blackbird

I don't think that is correct. A mentally ill person who murdered someone, for example, could still be a threat to society. The problem with the system is mentally ill people who commit murder could wrongly be released into society who are still a danger to other people. In fact I posted some examples earlier to show at least one person who has received day passes with an attendant but who is still considered a serious danger by a committee or board. Releasing such people cannot be based on the opinion of just one doctor who may have poor judgment and is just guessing. No doctor can say with certainty that someone who committed murder is now safe to release. He is not god and is unable to know how mentally ill person's mind works. He simple cannot guarantee what the patient will do. It is better to err on the side of caution and protect society.

It is nonsense to say someone who murdered someone is not a criminal, but is a patient. If you can't see the insanity of that claim, there is not much one can say. Speaking hypothetically, if a person with serious mental issues murdered someone, then they fit the definition of a criminal. Murder is a crime and there is no escaping that fact. Dictionary definition of criminal: crim·i·nal [ˈkrimənl, ˈkrimn(ə)l] noun a person who has committed a crime: So if they killed someone, then they broke the law. That meets the definition of criminal whether or not they are found by the court as being criminally responsible. The legal system, which in the opinion of much of the population is seriously flawed, may say they are not criminally responsible (NCR). The court rulings don't say they are not criminals or that they didn't murder someone. The court is saying that according to the legal system, bought in by the Liberals, the accused person is not guilty by reason of insanity or NCR. The faulty legal system may find in the verdict that they are not guilt of murder, but that doesn't change the definition of what the word murder means. The court declares them not guilty. It doesn't say they didn't commit murder. If someone, who is mentally ill or not, kills someone, that fits the dictionary definition of murder. There are two different subjects on this. There is the court ruling and there is the dictionary definition of murder. You seem to have difficulty in understanding the meaning of the word murder and the finer points of how the legal system works. Also, just because they are declared by the court to be not criminally responsible (for their crime of murder) does not mean the court is saying they are safe to be released into society. They could still be held in a mental institution for the rest of their lives. This is hypothetical because we are not talking about an actual case. I posted several actual cases earlier to show how the system has actually worked.

You must be aware that a man assaulted a woman tourist in Vancouver and tried to kill her a couple weeks ago. He was arrested and released right away even though he attempted to murder the woman. You must also be aware this is because of the Liberal government's laws on bail that enabled the guy to be released on conditions. How is it possible in a civilized country that a guy can attempt to murder a woman and be arrested and immediately released on bail? Yet you think pointing this out is "negativity, rage, wild groundless accusations...etc."?? Canada's legal system is a complete disaster and not protecting society.

I think many undecided voters especially in Quebec and the Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto triangle were scared by Trump into supporting Carney because Carney was a bank executive and they for some unknown reason believed Carney's claim that he is better able to deal with Trump. Personally I don't think it matters who deals with Trump. Trump is Trump and can't be controlled. I remember in the 2015 election, people flocked to Trudeau because of his name, looks, and acting ability as a drama teacher. He was a liberal and a progressive and many Canadians unwisely swallowed all that progressive stuff like legalizing marijuana and sounding like he could make a better world. It was all a charade. The truth is there is no free lunch and everything the government does comes with a very high price tag. That means any kind of government welfare system has a high cost because it requires a huge bureaucracy which Trudeau created. The biggest lie of all was the war on climate change and the carbon tax was going to save the planet. It did nothing for climate change. Carney has a history of being a climate change fighter so don't expect things to change a lot under him. And I don't think he said anything about cutting the bureaucracy or changing the catch and release, soft-on-crime system. More of the same.

Not at all. Who says it's immoral? The word moral or immoral is a relative term and what it means is a matter of individual interpretation. The goal is to protect society. If someone is guilty of a crime, they should be punished. Apparently you don't believe in punishment for crime. You apparently don't believe in protecting society from dangerous offenders who have mental problems either.

Society can not rely on dangerous offenders taking medication. A dangerous offender should be locked up That is the guaranteed way to protect society.

Some people can't just be cured by waving a wand or giving them a prescription. There are many cases of mentally ill murderers who have been designated as dangerous many years after their crimes. What has psychiatry done for them? Not much. Psychiatry is a very subjective or doubtful profession.

