jbg Posted May 29, 2013 Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 The human being in me is always happy when a mentally ill person makes progress. And perhaps on meds Vince Li is a model inmate. I have a real problem though with the idea of him having his liberty restored. The person he killed and partially ate has no such liberty. He is dead. Further, he may not be such a model or delightful person if he forgets to take his meds or decides he no longer needs them because he believes himself "cured." But that's the next victim's problem since Vince Li is restored to his dignity. Overall I find this sickening. Thoughts? (excerpts below). Bus beheader Vince Li should be allowed to go to the beach: doctor (link to story)WINNIPEG — A man who beheaded and cannibalized a fellow passenger on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba is likely to get more privileges in the coming weeks — something his victim’s mother says should never happen.Vince Li, 45, has stopped having hallucinations, has been a model patient at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre and is ready for more escorted passes into the community, his psychiatrist said Monday.“I believe that, primarily, Mr. Li is invested in co-operating with and working with the treatment team,” Dr. Steven Kremer told the Criminal Code Review Board, which examines Li’s condition annually.Li has made “excellent improvement” since the 2008 attack, Kremer said.Li was found not criminally responsible for killing Tim McLean — an attack Crown attorney Susan Helechilde called “perhaps the most macabre crime ever committed in Manitoba.”***********************Li was initially confined to a locked wing of the hospital, but in 2010 was granted the right to escorted walks on hospital grounds. Last year, he was given the right to escorted daytime trips into Selkirk. He had to be accompanied at all times by a security guard and a staff member.Kremer and other members of Li’s treatment team suggested Monday that Li be given more trips. They said he should be allowed to go to Winnipeg under the same supervision. He should also be allowed to go to Selkirk, Lockport and nearby beaches under more relaxed, group supervision, they suggested. Fortunately, the government has decided to put an end to this sanctimonious nonsense (link to CPC web message, excerpts below) : That’s why we introduced the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act – which will protect the public from high risk offenders and put victims first when decisions are made about people found not criminally responsible. Yesterday, the legislation passed second reading – but incredibly, the Liberals have decided to oppose our bill. Justin Trudeau’s willingness to put the interests of dangerous, high-risk individuals ahead of public safety is yet more evidence that he is in over his head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted May 29, 2013 Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 (edited) That is why he is in an institution so there can be no forgetting to take meds. Getting away from the institution would be a supervised affair. I don't see the big deal. It is not his fault that he has a mental illness. Edited May 29, 2013 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted May 29, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 That is why he is in an institution so there can be no forgetting to take meds. Getting away from the institution would be a supervised affair. I don't see the big deal. It is not his fault that he has a mental illness. It's not his victim's fault that he was killed and eaten either. I think the victim weighs more consideration than a living monster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 29, 2013 Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 I don't think he'll ever get his liberty restored. Escorted scheduled outings is not liberty. I think the difference between being found criminally responsible and not criminally responsible is the need for punishment. He's being incarcerated for public safety not public retribution. So if it's possible to have occasional supervised outings with the help of meds and guards and his doctors think it's safe, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted May 29, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 He's being incarcerated for public safety not public retribution. So if it's possible to have occasional supervised outings with the help of meds and guards and his doctors think it's safe, why not? What he did was morally reprehensible however you cut it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 29, 2013 Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 As long as he's tranquilized, in handcuffs and leg irons, accompanied by armed guards, and the general public is informed in advance, I don't see an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 29, 2013 Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 Gee, what a swell idea. Maybe he could appear on Dancing With The Stars, under escort, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 29, 2013 Report Share Posted May 29, 2013 (edited) Overall I find this sickening. Thoughts? Besides, the gruesome crime itself, what exactly do you find "sickening"? From the article: Li was found not criminally responsible for killing Tim McLean. Li was an undiagnosed schizophrenic at the time, but has continually taken his medication, has had no problems with staff or other patients and realizes he needs to stick to his treatment, Kremer said. Given the above, and given he has been on many escorted trips and no problems reported, I see no reason for him to be given more and more freedom as he progresses. However, given his past actions when not medicated, he should always be under some kind of surveillance. I would think that eventually if he continues to show progress and stays on his medication, he should be able to be released into society, but under probation, and under the condition he ie: attends at least bi-weekly visits to a psychiatrist, is given regular blood tests to prove he remains on his meds, and wears a tracking device at all times. Edited May 29, 2013 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 It's not his victim's fault that he was killed and eaten either. I think the victim weighs more consideration than a living monster. He's not a monster, he is mentally ill. He has a disease that needs treatment. Why punish a person who is not criminally responsible for his actions? The focus should be on public safety and making this person better, as well as supporting the victim's loved ones. There should be absolutely zero punishment for