Spiderfish Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Your opinion that he's a risk contradicts the medical professionals' opinions about him. How did you come to such a different conclusion? Actually, I'm not sure my conclusion does differ from the doctors. I think it's the willingness to accept the risk and potential consequences that differs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 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. So you're saying you came to a different conclusion because they're wrong. And the doctors are wrong, not because they've misdiagnosed him or did something wrong, but because it's your opinion that they don't care about the victims or the public. This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Actually, I'm not sure my conclusion does differ from the doctors. I think it's the willingness to accept the risk and potential consequences that differs. You're evaluating the risk and potential consequences. Your evaluation vastly differs from that of the doctors. They're mental health professionals and are therefore qualified to make that determination. I'm not sure why your opinion about the risk he poses is supposed to be more credible than theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Ever have second opinion cyber? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Ever have second opinion cyber? It is my understanding that the Mental Health Assessment Commission is not a single doctor making pronouncements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Yes, it's the entire commission and there sisters.... It's my understanding that we won't care after the 21st? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) So you're saying you came to a different conclusion because they're wrong. And the doctors are wrong, not because they've misdiagnosed him or did something wrong, but because it's your opinion that they don't care about the victims or the public. We have data on this: http://www.son.washi...ecid_&_Svcs.pdf Over 60% of mentally ill offenders re-commit crimes after release, and ~2% of them commit violent felonies (rapes and murders) after release. For anything done scientifically, if it has a 2% chance of resulting in death or serious injury, that risk is considered too high, FAR too high, for the general public to accept. Nuclear reactor has 2% chance of meltdown? NOPE! Drug has 2% chance of side effect causing death? NOPE! Plane has 2% chance of not being able to land safely? NOPE! But for doctors evaluating mentally ill criminals for release, apparently a 2% rate of errors resulting in death or serious injury is acceptable. I disagree with that and think the risk standard should be closer to what it is in other fields. If the doctors get their error rates below 0.01%, a factor of 200 improvement over what they have right now, I may start to buy your "the medical professionals say he's cured" line. MAY start to buy. That would at least resolve the issue of danger to the public - the issue of how to serve justice in the case of mentally ill criminals would still remain. I am not sure I agree with the fundamental premise that one's mental capacity should excuse one from being held to account for their actions. Edited December 13, 2012 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) So you're saying you came to a different conclusion because they're wrong. And the doctors are wrong, not because they've misdiagnosed him or did something wrong, but because it's your opinion that they don't care about the victims or the public. This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I didn't say that. What doesn't make sense is your lack of comprehension of the written word (or your enthusiasm to distort what is said to enforce an argument, not sure which it is). Actually, I'm not sure my conclusion does differ from the doctors. I think it's the willingness to accept the risk and potential consequences that differs. Doctors make mistakes all the time. Maybe they will get this one right, maybe not. My opinion, though not a professional one, is that the risk is not worth it for anyone involved. Edited December 13, 2012 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 We have data on this: http://www.son.washi...ecid_&_Svcs.pdf Over 60% of mentally ill offenders re-commit crimes after release, and ~2% of them commit violent felonies (rapes and murders) after release. For anything done scientifically, if it has a 2% chance of resulting in death or serious injury, that risk is considered too high, FAR too high, for the general public to accept. Nuclear reactor has 2% chance of meltdown? NOPE! Drug has 2% chance of side effect causing death? NOPE! Plane has 2% chance of not being able to land safely? NOPE! But for doctors evaluating mentally ill criminals for release, apparently a 2% rate of errors resulting in death or serious injury is acceptable. I disagree with that and think the risk standard should be closer to what it is in other fields. If the doctors get their error rates below 0.1%, a factor of 20 improvement over what they have right now, I may start to buy your "the medical professionals say he's cured" line. MAY start to buy. That would at least resolve the issue of danger to the public - the issue of how to serve justice in the case of mentally ill criminals would still remain. I am not sure I agree with the fundamental premise that one's mental capacity should excuse one from being held to account for their actions. Ecological fallacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Damn fallacy! That's what they said about flat world! Heracy! I don't like your facts! I will make up my own! Edited December 13, 2012 by Fletch 