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

[jackstar7]

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?

You are confusing a sociopath with a schizophrenic.

In fact you may be confusing a lot more than that.

Like expert opinion over mob rule for another thing.

 

[jackstar7]

Also, those who want to see this guy locked up forever, are you afraid of him?

If so, why?

If not, why should he be locked up after experts deem him not a threat?

 

[yllus]

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?

He put on an act of stabbing, beheading and then eating parts of a complete stranger including his eyes and part of his heart so he could get away with murder after five years and international infamy?

 

[mindless1]

You are confusing a sociopath with a schizophrenic.

In fact you may be confusing a lot more than that.

Like expert opinion over mob rule for another thing.

Nope, not confusing anything. You think only a sociopath acts in a way beneficial to them? We ALL DO, every day, at least those of us who work, shop, have any common sense. You're severely deluded if you don't think a schizo understands consequences for actions. From all reports he was interacting with society acceptably and if he is fit to be released then he'd have to understand that still.

It seems fairly clear to me that you don't really have an argument to be as vague as "a lot more than that", but since you mentioned expert opinion over mob rule, let's get something straight!

I did not advocate getting a mob together to lynch him, but facts are facts and the fact is, the majority of the public determines law and acceptable behavior, not you or I. You opinion about "expert opinion" means absolutely nothing if the law didn't allow for him to be released since it was a legal order that put him there.

Now ponder something else, that experts don't always agree. Bring in different people and he might have stayed locked away. You also selectively ignored that these "experts" may have been less than experts since they are stuck in a mental hospital for violent criminals. People can be really BAD at their jobs but still have one.

Tell me you have never met anyone who wouldn't think themselves an expert yet wasn't good at their job, then tell me whether you'd trust them on a life and death decision which is what this is if Li flips out again.

 

[mindless1]

Also, those who want to see this guy locked up forever, are you afraid of him?

If so, why?

If not, why should he be locked up after experts deem him not a threat?

Yes, I am afraid of society being exposed to (random) people who stab and behead others for no reason whatsoever, When They Are Real, not just someone's paranoia. You don't see that coming, can't defend against it, nor can you defend others against it until they're already stabbing the person to death. if we let people like that roam around, what's to stop it from happening to you the next time you met any random person?

Oh, but it's probably fine if someone else dies so long as it's not you? Small risk is not so acceptable to the victim who already died nor any future victim.

Sorry but no. I can agree to disagree but you're not going to win an argument with me about my opinion why he should stay locked up, and it really rubs me the wrong way that you place so little value on innocent peoples' lives that we should risk them just in case this nut job had a miracle recovery. Let him spend his miracle recovery in prison.

 

[mindless1]

He put on an act of stabbing, beheading and then eating parts of a complete stranger including his eyes and part of his heart so he could get away with murder after five years and international infamy?

I wrote "putting on an act" immediately after a quote where you wrote "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."

Do you have a problem following conversations or are you just deliberately refusing to continue that one?

After a certain point, at a young age, we all learn to act in a way that brings approval, is beneficial, or just less hassle if you want to look at it that way. If he doesn't want to be there, don't you think he's going to act in a way that he thinks improves his odds of release? No? Yes? Maybe? I think yes.

On the other hand let's look at what you wrote last post that I quoted above. If his crime wasn't an act, and certainly "some" of what he did was due to mental instability, is that more of a reason to release him or less of one? I think less.

Suppose this was some girl that was kidnapped, impregnated, held as a prisoner for years. I'd sympathize and want her released if she murdered her captor. Someone who randomly kills without cause, because of their own defect, hell no!

 

[jackstar7]

Yes, I am afraid of society being exposed to (random) people who stab and behead others for no reason whatsoever, When They Are Real, not just someone's paranoia. You don't see that coming, can't defend against it, nor can you defend others against it until they're already stabbing the person to death. if we let people like that roam around, what's to stop it from happening to you the next time you met any random person?

Oh, but it's probably fine if someone else dies so long as it's not you? Small risk is not so acceptable to the victim who already died nor any future victim.

Sorry but no. I can agree to disagree but you're not going to win an argument with me about my opinion why he should stay locked up, and it really rubs me the wrong way that you place so little value on innocent peoples' lives that we should risk them just in case this nut job had a miracle recovery. Let him spend his miracle recovery in prison.

Free societies come with risks.

I know it can be frightening.

Also, you're going to die and you don't know when.

 

[MongGrel]

Personally, I would diagnose my self as chronically depressed for decades now.

A lot of that come from trying to interact with people IRL and a lot of face palming.

I try to make the best of it.

I'm no Robin Williams, but I think I felt the vibe there.

