possibly isn't part of someone's ACTUAL mental illness.

Isn't that the entire basis of schizophrenia? That a person is seemingly normal one minute, and an entirely different person the next? You seem to be under the impression that a person who goes through 40 years of his life, with no criminal history, suddenly eats a guys face for his own enjoyment. So he can make the news, convinced that he can get away with it. That the courts will buy his story. That he risked being in jail for the rest of his life.

I don't know what kind of life he had before the attack. It's difficult to find any articles that detail anything of what kind of man he was now that there are so many articles parading that he be locked up. There's a few that show an hospitalization from 4 years prior to the attack where he may have been suffering from an incident (walking along a highway "following the Sun" as ordered by God), some apparent money/job trouble, but nothing much else.

But he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. If it was some other brain defect, you don't think that would have been diagnosed? What alternate fact world do you live in where medical professionals benefit from misdiagnosing something as high profile as this? Him reoffending would be a blight on the validity of their profession.

 

[interchange]

Isn't that the entire basis of schizophrenia? That a person is seemingly normal one minute, and an entirely different person the next?

Nope.