murderer, Guy Turcotte, released

[cybercoma]

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.

Nor did I claim that nor is it relevant to my argument.

You say that the 2% statistic is not relevant to your argument, but you're claiming that there's a chance that 2% of the mental ill that are released will murder or seriously harm someone else after being released. Putting aside the fact that the study is American and has absolutely no applicability to the social services and programs we have in Canada (in fact, even a Canadian study wouldn't translate very well between provinces), 2% recidivism for violent crimes is less than the violent crime rate generally, which is roughly 3500 per 100,000 people in the US. That's 3.5%. Comparing that to the 2% chance that you claim there is that they will re-offend, which you said is not good enough for the chance of serious injury or death, the rate of violent crimes happening in the general population is double that of the rate of violent crimes happening by mental health patients released from prison.

Your argument, from what I can tell, is predicated on the fact that these mental health patients are just too dangerous to society to be released. The risk of them re-offending is far too great, so they should remain locked up. However, the rate of violent crime in the general population is even greater. The study, moreover, even states explicitly that "mentally ill offenders who have been convicted of serious felonies resulting in prison sentences rarely commit serious violent crimes after release." Therefore, your premise that mentally ill offenders are a great risk and should therefore not be released is false. They are actually much less likely than the general population to commit violent crimes after being released.

As for Turcotte, I don't like the fact that he's being released any more than anyone else. However, I recognize that I don't have the capacity to evaluate his mental state at the time of the crime. I didn't sit through that trial and listen to all the details of his circumstances. I didn't evaluate his mental state before the trial or during his time spent in custody. A professional that specializes in this area did however. That professional brought his findings to a board of other mental health professionals and they collectively evaluated the assessment and considered his risk of re-offending. I trust their judgments because they have far more experience than I do in that area. I trust that their judgments are more valid and credible than those of people that are not educated in criminal mental health.

Most importantly, I believe in judicial discretion and case-by-case analysis. I don't want a justice system that's bound by parliamentary decisions and rigid letter-of-the-law pronouncements by Ottawa. I want a justice system where every single person that goes before a judge and/or jury gets a fair hearing of their individual situation and circumstances. I don't want some formulaic mess where Ottawa, from its ivory tower, rigidly says, "if you have a mental illness and commit a crime, you should be locked away forever." They're not in a position to be able to foresee all the possible situations and circumstances that people may find themselves in. Every individual that goes before the courts must have a fair hearing and have their story evaluated locally by the judge, jury, and if necessary any medical professionals at that time. Without having a local evaluation of a person's circumstances when they're accused of a crime, we cannot have a fair and just legal system. Instead we will have the rigid application of Ottawa's pronouncements that are blind to the lived experiences of individuals. That's not the kind of court I would like to go before, if I'm every charged with a crime, nor do I think it's in anyone's best interest to go before a court like that.

Edited December 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[Moonlight Graham]

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.

I highly, highly doubt the doctors say the offenders are "cured". A mental illness serious enough to cause someone to commit murder very rarely would ever be "cured", it can be treated and controlled though.

[segnosaur]

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 believe that in order for a person to be considered 'not guilty by reason of insanity', its not just a case of 'snapping', they have have lacked the ability to understand what they were doing.

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.

That does seem to be a major problem.

I did a bit of googling but I couldn't find any details about the basis of his 'mental defect'. (Only a mention of things like he claimed of things like 'blackouts'.) In his defense, he did try to commit suicide, which shows that he might have actually been telling the truth about not knowing what he was doing.

However, there are a few reasons to be skeptical of the release and/or cautions about the release:

- There were some reports that his wife was 'afraid' of him prior to the murders. Also, they had found he had researched suicide methods prior do the event, so obviously it wasn't a case of just 'snapping'.

- At least in the U.S., the insanity defense is rarely used, and when it is successful, people usually spend twice as much time institutionalized as compared to someone who just goes to jail. Yet this person was 'cured' in far less time. (See: http://www.cracked.c...-to-movies.html). The fact that he was released as quickly as he was is extremely rare.

- This wouldn't be the first time that an individual with mental problems "fell through the cracks". Look at the case of Markuze... diagnosed with schitzophrenia and using drugs/alcohol and convicted of making death threats. But he underwent rehab and was released. Only to start up his activities within a year.