Funny how the BC Conservative Party said they support compulsory treatment. So it looks like you are just making things up. The never said anything about punishing them. If they have committed crimes, then perhaps they do need punishment and treatment.

I don't think people are locked up for simply being odd in their speaking. The problem today is society has abandoned the safety of law-abiding citizens and the courts constantly release repeat offenders that should be in jail or in a mental institution. There should be no right to being out on bail or free if one is a serious danger to society. But sadly that is not how the law works now. The statistics are that a few dozen offenders have been arrested and released several thousand times. The system has broken down.

This reminds me, years ago a met a man who receives an injection once a month for mental issues. If he doesn't show up for the injection, the police go and get him and take him to the health unit for the injection. The thing is today I think there are thousands of people with mental issues and there are attacks every day on innocent people. What would you say the solution should be? I would be interested in hearing about a real solution that is going to protect law-abiding citizens, not the so-called rights of dangerous mentally-ill people. I think society has gone too far one way on the freedoms side.

I think the Conservatives campaign platform has some good starting points to stop the rampant crime. Stop the catch and release bail system. Put drug dealers behind bars for life. I think there are ways to determine who should be forced into involuntary treatment for drug addition and who has mental problems and are too dangerous to be released. Some of these people out on the streets have had dozens of interactions with the police and legal system but are still out committing crimes. Poilievre said recently a relatively small number of offenders (a few dozen) are responsible for thousands of arrests and offences.

The day after 11 people were killed by a 30 year old guy with mental problems there is no danger to Canadians, according to Carney anyway. He appears to be downplaying the widespread problem in Canada with the countless number of people who have mental problems but are out on the streets and attack other people every day. The problem is in the last half of the 20th century Canadian society started to change it's attitude toward mental institutions for involuntary care and shifted more toward giving rights to individuals with mental problems to be free if they so wish. Then in 1982, Pierre Trudeau, the champion of liberal ideology brought in his Charter of Rights and this was used by courts and politicians to champion everyone's right to not be forced into a mental institution and also to not be held in bail or prisons if they could possibly be released, even on conditions and a blind belief that they could be trusted to follow certain rules. These ideas became entrenched in liberal ideology as being progressive. Judges were appointed with this ideology to uphold it as a proper interpretation of the Charter of Rights. When mental institutions were closed over the last 50 years, it was believed the communities would be better suited to take care of the mentally ill. It never happened. Towns or cities are not equipped at all to deal with the mentally ill. Now the mentally ill are camped on the streets, taking drugs, dying of overdoses and committing crimes and assaults daily. When they are arrested, they are almost always immediately released by judges. The serious offenders that harm people may be referred to a provincial mental health department but they are not put in an institution and not jailed. They are free to carry on. It should be noted the police are announcing this is not an act of "terrorism". What? What definition of terrorism are they going by? Obviously the police are going by a definition of terrorism that is used in the application of a law for laying terrorism charges. But by the normal definition, it is clearly a form of terrorism. The Merriam Webster dictionary online gives this definition of terror: 1: a state of intense or overwhelming fear 2: violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion

Yes, I understand what you are saying. The problem is in the last half of the 20th century Canadian society started to change it's attitude toward mental institutions for involuntary care and shifted more toward giving rights in individuals with mental problems to be free if they so wish. Then in 1982, Pierre Trudeau, the champion of liberal ideology brought in his Charter of Rights and this was used by courts and politicians to champion everyone's right to not be forced into a mental institution and also to not be held in bail or prisons if they could possibly be released, even on conditions and a blind belief that they could trusted to follow certain rules. These ideas became entrenched in liberal ideology as being progressive. Judges were appointed with this ideology to uphold it as a proper interpretation of the Charter of Rights. When mental institutions were closed over the last 40 years, it was believed the communities would be better suited to take care of the mentally ill. It never happened. Towns or cities are not equipped at all to deal with the mentally ill. Now the mentally ill are camped on the streets, taking drugs, dying of overdoses and committing crimes and assaults daily. When they are arrested, they are almost always immediately released by judges. The serious offenders that harm people may be referred to a provincial mental health department but they are not put in an institution and not jailed. They are free to carry on.

