murderer, Guy Turcotte, released

[Guest]

Lots of emotional reactions without any sort of reflection on the situation.

Yes. Murder is bad.

Killing children is even worse.

Everybody getting together and discussing what a horrible, terrible thing Turcotte did is not even remotely interesting. It's a given.

What's interesting is the fact that he was found "not criminally responsible" by the jury and was released by the mental health board. Examining how this happened and why this happened is more interesting. Hearing intelligent and articulate responses as to why this should not happen, would be even better.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like anyone, in nearly 50 posts, has been able to even remotely approach that level discussion.

Ok. I think the doctors were wrong to release him. They have absolutely no way to know that he won't kill again. They only have a level of certainty that they believe is reasonable. I think that they wouldn't let him babysit their kids, but they don't mind if some poor unsuspecting sap does at some point. They are wrong to release someone who is capable of stabbing his own children back into society. They cannot know he won't do it again, and that's enough reason to keep him locked up.

Nice cell with a view, sure, but definitely locked.

[Spiderfish]

Everything you just said is completely irrelevant.

The outcome was that the jury did not find him guilty nor was he acquitted; they found him not criminally responsible.

So back to my original question for you: why do you disagree with the finding of 12 jurors that sat through the entire trial and heard every last detail about the case?

Did the jury decide to grant him his release after 18 months? No. regardless of the NCR decision, the problem seems to be with the people who made the decision to release him, not the jury.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Spiderfish

[Spiderfish]

How do we know if they are killers or not? Do we wait for people with mental disorders to commit a crime first?

People with mental disorders apperently don't commit crimes. but no, we can't see into the future. we can, however, prevent successive damage from being done after the initial offense against the innocent public has been commited.

[cybercoma]

Ok. I think the doctors were wrong to release him. They have absolutely no way to know that he won't kill again. They only have a level of certainty that they believe is reasonable. I think that they wouldn't let him babysit their kids, but they don't mind if some poor unsuspecting sap does at some point. They are wrong to release someone who is capable of stabbing his own children back into society. They cannot know he won't do it again, and that's enough reason to keep him locked up.

Nice cell with a view, sure, but definitely locked.

We really don't have any way of absolutely knowing that anyone won't kill. "Not criminally responsible" doesn't necessarily mean he's necessary batshit crazy. If someone walks in on their wife screwing another man and they go nuts and kill them, it's possible that they could be considered "not criminally responsible" for their actions. It's not premeditated and it's extremely improbable that it would happen again. The stress of the situation just caused the person to snap. That's potentially what happened here. I don't know.

I'm not making any claims about whether he should or shouldn't have been released because I don't know all the details of the case. People in this thread are making claims and I was hoping they could substantiate them, but that hasn't happened yet. I've been asking why they came to the conclusions that they came to and the answer has been "because he's a child killer!" Well, the 12 jurors knew that when they found him not responsible. So that doesn't really tell me anything.

[cybercoma]

Did the jury decide to grant him his release after 18 months? No. regardless of the NCR decision, the problem seems to be with the people who made the decision to release him, not the jury.

Juries don't ever sentence people.

[Spiderfish]

Juries don't ever sentence people.

I agree. but the problem here isn't even in the sentencing, it's releasing him on the premise that he's been cured.

[cybercoma]

People with mental disorders apperently don't commit crimes. but no, we can't see into the future. we can, however, prevent successive damage from being done after the initial offense against the innocent public has been commited.

They commit crimes, but are sometimes not responsible for their actions.

So the aim is to prevent successive damage. What are the different ways we can do that?

[Spiderfish]

They commit crimes, but are sometimes not responsible for their actions.

So the aim is to prevent successive damage. What are the different ways we can do that?

I have already answered that question.

[cybercoma]

I have already answered that question.

You said lock them up and throw away the key. That's the only way to prevent "successive" damage?

[Fletch 27]

Cyber.. Your forgetting he admitted slaying his 2 children with a blade. They died slowly

[Spiderfish]

You said lock them up and throw away the key. That's the only way to prevent "successive" damage?

It may be.

[cybercoma]

It may be.

What about curing them of their mental illness?

[Fletch 27]

What about a nice cruise? What about a nice evening over candle light... Will that bring his 2. Daughters back? His wife's daughters?

[Guest]

We really don't have any way of absolutely knowing that anyone won't kill. "Not criminally responsible" doesn't necessarily mean he's necessary batshit crazy. If someone walks in on their wife screwing another man and they go nuts and kill them, it's possible that they could be considered "not criminally responsible" for their actions. It's not premeditated and it's extremely improbable that it would happen again. The stress of the situation just caused the person to snap. That's potentially what happened here. I don't know.