- Then there's also this (From: http://www.montrealg...0836/story.html)

Montreal forensic psychologist Hubert van Gijesghem is also concerned, in his case by the apparent absence of an in-depth report on Turcotte's mental state.... "At the trial, experts only discussed his passing state of mind. We didn't hear about his personality structure. If he has a personality disorder, psychotherapy won't be very effective." Van Gijesghem said it is possible a more in-depth examination of Turcotte has taken place since the trial, but if it has, the public has not been told.

- Another thing that concerns me is this: (From http://www.huffingto..._n_2288306.html): ...after a reluctant start, his patient had opened up in recent months and made significant progress.. So, not only was this guy institutionalized for only a few months, most of the therapy was ineffective.

Juries don't ever sentence people.

You're right in that it's not the responsibility of the jury. But, I figure the jury does take possible punishment into mind when they do render their verdict. (And, I should point out, juries aren't experts, and as such they may be ruling on who has the most convincing lawyers/experts, rather than who is actually right.)

Given the limited number of options that they had, the jury might have decided a 'guilty' verdict would have been more appropriate had they suspected such a short incarceration period.

Edited December 13, 2012 by segnosaur

[Guest]

What a stupid thing to say.

As a liberal I kill all the small children I can get my hands on!

Sure wouldn't matter to the courts...

I sure find it strange that you picked my comment of the two as the stupid one...

Edited December 14, 2012 by bcsapper

[Guest]

Anyway, it looks like the government might show some sense on the issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/12/13/quebec-doctor-guy-turcotte-release.html

[Bonam]

Anyway, it looks like the government might show some sense on the issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...te-release.html

Good news. Unfortunately, I don't think the proposed change in the law is the best course that could be taken. From the article:

Moore said those affected by such crimes should be able to give impact statements and be consulted before the courts grant conditional releases.

This will subject the victim's families to the recurring nightmare of having to face the murderers on an annual (or otherwise regular) basis to make sure they are kept locked away. Rather than letting the victim's relatives heal and put the trauma in their past, it will keep the wounds fresh, renewing them every time they have to appear at such a proceeding.

Also from the article:

"The rules say that if you think that a person may be dangerous, that's not a reason to keep him. In the charter of human rights, you cannot bypass his right to be free."

If there is really a rule to that effect, that's messed up, and should be modified immediately. Mentally ill murderers suspected to still be dangerous must not be unleashed on an unsuspecting innocent public.

[carepov]

I am not very familiar with the Turcotte case but more familiar with Li (beheading of Tim MacLean).

Li was sick and did not know it. It would be like a person having their first epileptic seizure while driving and killing someone, or even a group of toddlers crossing a street. Who's fault would that be? What sentence should the epileptic receive?

[BC_chick]

I'm with the righties on this one and for me it has nothing to do with whether or not he'll reoffend. Out of respect for the children and their family he should serve more time. Justice wasn't served.

[Guest]

I am not very familiar with the Turcotte case but more familiar with Li (beheading of Tim MacLean).

Li was sick and did not know it. It would be like a person having their first epileptic seizure while driving and killing someone, or even a group of toddlers crossing a street. Who's fault would that be? What sentence should the epileptic receive?

The question is, would you let him drive again?

[Black Dog]

I'm with the righties on this one and for me it has nothing to do with whether or not he'll reoffend. Out of respect for the children and their family he should serve more time. Justice wasn't served.

The children are dead. Continuing to punish this person for a crime for which he was deemed not responsible won't change that. So what's the value here?

[Fletch 27]

The children are dead. Continuing to punish this person for a crime for which he was deemed not responsible won't change that. So what's the value here?

Ask the Mother of the 2 butchered children...

[Bryan]

I find it terrifying that there are people in this country that would actually justify letting this monster ever walk in society again. If you really think he's better, can he come and live with you?

[segnosaur]

<p>

I'm with the righties on this one and for me it has nothing to do with whether or not he'll reoffend. Out of respect for the children and their family he should serve more time. Justice wasn't served.

The children are dead. Continuing to punish this person for a crime for which he was deemed not responsible won't change that. So what's the value here?

There are 2 issues here:

- Some people have concerns about whether he really was "not responsible". As I've pointed out, while he did claim to have 'blackouts', there were elements of his crime which appear to be the work of someone who was quite aware of what they were doing

- Some people might not be convinced that even if he was "legally insane" at the time, that he would have improved enough to justify release. I've pointed to several reasons for that (the short length of time institutionalized compared to other cases, a psychologist who pointed out a lack of emphasis on his personality, etc.)