Multiple interactions with police and with health authorities, yet he was not committed to a mental institution. Recently the BC NDP government said there are over 2,500 people in B.C. either addicted and/or with mental health issues and they announced they opened a ten bed facility in Surrey for involuntary treatment. This is a drop in the bucket and woefully inadequate. This kind of event is a result of the inadequate mental health involuntary care in Canada and the liberal laws that enable catch and release and giving priority over the freedom of individuals even with mental problems over the safety of society. The media and politicians keep saying this is not the result of "terrorism". Hmmm. So what does that mean? That nothing particular needs to be done? I hope they don't think because it doesn't fall under a certain definition of "terrorism" that it means there is nothing that needs to be done. This is certainly a result of the liberal laws that enable people who are a danger to society to be out on the loose. And it certainly is a form of terrorism to all the people who have been directly affected and their loved one.

Isn't this ironic! Just before the election, a man drove his car into a Filipino celebration in Vancouver and killed at least nine people. My heart goes out to these people and their relatives. The man who did this is apparently known to police. How is it that someone with this kind of mental condition is out on the loose? We don't know the full story yet, but hopefully it will come out. The answer is our liberal justice system and lack of laws to protect society and laws to keep people involuntarily in mental institutions or prison if that is warranted. We do know the legal system is geared to giving bail or parole or light sentences to people. "In Canada, the Not Criminally Responsible system applies to accused persons found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCR)1. A person found NCR is not merely forgiven and released back into the community, but rather cannot be held as truly responsible for the crime due to their mental disorder34." Bail in Canada is another serious problem. "Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Thomas Carrique said he was "outraged" that Randall McKenzie, who has been charged with first-degree murder in the fatal shooting of Const. Grzegorz Pierzchala on Dec. 27, was out on bail and had a lifetime ban from owning a firearm. " How does Canada's bail system actually work? And where does it fall short? | CBC News All of this is a result of the liberal interpretation of the Charter of Rights in granting people, who are dangerous, the right to be out on streets rather than protecting society. The legal system is geared to enable mentally ill and dangerous people to be released if at all possible or if conditions can be placed on them. This presumes they will follow the conditions and or behave themselves. This is pure imagination and hope. All of this rests on the Liberal government who brought in these kinds of laws that enable such people to be out on the streets instead of in jail or a mental institution where they belong. NOTE: Police just announced Sunday morning this fellow has had multiple interactions with police and multiple interactions with mental health. This is exactly what I have been talking about. Why was he not in an institution?

It is obvious you are sneakily trying to avoid the issue with a bizarre, invented tumour claim. How many times have we ever heard of such a thing? Never. A man just drove a car into a crowd in Vancouver and killed at least nine people. He was known to police. Another example of what I am talking about. The soft-on-crime liberal justice system is killing people, lots of people.

That is exactly what I am talking about. You can call it a hospital or a mental institution. But that is where they need to be kept. Who says a person with mental illness cannot be treated in a mental institution? You? You think a hospital can treat them better? I don't think you understand. A mental institution is for treating patients with mental problems. That is where the psychiatrists and mental health workers work. That is why it is called a mental institution. The normal definition for a hospital is a place where sick people are treated. People with long term or life long mental problems have to have a place that is designed for their requirements. There never was anything wrong with mental institutions. They were built and staffed by people who were specifically trained to deal with the mentally ill. Hospitals are staffed by medical doctors and nurses and they are not the same profession as people trained to deal with mental patients. We just had an man drive a car into a Filipino celebration in Vancouver and killed at least nine people. The guy who did this was known to police. Is this another example that shows what I am talking about? Is this a man who killed all these people another one who was out on the loose with mental problems because of the Liberal/NDP soft-on-crime laws? We will see. The bottom line is we need to protect society from dangerous people who harm other people. They can't be left out on the streets to endanger others.

Nobody said mental illness doesn't exist. That is you making a false accusation. If someone with mental problems is committing crimes and harming or killing innocent citizens, any sane person would say they should not be on the loose regardless of the offender's mental state. If they are mentally ill, they should be in a mental institution under the watch of security guards 24/7. I don't see that as harsh or prejudicial. It is just common sense. There is no other way to protect society.