 

[mindless1]

Free societies come with risks.

I know it can be frightening.

Also, you're going to die and you don't know when.

Any society comes with risks, has nothing to do with freedom, so you're on a roll for being wrong again. That does not justify letting a murderer go free when people who commit much lesser crimes remain in prison.

I'm going to die some day but the odds of it happening from a repeat murderer are greatly decreased thanks to laws against that sort of thing, and lengthy prison sentences.

It's almost as though you don't understand right and wrong or that there must be penalties for harmful actions against others in order to keep society as free as possible. Do you hate the world that much, that secretly it pleases you that this murderer killed someone, or do you just suffer from some kind of mental illness and want to defend anyone who has one no matter what (else) they do?

How many "oops so sorry I beheaded and ate a guy" type mistakes is a person supposed to be allowed to make in a lifetime?

I bet that a poll would find ZERO to be the most popular answer by far. While individual people do make mistakes, the majority opinion of society is usually correct unless it has been manipulated by media, but just how much spin would media have to put on a story about a guy randomly doing what Li did? None. It speaks for itself.

Vince Li does not live in a vacuum. Does the well being of the whole outweigh the well being of the one? Yes, it happens all the time.

Now I'm remembering why I don't participate much in AT forums, because it's a waste of time arguing on the internet and you guys make an entire evening out of it. Outta here.

 

[PokerGuy]

Appealing to authority, saying "the experts said he's OK so he must be OK" is fine, but I'd bet those experts who set him free to strike again would not be all that comfortable with him living next door to them or in their house either.

The fact is that while schizophrenia can be managed and treated to a degree, there is no cure. If he was far enough gone to just randomly stab, kill, behead and eat a random person should give any rational person pause about whether you want to release that person back into society when they seem fine for a little while.

Even if there's no next victim (which is unlikely), having someone housed for 4 years or so and then walking free for what he did to another human being is absurdly unjust in an of itself. Imagine how the family of his victim must feel, now that they get to walk around knowing the monster who did that to their loved one roams the streets freely once again, ready to snap at some other unfortunate innocent. It's completely insane as far as I'm concerned, and his next victims blood is on the hands of those who unleashed him.

 

[Eug]

This article summarizes what many feel:

Vince Li is not evil; he's sick. But the justice system is treating him like he's cured

Basically, people understand he was not criminally responsible, and they get that he would have been discharged sooner or later, but the problem here is his being given an absolute discharge instead of a conditional one.

 

[Nashemon]

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.

The thing is, even in heinous crimes, when people get locked up for 25 years, and everyone is happy with the verdict, as soon as that same person is released after serving his time, people are up in arms that "this criminal is walking free! Where is the justice for his victim!?!?"

 

[Nashemon]

This article summarizes what many feel:

Vince Li is not evil; he's sick. But the justice system is treating him like he's cured

Basically, people understand he was not criminally responsible, and they get that he would have been discharged sooner or later, but the problem here is his being given an absolute discharge instead of a conditional one.

I disagree. I don't think that's what most people think at all. Even in the comments on that article, they want him locked up for life. They don't want him living anywhere near them even under supervision. They don't understand the medicine is working and he has been cleared by people far more trained for this kind of judgment than they are.

 

[zinfamous]

The mentally ill are incredibly dangerous and destructive to any decent society. They disproportionately make up our homeless and criminals, yet somehow their incapability of responsibility makes them less deserving of being locked up for life? Give me a choice between two roommates, one a perfectly rational and conscious murderer that killed his wife over child support, another a schizo that ate his victim because he thought he looked like a lollipop, and I know which one I'll bunk with. It may make them less morally culpable, but practically speaking, it also makes them less human.

Agreed.

Look at what the US voted for.

Hi-yo!

 

[jackstar7]

Appealing to authority, saying "the experts said he's OK so he must be OK" is fine, but I'd bet those experts who set him free to strike again would not be all that comfortable with him living next door to them or in their house either.

The fact is that while schizophrenia can be managed and treated to a degree, there is no cure. If he was far enough gone to just randomly stab, kill, behead and eat a random person should give any rational person pause about whether you want to release that person back into society when they seem fine for a little while.

Even if there's no next victim (which is unlikely), having someone housed for 4 years or so and then walking free for what he did to another human being is absurdly unjust in an of itself. Imagine how the family of his victim must feel, now that they get to walk around knowing the monster who did that to their loved one roams the streets freely once again, ready to snap at some other unfortunate innocent. It's completely insane as far as I'm concerned, and his next victims blood is on the hands of those who unleashed him.

Your bet is unfounded.

Your fears are irrational.