[cybercoma]

I find it terrifying that there are people in this country that would actually justify letting this monster ever walk in society again. If you really think he's better, can he come and live with you?

It's justified by virtue of the process. The review board found that he no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public. You think he's a danger because you read some third hand news about him a couple times. The opinions of the review board, which typically consists of the Crown, a judge, a psychiatrist, and some other professional in a related field, far outweighs yours. Since "not criminally responsible" is the result of a mental health issue, the law requires that the conditions imposed on the offender be the least restrictive to their freedom as possible, while still protecting the public from any significant threat. If they cannot establish that he still poses a significant threat to the public, then he must be released. The problem is you want to believe he poses a threat to the public, contrary to the findings of the review board, but you have yet to prove that he does. In a bout of depression about the end of his marriage, he took the life of his children. He's not going to hit the streets and all of a sudden become Freddy Kruger, hunting down kids in the middle of the night. At least not from anything I've read. Now if you have evidence that he does pose a significant threat to society, then by all means post it. Not a single poster that is up in arms about this has yet to provide any conclusive evidence that he is a significant threat.

[cybercoma]

<p>

There are 2 issues here:

- Some people have concerns about whether he really was "not responsible". As I've pointed out, while he did claim to have 'blackouts', there were elements of his crime which appear to be the work of someone who was quite aware of what they were doing

- Some people might not be convinced that even if he was "legally insane" at the time, that he would have improved enough to justify release. I've pointed to several reasons for that (the short length of time institutionalized compared to other cases, a psychologist who pointed out a lack of emphasis on his personality, etc.)

Who? What people?

He had a trial and a jury of 12 found him "not criminally responsible." So they certainly agreed with the mental health defence.

Moreover, the review board, which consists of psychiatrists, as well as people from the judiciary, don't seem to think he poses a significant threat to society now.

The only people that seem to think he's still a threat are his ex-wife, whom will always be threatened by him, and people that have read a few news articles and cannot rationally approach the subject because he killed his own children.

[Black Dog]

Ask the Mother of the 2 butchered children...

Why?

I find it terrifying that there are people in this country that would actually justify letting this monster ever walk in society again. If you really think he's better, can he come and live with you?

I don't seen this kind of emotional rhetoric as being particularly useful or edifying.

There are 2 issues here:

- Some people have concerns about whether he really was "not responsible". As I've pointed out, while he did claim to have 'blackouts', there were elements of his crime which appear to be the work of someone who was quite aware of what they were doing

- Some people might not be convinced that even if he was "legally insane" at the time, that he would have improved enough to justify release. I've pointed to several reasons for that (the short length of time institutionalized compared to other cases, a psychologist who pointed out a lack of emphasis on his personality, etc.)

The question that needs to be asked in this case and in most cases is: what is the primary purpose of putting someone in prison? To me, the continued safety of society is the main reason. We lock people up who are likely to be continued threats to social order. If someone is not a threat, perhaps prison isn't the best option. I don't see retributive measures as doing much good.

[Fletch 27]

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/local/taipei/2010/10/25/277345/Criminally-insane.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375336/Scandal-mentally-ill-man-killed-father-released--killed-mother.html

Ya,,, Could never happen again after release....

[Black Dog]

http://www.chinapost...ally-insane.htm

http://www.dailymail...led-mother.html

Ya,,, Could never happen again after release....

So you think all violent criminals, mentally ill and otherwise, should be locked up in perpetuity?

[Fletch 27]

So you think all violent criminals, mentally ill and otherwise, should be locked up in perpetuity?

No, Just a hell of a lot longer than 3 years.... And yes, some in perpetuity... Absolutely..

[Black Dog]

No, Just a hell of a lot longer than 3 years.... And yes, some in perpetuity... Absolutely..

Earlier, you expressed skepticism that such people can be trusted not to reoffend. If that is so and you think such people are dangers to the public, does it make a difference if its three years or 23? You aren't being very consistent here.

[Fletch 27]

Earlier, you expressed skepticism that such people can be trusted not to reoffend. If that is so and you think such people are dangers to the public, does it make a difference if its three years or 23? You aren't being very consistent here.

Its called "rehabilitation".... To your logic,,, You think maybe a few days is to "extreme"?? Maybe just immediate parole with supervision the following day? "Im sure he wont do it again".. right?