27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 I didn't say that. What doesn't make sense is your lack of comprehension of the written word (or your enthusiasm to distort what is said to enforce an argument, not sure which it is). Too bad you didn't explain what I misunderstood and correct me because now it doesn't seem like I'm wrong at all. It sounds like I've got it exactly right, so you've resorted to childish personal insults. Doctors make mistakes all the time. Maybe they will get this one right, maybe not. My opinion, though not a professional one, is that the risk is not worth it for anyone involved. It's not worth the risk, but you haven't articulated how you've assessed that risk. Don't bother because I'm not interested in continuing to have a conversation with someone that resorts to personal insults when they're asked to justify their opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Ecological fallacy. I disagree, my argument is not an example of an ecological fallacy. The important point is not about the individual criminal, I made no attempt to extrapolate his likelihood to re-offend based off the statistics for the group. Rather, the point is about how often mental health professionals who make these evaluations screw up. And clearly they screw up too often, as the data shows. Given that they screw up too often, your appeal to authority "the doctors said he's fit for release" does not hold any validity. That is your own fallacy, fallacious appeal to authority, where said authority has been demonstrated to be incorrect an unacceptably high % of the time. Edited December 13, 2012 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) so you've resorted to childish personal insults. Again, lack of comprehension. What personal insults??? I said... Actually, I'm not sure my conclusion does differ from the doctors. You said... So you're saying you came to a different conclusion because they're wrong. Clearly you erred in your comprehension of what I wrote...It happens, don't take it personally. Edited December 13, 2012 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 I disagree, my argument is not an example of an ecological fallacy. The important point is not about the individual criminal, I made no attempt to extrapolate his likelihood to re-offend based off the statistics for the group. Rather, the point is about how often mental health professionals who make these evaluations screw up. And clearly they screw up too often, as the data shows. Given that they screw up too often, your appeal to authority "the doctors said he's fit for release" does not hold any validity. The study is irrelevant because the sample population is from the US who not only has different criminal laws and their mental health defences, but also an entirely different health care system. Also the difference between mentally ill offenders and those who aren't is does not seem to be significant. In fact, the authors write, "This report provides strong evidence that even mentally ill offenders who have been convicted of serious felonies resulting in prison sentences rarely commit serious violent crimes after release. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Again, lack of comprehension. what personal insults??? I said... You said... Clearly you erred in your comprehension of what I wrote...It happens, don't take it personally. Yeah. I saw you hedge by saying you didn't come to a different conclusion. Then you concluded that he poses a great risk to society and should still be locked up. That's not the conclusion the doctors came to, since they released him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderfish Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) Yeah. I saw you hedge by saying you didn't come to a different conclusion. You call it hedging, I call it clarifying a position. Obviously I wasn't successful. Edited December 13, 2012 by Spiderfish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 The study is irrelevant because the sample population is from the US who not only has different criminal laws and their mental health defences, but also an entirely different health care system. Also the difference between mentally ill offenders and those who aren't is does not seem to be significant. Indeed, and that is a very important point. Regular offenders are released after having served their time for a crime, and then re-offend at a certain rate. Meanwhile, mentally ill offenders are released when a doctor says they are "cured/better" and no longer at risk of re-offending, re-offend at the EXACT SAME RATE (to within statistical significance). What does this mean? That the doctor saying the patient has been cured has ABSOLUTELY NO MEANING: they still re-offend, at the exact same rate as anyone else. Therefore it does not make any sense to release them after just a couple years when a doctor says they are cured, as opposed to 25+ years that they would have served if not for having been mentally ill. In fact, the authors write, "This report provides strong evidence that even mentally ill offenders who have been convicted of serious felonies resulting in prison sentences rarely commit serious violent crimes after release. " "Rarely" is a qualitative adjective rather than something quantitative. 