 

[Eug]

I disagree. I don't think that's what most people think at all. Even in the comments on that article, they want him locked up for life. They don't want him living anywhere near them even under supervision. They don't understand the medicine is working and he has been cleared by people far more trained for this kind of judgment than they are.

OK, most people I know then. Can't say I've polled the entire country. And anyways, I said that's what many people feel, not everyone, or even necessarily most.

And yeah, I understand they wouldn't want him living beside them, but that doesn't mean everyone wants him locked up forever. Similarly, I would definitely not want a rapist living in my neighbourhood, but that doesn't mean I think rape should mean prison for life.

Your bet is unfounded.

Your fears are irrational.

Trust me, many psychiatrists wouldn't want their previously hardcore violent patients living in their condo building.

 

[interchange]

That's pretty much the point of this place. We do have a a trained mental health professional that maybe would chime in.

@interchange any thoughts here?

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

 

[jackstar7]

Trust me, many psychiatrists wouldn't want their previously hardcore violent patients living in their condo building.

Okay... humor me, why should I trust you on this?

 

[Eug]

Okay... humor me, why should I trust you on this?

I happen to know some psychiatrists personally.

Maybe they wouldn't fit your idea of what perfect psychiatrists should be, but reality is reality.

 

[bshole]

I disagree. I don't think that's what most people think at all. Even in the comments on that article, they want him locked up for life. They don't want him living anywhere near them even under supervision. They don't understand the medicine is working and he has been cleared by people far more trained for this kind of judgment than they are.

The number one issue with schizophrenics is that they stop taking their medication. The number two issue is that even with medication, relapses occur. These are objective data-driven facts.

He would be better off in a controlled environment with appropriate medical care. Society would be better off as well.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/schizophrenia-the-challenges-of-taking-medication/

 

[jackstar7]

I happen to know some psychiatrists personally.

Maybe they wouldn't fit your idea of what perfect psychiatrists should be, but reality is reality.

Do they treat criminally insane people?

I'm willing to accept their opinions weighted for them being second-hand and without much context, but I'm open to adjusting my ideas vs. my ideals.

 

[bshole]

Do they treat criminally insane people?

I'm willing to accept their opinions weighted for them being second-hand and without much context, but I'm open to adjusting my ideas vs. my ideals.

My grandmother who had schizophrenia spent 30 years in an asylum after attempting to kill my grandfather. She was not unhappy there. Don't think of it as punishment, think of it as treatment.

 

[jackstar7]

My grandmother who had schizophrenia spent 30 years in an asylum after attempting to kill my grandfather. She was not unhappy there. Don't think of it as punishment, think of it as treatment.

I am willing to consider that. I'm also willing to believe that if those trained in such matters decided that your grandmother was fit to re-enter society and not be a danger, then she should be able to enjoy her freedom and all rights.

 

[yllus]

I wrote "putting on an act" immediately after a quote where you wrote "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."

Do you have a problem following conversations or are you just deliberately refusing to continue that one?

You're stating that a man who was out of his mind enough to stab, behead and eat parts of a stranger is next going to be sane enough to pretend to be better for a significantly long amount of time to fool people who works in the courts and in mental health. That, to me, is very unlikely, and not something society needs to be fear repeat episodes of. Maybe you don't post here much because you're bad at it?

Appealing to authority, saying "the experts said he's OK so he must be OK" is fine, but I'd bet those experts who set him free to strike again would not be all that comfortable with him living next door to them or in their house either.

The fact is that while schizophrenia can be managed and treated to a degree, there is no cure. If he was far enough gone to just randomly stab, kill, behead and eat a random person should give any rational person pause about whether you want to release that person back into society when they seem fine for a little while.

Even if there's no next victim (which is unlikely), having someone housed for 4 years or so and then walking free for what he did to another human being is absurdly unjust in an of itself. Imagine how the family of his victim must feel, now that they get to walk around knowing the monster who did that to their loved one roams the streets freely once again, ready to snap at some other unfortunate innocent. It's completely insane as far as I'm concerned, and his next victims blood is on the hands of those who unleashed him.

I think it'd be interesting if those mental health professionals who advocate for his release were asked if they'd house him in their apartment complex. It's kind of a weird question but it does get to the heart of the matter.

On the justness of it as seen by the victim's family - I don't think that should be a factor in sentencing, frankly. The victim is dead; if the criminal can be rehabilitated, I'm not for keeping him behind bars to make the victim's family achieve a feeling of vengeance.

 

[Eug]

Do they treat criminally insane people?

I'm willing to accept their opinions weighted for them being second-hand and without much context, but I'm open to adjusting my ideas vs. my ideals.

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.