Jump to content

Bus beheader Vince Li should be allowed to go to the beach: doctor


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 362
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The mentally ill are far more often the victims of violence than the other way around - it's always been this way because of public attitudes.

I know you don't give a shit.

Convicted violent offenders go to prison...well...in most countries anyway.

It's not about me or your incessant whining about "man's inhumanity to man". Mental health attitudes and behaviours are direct and indirect results from real experiences by health care professionals, law enforcement, and citizens alike. Cannibals may get a legal pass on felony conviction, but that doesn't mean society just has to accept the risk without any intervention.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All mentally ill people warrant compassion - the only thing inimical to civilization is withholding it.

Your OP has sweet bugger all to do with treating mental illness with compassion and far more to do with exploiting victims and a near medieval ignorance, fear and loathing of mental illness for the sake of politics. It's a disgrace actually.

x2! We've seen several variants of the same OP style from the thread originator, although it's usually been limited to and starts out with a self-declared (fake) compassion for one-side of the Middle-East conflict. In this case, it's a purposely crafted politicized OP intended to negate a judicial ruling backed by medical finding/assessment... while belittling and demeaning protective oversight and the mentally challenged... all in the name of so-called 'missing victim rights'. Of course, it was like throwing red-meat to the usual suspects in this thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

What he did was morally reprehensible however you cut it.

I've only read this far and don't have time to go any further right now, so my immediate thoughts - What he did was reprehensible, no doubt about it. If he doesn't have the capability to judge "morality," however, one can't put that connotation on it. In that light, what he did - the action itself - was "monstrous," but if his brain is not wired correctly, that makes him mentally ill, not a monster.

Edited to add: I sure don't think he should be left on his own, though; trusting him to take meds is way too big a risk.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you're qualified to assess this better than the doctors that have studied these conditions their entire lives and have made a different assessment?

We know how poor doctors are at predicting future behavior of the mentally ill. What should happen is that Li is on parole for the rest of his life and closely monitored once he's released. Someone should be making sure every day that Li is taking is meds, and if his behavior starts going off the rails again, should report that so he can be more closely assessed and confined again if necessary. We should stop pretending that these people are "treated" in the sense of healed. The meds keep them functioning reasonably normally, so we should be making sure they always take them. Many mentally ill people stop taking their meds (as did LI before he killed, I believe) because of the side effects and because they want to see themselves as "healed". We don't heal schizophrenia, we manage it until it possibly burns itself out.

Edited by Canuckistani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know how poor doctors are at predicting future behavior of the mentally ill. What should happen is that Li is on parole for the rest of his life

This is an even more extreme position than letting him go to the beach. And parole for what exactly? He was not convicted of a crime. He was found not criminally responsible.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The State should have some responsibility to protect the public from further violence.

Haven't read the whole thing, but he should not be allowed out on parole on his own, the public has a right to be protected. The medications probably work but who is going to make sure that this guy continues to take medication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an even more extreme position than letting him go to the beach. And parole for what exactly? He was not convicted of a crime. He was found not criminally responsible.

We should change it to convicted but not incarcerated because of a mental illness. Vince Li is not cured. His illness is being managed. It should be so for the rest of his life. Having to demonstrate that you took your meds every day is not an onerous parole condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The State should have some responsibility to protect the public from further violence.

Haven't read the whole thing, but he should not be allowed out on parole on his own, the public has a right to be protected. The medications probably work but who is going to make sure that this guy continues to take medication.

I agree... and there was never any intent to allow him to go on his own. Supervised outings...

We should change it to convicted but not incarcerated because of a mental illness. Vince Li is not cured. His illness is being managed. It should be so for the rest of his life. Having to demonstrate that you took your meds every day is not an onerous parole condition.

There is no parole... only supervised outings...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But those who are killed by them and their families deserve more, and more importantly, other members of the public deserve to be safeguarded from those whose conditions may cause them to become murderous at any unpredictable moment. Drugs are not 100% effective 100% of the time. Nor is there any reason to spend taxpayer's money on a squad of armed guards to keep this guy under control should he have another episode. This guy needs to be kept inside the mental institution until the end of his days, period.

See my post here in response to you: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22733-bus-beheader-vince-li-should-be-allowed-to-go-to-the-beach-doctor/?p=901899

It's not right to put a blanket of "this guy needs to be kept inside the mental institution until the end of his days, period." when meds can work 100% effectively 100% of the time for some people. People should be judged on a case-by-case basis. If over a long period, say 15 years, he shows 100% stability while on drugs, it may be suitable for him to be released (though kept under surveillance and under strict conditionality).

Most humans are not 100% immune to committing cold-blooded 100% of the time. Does that mean we should jail everyone because there is a risk they will murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no parole... only supervised outings...

Currently yes. But he will be released at some point, with no conditions. That's where he should be on parole to make sure he takes his meds and goes back in if he doesn't. Until a doctor is willing to certify he doesn't need his meds anymore. (hell meet high water).

Edited by Canuckistani
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most humans are not 100% immune to committing cold-blooded 100% of the time. Does that mean we should jail everyone because there is a risk they will murder?