This sicko, regardless of mental state, should be behind bars for life.. Yup, LIFE. This guy played the system, killed 2 children and now the "left" is treating him like a victim.....

[segnosaur]

<p>

There are 2 issues here:- Some people have concerns about whether he really was "not responsible". As I've pointed out, while he did claim to have 'blackouts', there were elements of his crime which appear to be the work of someone who was quite aware of what they were doing

- Some people might not be convinced that even if he was "legally insane" at the time, that he would have improved enough to justify release. I've pointed to several reasons for that (the short length of time institutionalized compared to other cases, a psychologist who pointed out a lack of emphasis on his personality, etc.)

Who? What people?

Ummm... the people who are objecting to his release.While some people who are objecting to his release appear to be exhibiting a "knee jerk" reaction by concentrating on the emotional aspect, I've attempted to establish logical reasons why his release might be premature.

He had a trial and a jury of 12 found him "not criminally responsible." So they certainly agreed with the mental health defence.

As I've pointed out, there are numerous problems with that: Juries are not necessarily experts in the subjects that they are dealing with. Furthermore, they are dependent on the material presented to them in court, so if the prosecution has a bad day, or the defense can afford a better lawyer/experts, they may be swayed the wrong way.

Lastly, the jury is limited in the ways they can rule (in this case either guilty or not guilty.) They may have felt he truly was guilty but deserved treatment, an option that wasn't available to them.

Moreover, the review board, which consists of psychiatrists, as well as people from the judiciary, don't seem to think he poses a significant threat to society now.

The only people that seem to think he's still a threat are his ex-wife, whom will always be threatened by him, and people that have read a few news articles and cannot rationally approach the subject because he killed his own children.

Ummm... no. They aren't the "only people" who still think he's a threat.

I pointed to a quote from a forensic psychiatrist in an earlier post who has questioned both the way the original trial was handled, and with a lack of proper psychiatric reports. (And unlike the general riff-raff you have posting here, you'd expect a psychiatrist to have a little more knowledge about what's going on.)

And then there's this:From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/03/16/turcotte-hearings-conclude.html

Suzanne Courchesne, a lawyer representing the Pinel Institute, said Turcotte did not receive enough treatment to be able to reintegrate into society, and argued that the experts brought forward by the defence were minimizing the importance of anger and vengeance in the killings.

So even the institution that was involved in treating him think he might not yet be ready for release.

[Guest Peeves]

I highly, highly doubt the doctors say the offenders are "cured". A mental illness serious enough to cause someone to commit murder very rarely would ever be "cured", it can be treated and controlled though.

It can be treated, not controlled in our current system which relies on the patient/client/former child killer/etc. to take their meds..or not.

The public is always put at risk when a person proves capable of murder and is let lose in society.

There should be a dependable capability to ensure meds are being employed before any such as this guy or the bus case are released. If there is no dependable ongoing treatment then they should be held to protect us.

It's obviously a given that if he could (as he claims) black out and that is grounds for the brutal murder of his children then there will be-could be-might be yet another trigger?

How can anyone say definitively that he is cured if they haven't found the insane cause of the blackouts and madness?

There need be an alternative. Perhaps a medically inserted dispenser that administers a treatment med as needed.

In all too many cases I suspect,

1) The court has been flummoxed

2) The murderer got away with it.

3) The doctors have an agenda and are advocates for the perps.

4) The public are of little consequence.

[Black Dog]

Its called "rehabilitation".... To your logic,,, You think maybe a few days is to "extreme"?? Maybe just immediate parole with supervision the following day? "Im sure he wont do it again".. right?

I have no idea what this means. Take a breath.

This sicko, regardless of mental state, should be behind bars for life.. Yup, LIFE. This guy played the system, killed 2 children and now the "left" is treating him like a victim.....

Oh brother.

[carepov]

I am not very familiar with the Turcotte case but more familiar with Li (beheading of Tim MacLean).

Li was sick and did not know it. It would be like a person having their first epileptic seizure while driving and killing someone, or even a group of toddlers crossing a street. Who's fault would that be? What sentence should the epileptic receive?

The question is, would you let him drive again?

Good question - but let's say you released him on the condition that he does not drive. What guarantee do you have that he will not drive anyways? What if he was driving without a licence when he killed the children? How would the mothers of the 6 dead children feel if this person was allowed to go free?

Edited December 14, 2012 by carepov