2% qualifies as "rarely" in most contexts, and that's why the scientist in question used the term. But when it comes to risk of serious injury or death, 2% is all too high. But yes, you are right, it would be better if I presented data gathered in Canada. I'm gonna guess it's not drastically different than US data, but if you have Canadian data to support your point feel free to present it. Until then I'll maintain my position that your appeal to authority on such a high stakes issue is only valid if said authority is right the overwhelming majority of the time, and I'd like to see data to that effect prior to accepting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Indeed, and that is a very important point. Regular offenders are released after having served their time for a crime, and then re-offend at a certain rate. Meanwhile, mentally ill offenders are released when a doctor says they are "cured/better" and no longer at risk of re-offending, re-offend at the EXACT SAME RATE (to within statistical significance). What does this mean? That the doctor saying the patient has been cured has ABSOLUTELY NO MEANING: they still re-offend, at the exact same rate as anyone else. Therefore it does not make any sense to release them after just a couple years when a doctor says they are cured, as opposed to 25+ years that they would have served if not for having been mentally ill. "Rarely" is a qualitative adjective rather than something quantitative. 2% qualifies as "rarely" in most contexts, and that's why the scientist in question used the term. But when it comes to risk of serious injury or death, 2% is all too high. But yes, you are right, it would be better if I presented data gathered in Canada. I'm gonna guess it's not drastically different than US data, but if you have Canadian data to support your point feel free to present it. Until then I'll maintain my position that your appeal to authority on such a high stakes issue is only valid if said authority is right the overwhelming majority of the time, and I'd like to see data to that effect prior to accepting it. The only result that can be drawn from your argument here is that once someone goes to prison, they should remain there for the rest of their life despite the research showing that they rarely commit a violent crime again. What makes you think 2% is significant? In the general population, roughly 3,500 violent crimes are committed per 100,000 people. That's 3.5%. So it seems the chance of them committing a violent crime is cut in half. The problem with all of that of course is that it's not a 2% probability. Nothing in that report suggests that this is the probability that any individual offender will re-offend. The statistical analysis is just plain wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted December 13, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) The only result that can be drawn from your argument here is that once someone goes to prison, they should remain there for the rest of their life despite the research showing that they rarely commit a violent crime again. What makes you think 2% is significant? In the general population, roughly 3,500 violent crimes are committed per 100,000 people. That's 3.5%. So it seems the chance of them committing a violent crime is cut in half. Cite? And no, the result that can be drawn is that mental health professionals saying that a particular criminal no longer poses a danger is meaningless, as individuals released under such assurances have the same recidivism rates as individuals released without such assurances. The problem with all of that of course is that it's not a 2% probability. Nothing in that report suggests that this is the probability that any individual offender will re-offend. The statistical analysis is just plain wrong. Nor did I claim that nor is it relevant to my argument. Edited December 13, 2012 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 The jurors may have found him not criminally responsible, but he still killed those 2 children. If he was insane enough to do so, then he should spend the rest of his life in a mental institution instead of a prison. Either way, he should never walk free again. People who kill out of insanity are some of the scariest ones. I think 3 years is much too soon to be released. But he had mental illness. A person with mental illness untreated can be COMPLETELY different when properly diagnosed and under proper treatment. He has a right to show that he can consistently be mentally stable and healthy under proper treatment and thus set free eventually. 3 years may be too soon given the murders, but maybe 5 years or something like that pending the medical professionals' assessment. I don't think it should be an automatic life lockup for something out of his control that can be fixed, that's not justice IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 btw they would have to have a probation program for him for the rest of his life if set free. He would have to consistently go to therapy, maybe have random blood/urine tests showing he's taking his meds etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 cyber - Clearly you are misinformed. The left wing has repeatedly declared itself in favour of random murder in the past and this case furthers their goals in this regard. As a liberal I kill all the small children I can get my hands on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Sure wouldn't matter to the courts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 Sure wouldn't matter to the courts... What a stupid thing to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted December 13, 2012 Report Share Posted December 13, 2012 TVO, The agenda, talked about this last night and the Dr. said people wouldn't believe about many mental ill people there are in Toronto, which where he was from. He also connected the homeless to the mentally ill and governments weren't doing enough for them. So if a mentally ill person breaks the law, should they go to jail or should they go to a insitution until they clearly not a danger to themselves or the public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.