carepov

I wonder what the recidivism rate is with NCR versus non-NCR cases?

I dojn't need to quatify exactly - I know that the risk of letting him out for an supervised escored outing is FAR LESS than the risk of releasing any convicted drunk driver out. Isn't this obvious?

As I said before, why not administer the meds via injection? Would that not eliminate this factor?

Don't hold back now, "Not enough information" has never stopped you from expressing your opinion before...

I'm sorry for your father-in-law. Yes, AFAIK, puplic safety is top prioity in making ther decision on what to do with cases like Li. As it should be. Again Li going on escorted outings are not a risk to public safety, so why are people opposed to them?

Which poses a greater risk to society: a) allowing Li to go to the beach supervised or b.) the release of a convicted dunk driver?

So when we release drunk drivers we know that they will not re-offend?

The public is being asked to accept supervised outings. What's the risk in that? There is far greater risk to the public in denying these outings. The public is at risk of taking regressive steps in their attitudes towards mental illness. The "public" includes those with mental illness, including those with schizophrenia and their families. Either way there is no such thing as zero-risk. The lowest risk option is to treat Li and allow escorted outings. The vision of course is to de-stigmatize mental illness so that people can get treatment before violent psychotic episodes occur.

Of course there is no familiarity but why not mercy? Are you saying because we are used to children dying in car accidents caused by drunk drivers that our society should have more mercy for the drunk drivers?

So what is your assessment. Is the risk, "not zero" or "great"? And oh yeah, risk of what?

Because I am interested in this analogy and her response. I realize that it is not a perfect analogy, but I still think it is useful. I am interested in knowing how our society can accept giving drunk drivers that end up killing a slap on the wrist while insisting that we lock up Li for life and not allow escorted outings. I don't get it.

The psychiatric panel determined that there is very little risk to allowing Li escorted outings. Do you agree? AFAIK, no one has assessed the risk of an unescorted outing. What makes you think that you are qualified to assess this risk?

Your question was "You think driving drunk and killing someone is worse than cutting someone's head off and eating them?" How do you think Dayma Roblero's parents would respond to that question? http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/judge_to_drunk_driver_in_crash.html What if a repeat drunk driver crashed into a school bus killing 50 children as the bus dropped off a cliff. Wouldn't the drunk driver be "worse" than Li?

What if he was administered injections, would that resolve your concerns? Also, are you for or against supervised outings for Li?

He has schizophrenia. It was untreated and now it is treated. Again, what is the risk?

It depends. a) how "responsible" was the drunk driver for his/her actions? Was it a first, second, tenth offense? b.) what were the consequences? one death, two, five, a bus filled with children? All I am saying is that it makes no sense to me that most people feel that we should - not allow Li to take escorted supervised outings. - never let him out of custody My understanding is that some drunk drivers that kill people get off with a slap on the wrist. Does this make sense to you?

What is the risk to public safety? - I don't see it, Li is being treated and supervised.

Of course there are many consequences; Li is living with the consequences. In this case the court found Li to be not criminally responsible (NCR) to me this means he has no criminal responsibility I don't understand why you would believe otherwise, but for argument's sake let's say he was partially responsible because "he had some knowledge that he was doing something wrong". The question is what should society do with those found NCR? Most people seem to be think that we should give Li no freedom for the rest of his life, why? a) Is it to prevent Li from killing or hurting anyone else? It seems obvious to me that is the panel of psychiatrists say that he is safe to progress in small steps towards freedom then it's safe. The argument about going off medications seems mute to me if he is given his medication via injection. b.) Is it to "set an example" and prevent others from committing similar acts and ensuring that they realize that they cannot "get away with it"? This seems ridiculous. c) Is it vengeance? Does it make Tim's family feel better knowing that Li has no freedom for the rest of his life? I sympathize with the grief felt by Tim's family but I do not understand how preventing Li from going on supervised outings can somehow help? d) Again, what am I missing? Why else would we want to prevent Li from going on supervised outings?

To me it is disturbing that the majority of people expressing their opinion about Li want to punish him more severely than a drunk driver. What am I missing here?

I disagree. "Corporate welfare is a politically created illusion with no visible means of support. Economists who study crony capitalism are clear about why it fails: Money is taken from taxpayers and from productive businesses. In the case of businesses, such money is sometimes transferred to businesses in the same sector at the expense of the “giving” business. This is why the “we’re-creating-jobs” argument from the federal Conservatives as it concerns business subsidies is wrong: If that money were left with individuals and businesses, it would anyway have been spent elsewhere or saved and invested. Instead, the federal Tories are addicted to the political picking of corporate welfare winners and losers. The official title of Budget 2013 was “Jobs, Growth, and Long-Term Prosperity.” It should have been “Grants, Subsidies and Eternal Business Handouts.”" http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/03/28/canadas-corporate-welfare-budget/

I think that you are over-generalizing. IMO, most government programs do encourage "victims" to overcome their obstacles and begin standing up on their own two feet: -EI and related training programs -Disaster relief -programs that help immigrants learn our languages and better integrate -Health care -Programs for children There are many improvements to be made to social programs (IMO some good work is being done with EI for seasonal work), but I do not agree with your claim that social programs teach and encourage users to keep depending on those programs. When I think "victim mentality" I also think of military procurement, where our country "needs" armoured icebreakers and F15 stealth fighters at ridiculously inflated prices. Also, how much is spent on "corporate victims" that "need" bailouts, tax breaks, subsidies, loan guarantees and credits?

My point is that ignorance of mental health issues, failure to implement proactive policies, and knee-jerk reactionism is not a CPC issue - all parties seem to be equally incompetent. Senator Dallaire should also get an honourable mention.

"In a statement, Manitoba Justice Minister Andrew Swan said he is pleased that Nicholson is following through on the review [of NCR laws], which the province had asked for two years ago. Swan said the province will work with the federal government to make any changes as quickly as possible." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2012/05/17/mb-vince-li-greyhound-passes.html "Justice Minister Andrew Swan intervened late last week on the review board's ruling... The board's ruling would have allowed Li 15-minute escorted walks on the Mental Health Centre grounds, as long as it was with two staff members equipped with either a two-way radio or cell phone and centre security staff were informed each time Li was removed from his ward. Though the walks would initially be only 15 minutes long, they could have increased to an hour in length over time. Swan deemed the ruling unacceptable..." http://www.interlaketoday.ca/2010/06/09/li-to-stay-locked-up-for-now

I agree with your views on this issue. My understanding is that the Manitoba NDP government is behaving at least as vindictively and vengefully at the CPC, would you agree with this?

I see your point, the epilepsy example and Li's case are not alike because Li's actions were not an accident. I disagree, but have other questions if you don't mind. What if Li was "sane" but he fell into a deep sleep and killed Tim in his sleep? Would that be different? How about a child, let's say 4 years old, that walks into the neighbor's house, finds a gun and kills the occupants of the house? Let's say she was being babysat by their 12 year old sibling at the time who was distracted. Is that "intentional homicide"?