The Canadian justice system is seriously flawed. NCR (not criminally responsible) is a result of liberal ideology, not justice to protect society. If we examine some cases, we find that people who are designated as "high-risk accused" are in fact being granted escorted day passes and possibly later even given complete freedom. How does this square with protecting society? "Allan Schoenborn: Killed his three children, ages 10, eight and five, in Merritt, B.C., in April 2008. Schoenborn was diagnosed with delusional disorder and said he killed the children to protect them from an imagined threat of sexual abuse. He was found not criminally responsible and is in a psychiatric hospital in Port Coquitlam. He has been granted escorted day passes from the facility but now faces an application from the Crown to have him designated a “high-risk accused,” which would force him to wait longer to ask for more freedom." LIST: Canada’s prominent not criminally responsible (NCR) cases | Globalnews.ca It is a good idea to look at some of these cases to better understand the NCR (Not criminally responsible) verdict to understand how it works. We should realize these kind of cases eventually lead to some offenders being released back into society. Some start as escorted day passes and progress from there. Whatever happened to the man who beheaded someone on a Greyhound bus? I haven't heard anything about that case for some time. I have to say I am very much opposed to the NCR in our justice system. I believe it is a fatal flaw in the system and leads to dangerous offenders being eventually released into society and nobody knowing for sure what the outcome will be.

This section of the Bible is apparently part of what is called the Olivet Discourse. It is prophecy about the future when the Lord returns. You can see that if you read Chapter 24 which precedes the part you posted. There are three classes of people present: the sheep, the goats, and the brethren. But the point I am making here is this is prophecy about the future events at the Lord's return after the Great Tribulation. It is not specifically referring to today. It is referring to how the gentile nations treated the brethren, who are the Jews, God's chosen people. This would require some study to understand. I admit I am not up on the details of the Olivet Discourse. But if you want to look into it you can. Just do a search with words something like: dispensational interpretation of Olivet Discourse. I would have to do some serious studying to really get into those verses and what they mean.

Yes, I know about those verses. That does not condone Socialism or Communism. Many Socialists and Communists have taken that part of the Bible to use to justify robbing Peter to pay Paul. In other words they twist the Bible to argue Socialism is justified by the Bible, which it is not. The fact that there is a division in society about how those verse should be interpreted just proves that the Devil uses the Bible to his own advantage. Some interpret it as justifying Socialism or even Communism. Some interpret it to be referring only to individual behavior or charity. If you examine it closely you will see that Jesus was speaking to individuals. Nothing to do with governments or how governments should govern. The Bible teaches in the ten commandments "thou shalt not steal". In other words God ordained men to own private property and did not give the right to anybody to use a political party or government to steal other people's property to pay for Socialism. It is just not what the Bible teaches. Those verse are talking about charity, that is, individual or personal charity. Socialism is not charity; it is robbing those that have something to give to everyone else. Do a search on the internet. There are many articles on the evils of Socialism. Socialism destroys individual motivation and initiative. Also, the Bible teaches capital punishment for murderers in Genesis 9:6 "1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. {ordained: or, ordered} 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. " Romans 13:1-4 KJV Evil doers (law breakers) need to be punished. There is nothing that I know of that justifies our justice system having a "not criminally responsible" provision or NCR. If people commit crimes because they have mental problems they should still be incarcerated in some institution for the protection of society. As far as crime and punishment, there should be no NCR. That is the worst justice system in the world. If they have mental problems and committed some crime, then send them to a mental institution.

Your thinking is straight from the Devil and Hell. You need help. Find a good Bible teacher. That is exactly what the Bible tells us would happen in the last days. We are there now.

If you are talking about someone who has committed a criminal offence, he needs to be locked up in an institution for the rest of his life. The protection of society comes first.

What on earth does that mean? OTOH??? Society has it coming? Boy you are in a terrible state. That describes your depraved state alright.

Did you know that the default position in Canada is to release suspects with conditions if at all possible and under almost all circumstances? That's a fact. I found it on a Canada law website. We live in a sick country.