I'm not making any claims about whether he should or shouldn't have been released because I don't know all the details of the case. People in this thread are making claims and I was hoping they could substantiate them, but that hasn't happened yet. I've been asking why they came to the conclusions that they came to and the answer has been "because he's a child killer!" Well, the 12 jurors knew that when they found him not responsible. So that doesn't really tell me anything.

We don't have anyway of knowing that anyone won't kill, but I wouldn't advocate locking everybody up. It wouldn't work. Who would be the guards?

Someone who has already stabbed his own kids to death, though, I think we can be a little more sure of. Sure enough to not give them another shot. I don't think that claim needs much substantiating. It's common sense. The claim that he should be released is the one that needs substantiating.

The Jury are irrelevant. As many have posted here, if they knew their decision would see him out in two years, they wouldn't have made it.

Edited December 13, 2012 by bcsapper

[Spiderfish]

What about curing them of their mental illness?

I don't know if mental illness can be cured. It can be managed, but I don't see medication, etc. as an acceptable solution when the stakes are so high. I certainly don't think it's practical to wager the safety of innocent lives...including the individual's on such a gamble.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Spiderfish

[Fletch 27]

You may want to text her or "friend" her on Facebook.. Try that

[cybercoma]

I don't know if mental illness can be cured.

So your argument is predicated on the assumption that mental illness cannot be cured and the risk of him murdering others is too high. You still hold this to be true in spite of decades of mental health research that says otherwise. You argue that Turcotte poses a high risk to innocent people, despite the opinions of doctors who have spent their life doing this work and have said otherwise.

Why should I be persuaded by your opinion despite professionals that argue the exact opposite?

[Fletch 27]

And yet, killing animals like cats and puppies is not curable? It well documented.... But kids..... Expendable and not as bad? So be it!

[Spiderfish]

You argue that Turcotte poses a high risk to innocent people, despite the opinions of doctors who have spent their life doing this work and have said otherwise.

Why should I be persuaded by your opinion despite professionals that argue the exact opposite?

I argue that Turcotte poses a high risk to everyone, including himself. It is well known that people with mental and psycological issues have some of the highest rates of suicide of any other segment of the population. If we really want to act on compassion, we should bear this in mind. I'm not talking about throwing him in prison. there are many high security hospitals in this country that would ensure the safety of all and manage his illness successfully and compassionately.

[Keepitsimple]

Juries don't ever sentence people.

....and that's the problem. The jury only had two choices - Murder or Not Criminally Responsible through mental defect. They made the right choice because the guy was/is obviously nuts. I think that perhaps in the case of very serious crimes like this one, there should be an expectation that the defendent be institutionalized for a minimum length of time - a long time - if only to let jurists live with themselves after letting a murderer "off". After all, Doctors or not - common sense says that a mental defect that causes one to kill their chaildren is not something that can be cured. Criminals with lesser degrees of "rage" can be somewhat controlled but almost all have limits that fall short of murder - and however defective they may be, society seems to be able to tolerate a regimen of mental care. But murdering one's children is a bridge too far - society's protection comes first.

[cybercoma]

I argue that Turcotte poses a high risk to everyone, including himself. It is well known that people with mental and psycological issues have some of the highest rates of suicide of any other segment of the population. If we really want to act on compassion, we should bear this in mind. I'm not talking about throwing him in prison. there are many high security hospitals in this country that would ensure the safety of all and manage his illness successfully and compassionately.

The problem is that the doctors don't believe he needs to be in a hospital any longer, according to their professional opinion. I'm sure they've also taken into consideration your concern about him potentially killing himself. Your opinion that he's a risk contradicts the medical professionals' opinions about him. How did you come to such a different conclusion?

[cybercoma]

I think that perhaps in the case of very serious crimes like this one, there should be an expectation that the defendent be institutionalized for a minimum length of time - a long time

So when someone is institutionalized for a health issue, legislators in Ottawa should create blanket legislation that determines how long that person needs to stay under the care of doctors. Don't you think the doctors themselves are in a better position to determine how long someone is a patient?

[Spiderfish]

The problem is that the doctors don't believe he needs to be in a hospital any longer, according to their professional opinion. I'm sure they've also taken into consideration your concern about him potentially killing himself. Your opinion that he's a risk contradicts the medical professionals' opinions about him. How did you come to such a different conclusion?

I came to such a different conclusion because unlike the "experts" and doctors, my interest is not just from the perspective of the killer, but of their victims and the innocent public. It's quite possible that the experts have every confidence in management tools such as medication. It's a gamble they are willing to accept to allow the individual his or her freedom...a gamble that has the potential to affect innocent people very negatively. It's an easy gamble to make when you have no skin in the game. I'm sure the victims families have a different take on the matter.

[Fletch 27]

or murder of one person...7 years max... Regardless of state

2 murders? 3 years?

[Fletch 27]

Screw the victims... Dead or alive.... This guy got better.....