the guy if he has been ruled not criminally responsible, only concerns I've outlined above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 He's not a monster, he is mentally ill. He has a disease that needs treatment. Why punish a person who is not criminally responsible for his actions? The focus should be on public safety and making this person better, as well as supporting the victim's loved ones. There should be absolutely zero punishment for the guy if he has been ruled not criminally responsible, only concerns I've outlined above. Given this stance, can he become Prime Minister of Canada ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) What he did was morally reprehensible however you cut it. No it wasn't. It was macabre, but it wasn't "morally reprehensible", because that denotes he made a moral decision by his own conscious will. Given he was an undiagnosed mentally ill person and only acted in a horrible state of psychosis (not acting through his own conscious will in a normal state of perceiving the world), you can't blame the guy for killing anyone, only blame the disease he never asked to get. Edited May 30, 2013 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 Lots of people are mentally ill but don't decapitate bus passengers and eat their eyeballs. He may not be legally responsible, but he is still personally responsible for his actions. Maybe things are different in Manitoba ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 What he did was morally reprehensible however you cut it. Not as morally reprehensible as what you're doing right here right now however you cut it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 If it wasn't for the RCMP working with the constant fear of investigation and scrutiny should they discharge a fire arm in this country, this monster would already be 6ft under. Something tells me however, had they taken this guy out no one would have cared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 If it wasn't for the RCMP working with the constant fear of investigation and scrutiny should they discharge a fire arm in this country, this monster would already be 6ft under. Something tells me however, had they taken this guy out no one would have cared. Hypotheticals and emotionally charged rhetoric aren't really relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 The only monsters here are people who would treat mentally ill people as monsters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) Hypotheticals and emotionally charged rhetoric aren't really relevant. Irrelevant by who's standards, yours? Is someone not allowed to state an opinion without it being labeled as "irrelevant"? By your standards one could also say your opinion of my opinion is also irrelevant. Edited May 30, 2013 by roy baty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted May 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 He's not a monster, he is mentally ill. He has a disease that needs treatment. Why punish a person who is not criminally responsible for his actions? The focus should be on public safety and making this person better, as well as supporting the victim's loved ones. There should be absolutely zero punishment for the guy if he has been ruled not criminally responsible, only concerns I've outlined above. Somehow I don't feel solicitude for cannibals, unless they're of the Martin Hartwell (sp) variety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) The only monsters here are people who would treat mentally ill people as monsters. Typical attack from the left. Seems to me you could express your disagreement of me and others using this term to label this guy (which I still stand by) without resorting to personal attacks that even remotely compare me and others to the likes of this individual. Edited May 30, 2013 by roy baty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 You're far worse than those who can't help themselves. You're right, you don't remotely compare at all. But that said, here you are, using terms like 'this guy' and 'this individual' instead of monster...go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 (edited) You're far worse than those who can't help themselves. You're right, you don't remotely compare at all. But that said, here you are, using terms like 'this guy' and 'this individual' instead of monster...go figure. Thanks for personal attack #2 eyeball.. A monster is a monster based on the heinousness of the act committed and in my opinion, he falls clearly into that category, insane or not. If you dislike the term I used, or my opinion of what qualifies a person as a monster that's your problem but to morally judge me as a person for that opinion and term is completely arrogant. You aren't qualified to judge me or anyone else. I leave that up to someone else w/ more authority on the matter as you should. Edited May 30, 2013 by roy baty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 I don't pretend to be a lawyer so I don't pretend to know anything about the law, but I think the term "not criminally responsible " is pretty self-evident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 Somehow I don't feel solicitude for cannibals, unless they're of the Martin Hartwell (sp) variety. Eyeball is right in that your attitude towards this guy is morally reprehensible. Either that, or you don't really understand what schizophrenia is and what a person can perceive when in such a state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 Thanks for personal attack #2 eyeball.. A monster is a monster based on the heinousness of the act committed and in my opinion, he falls clearly into that category, insane or not. If you dislike the term I used, or my opinion of what qualifies a person as a monster that's your problem but to morally judge me as a person for that opinion and term is completely arrogant. You aren't qualified to judge me or anyone else. I leave that up to someone else w/ more authority on the matter as you should. How are you qualified to judge someone who has been found by a court of of law to be not criminally responsible? And by his doctors to be safe for escorted outings? I agree the act was monstrous, but he probably does too when he's on his meds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 Typical attack from the left. Seems to me you could express your disagreement of me and others using this term to label this guy (which I still stand by) without resorting to personal attacks that even remotely compare me and others to the likes of this individual. I doubt it, and like I said, you're worse than this guy. 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.