No, but when it comes to CANNIBALISM, the "one strike" rule applies. I'm sure that Jeffrey Dahmer was a nice guy too.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See my post here in response to you: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22733-bus-beheader-vince-li-should-be-allowed-to-go-to-the-beach-doctor/?p=901899

It's not right to put a blanket of "this guy needs to be kept inside the mental institution until the end of his days, period." when meds can work 100% effectively 100% of the time for some people. People should be judged on a case-by-case basis. If over a long period, say 15 years, he shows 100% stability while on drugs, it may be suitable for him to be released (though kept under surveillance and under strict conditionality).

Most humans are not 100% immune to committing cold-blooded 100% of the time. Does that mean we should jail everyone because there is a risk they will murder?

I agree with this, tho it wouldn't even take 15 years to assess his stability. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, there are no mechanisms in place to monitor him once he's released, because he has not been found guilty. That's what needs to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this, tho it wouldn't even take 15 years to assess his stability. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, there are no mechanisms in place to monitor him once he's released, because he has not been found guilty. That's what needs to change.

He hasn't been acquitted either, just legally found "not criminally responsibly". Given the severity of his actions and possible danger to the public, a conservative number like 15 years (or whatever it takes) to monitor long-term stability seems fair to me. If anyone were to be institutionalized for life, he would be a prime candidate, so I think a number like that is pretty fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He hasn't been acquitted either, just legally found "not criminally responsibly". Given the severity of his actions and possible danger to the public, a conservative number like 15 years (or whatever it takes) to monitor long-term stability seems fair to me. If anyone were to be institutionalized for life, he would be a prime candidate, so I think a number like that is pretty fair.

I'm willing to go with the doctor's opinion that he has been stabilized with meds, however long that takes, and so is fit to be released. I wouldn't put an arbitrary figure on his being detained. But he should have lifetime parole with conditions, and that's not in place because he was not convicted. He was ordered held in an institution until docs say it's OK to release him - there are no conditions after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moonlight Graham, on 30 May 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

It's not right to put a blanket of "this guy needs to be kept inside the mental institution until the end of his days, period." when meds can work 100% effectively 100% of the time for some people.

He sawed off someone's head and then ate part of him. There is no set of circumstances, no matter how effective his meds may be, that would justify his release. The merest possibility that he could relapse (even 1/100,000,000) is enough to keep him in. In light of what he's capable of, his freedom is not worth even the slightest chance of danger to someone else's life.

Moonlight Graham, on 30 May 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

People should be judged on a case-by-case basis. If over a long period, say 15 years, he shows 100% stability while on drugs, it may be suitable for him to be released (though kept under surveillance and under strict conditionality).

A case by case basis is fine. In this gentleman's case, he sawed off someone's head and then lifted it for all to see, and then proceeded to eat him. That's all we need to know.

Moonlight Graham, on 30 May 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Most humans are not 100% immune to committing cold-blooded 100% of the time. Does that mean we should jail everyone because there is a risk they will murder?

Well that's rather vacuous logic, and you even asked a stupid question to follow it up! Nevermind the logical conundrum that jailing everyone presents (who jails the jailors?), you miss the obvious fact that jail is a deterrent/punishment, not a preventative measure. You jail someone for what they've done, not what they might be loosely considered capable of. Even if that wasn't the case, you present another giant failure in reasoning by suggesting that a person who has already viciously murdered someone presents no greater risk than the average dude on the streets, which is dumb.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

No, but when it comes to CANNIBALISM, the "one strike" rule applies. I'm sure that Jeffrey Dahmer was a nice guy too.

Agreed. One can feel for him re: the hand he was dealt, and I do, but by recognizing that his brain isn't wired correctly, at the same time, one has to recognize that the same 'rules' don't apply to him. Society isn't obligated to be at risk because of his problems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine the terrible fear, confusion, horror, and other unthinkable emotions most will never experience that Mr. Li must have been feeling when he did what he did.

Yes, it must have been terrible. It likely paled in comparison, however, to the unimaginable fear, confusion, horror, and other unthinkable emotions that Carol de Delley has had to face every single day since, knowing how her son met his fate and suffering such a horrible loss.

Suffering from schizophrenia must be hell on earth, I could imagine few other things a human could experience that would be that frightening and awful.

Losing a son at the hands of someone who cut off his head and cannabalized him may come close.

Mr. Li is a victim of his condition, and that's unfortunate and sad. But he is not the only one affected by his condition, everyone around him is a victim of his condition as well. The fear that is associated with his name and infamous actions will follow him for the rest of his life. It's not his fault, but it's not the fault of society either. As long as he has a certain quality of life on his medication, and is constantly supervised for the rest of his days to ensure public safety, I think that's the best that can be done for him.

Unfortunately, I believe there is every intention of granting him eventual full unsupervised release. I think this is inevitable, and I believe if he is given his full freedom, it will be at the expense of public safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I believe there is every intention of granting him eventual full unsupervised release. I think this is inevitable, and I believe if he is given his full freedom, it will be at the expense of public safety.

The is the problem - we have no mechanism to supervise him once he's released. And our current parole system wouldn't be up to the task anyway - most cons don't get enough supervision on parole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hold someone that's mentally ill morally responsible for actions they could not understand at the time?

With freedom comes responsibility. Do we really want to give someone back the reigns of moral responsibility that go along with living free in society knowing that their fragile perception of moral responsibility depends on whether they took their medication or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...