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

[Rocky Road]

I believe in going with what his doctors say.

The CPC is not working towards alleviating the lack of care and crappy conditions that still exist in far too many institutions in this country, they're more interested in catering to the people putting their medieval attitudes on display around here because they believe it will win them votes come election time.

I agree.

[jbg]

Intent suggest a conscious ability to reason and determine to do something. If you have no grasp of reality, your "intentions" are just as fictional as the world you're living in. A sleepwalker appears to "intend" to put one foot in front of the other, but there is no conscious effort (as we know it) guiding their actions. I imagine it's the same as someone living in the netherworld of schizophrenia.

Are you saying that Li did what he did the same way he'd fry an egg or buy sugar at the store? Would he have tried to do it with a Mountie present? Edited June 2, 2013 by jbg

[Bryan]

The CPC is not working towards alleviating the lack of care and crappy conditions that still exist in far too many institutions in this country, they're more interested in catering to the people putting their medieval attitudes on display around here because they believe it will win them votes come election time.

Excuse me? The Conservatives founded the Mental Health Commission of Canada, and undertook the first national strategy for mental health this country has EVER had.

You may feel they aren't rolling out the recommendations in the report fast enough, but the fact remains they're doing more than anyone else ever has Federally.

http://strategy.mentalhealthcommission.ca

The guidelines are in place, and the funding is increasing year over year. If that actual facilities in your area are lacking, that's on your provincial government -- because implementing the recommendations is their jurisdiction.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Bryan

[jbg]

Who's going to pay for his treatment, if not the politicians?

Treatment of mentally ill people is properly a public expense and it's something we should be doing more of. I daresay that someone should have paid attention to Li and his problems before it was too late.

That being said, despite a Court's finding him not guilty by reason of a mental defect, there is some level at which he must suffer the consequences of his action. Maybe place him in a far more humane facility than a typical prison but beach passes are going a bit far.

[Canuckistani]

Are you saying that Li did what he did the same way he'd fry an egg or buy sugar at the store? Would he have tried to do it with a Mountie present?

Yes. Maybe the voices would have told him the Mountie was the alien. If you can make a statement like that, you really know nothing of schizophrenia. What do you think motivated Lee to do what he did - "kicks just keep getting harder to find?"

Edited June 2, 2013 by Canuckistani

[jbg]

Yes. Maybe the voices would have told him the Mountie was the alien. If you can make a statement like that, you really know nothing of schizophrenia. What do you think motivated Lee to do what he did - "kicks just keep getting harder to find?"

I care more that a totally innocent person was decapitated and partially eaten than I do about Li's psychological makeup. Though the latter is more clinically interesting, mind you.

I would be far more interested in knowing what led up to Li's mental implosion and educating people on what to look for so they could help before a tragedy, rather than pretending the tragedy didn't happen.

[Canuckistani]

I care more that a totally innocent person was decapitated and partially eaten than I do about Li's psychological makeup. Though the latter is more clinically interesting, mind you.

I would be far more interested in knowing what led up to Li's mental implosion and educating people on what to look for so they could help before a tragedy, rather than pretending the tragedy didn't happen.

Well people have been puzzling about that for ever, but there really is no way to know. As a group, schizophrenics are less violent than the norm, but as we see, individually they can be very violent. We don't know what causes schizophrenia, we don't know how to prevent it, really (don't do drugs) and we don't know how to cure it, only manage it. But, when people are recognized as going off the rails, if we were quicker to respond it might prevent tragedies like this. Of course then civil liberty issues are raised.

But if you're going to discuss a case like this, you really should have more knowledge about it than to say if a mountie had been there Li would not have acted as he did, as if he was making rational decisions.

[roy baty]

I care more that a totally innocent person was decapitated and partially eaten than I do about Li's psychological makeup. Though the latter is more clinically interesting, mind you.

I would be far more interested in knowing what led up to Li's mental implosion and educating people on what to look for so they could help before a tragedy, rather than pretending the tragedy didn't happen.

Well said. Compassion has it limits when it comes to the safety of others in the current world we live. Given the nature of the monstrous acts committed in this case, the government, and medical society as a whole have a responsibility to the Canadian public to think objectively and rationally and keep Mr.Li institutionalized permanently if not for his own good, but for the good of the rest of society.

What scares me is the Liberal mentality around the particular macabre acts of the insane committed by Mr, Li will someday become common place, and it is those of us who disagree with them and their Liberal views that become the ones deemed worse than Mr. Li. A couple of folks clearly pointed out that out to me and others already I might add.

To defend this man to be allowed anything beyond permanent institutionalization (which certainly can include supervised beach visits) is completely irresponsible and naive.

Edited June 2, 2013 by roy baty

[eyeball]

Excuse me? The Conservatives founded the Mental Health Commission of Canada, and undertook the first national strategy for mental health this country has EVER had.

Don't forget to mention it took a Liberal government to initiate the first national report on mental health It only took Harper 6 years to start rolling out its recommendations so Canada could join the civilized world and become the last of the G8 countries to develop a national strategy.

Here's the report and recommendations. Please point out where it recommends we make schizophrenics suffer the consequences of their illness by throwing them into jail?

Out of the Shadows at Last

You might want to read the sections on stigma, apparently Harper skipped that part.

Edited June 2, 2013 by eyeball

[eyeball]

That being said, despite a Court's finding him not guilty by reason of a mental defect,

For Christ's sake...schizophrenia is a disease of the brain. His brain became sick and then his mind stopped working properly. His mind was fine before his brain was sick. You see how it works?

For what it's worth keep on making the case why we should use doctors and specialists to deal with mental illness instead of a hyped up electorate and the politicians that hype them.

There is some level at which he must suffer the consequences of his action. Maybe place him in a far more humane facility than a typical prison but beach passes are going a bit far.

No, this is simply a case in which you've decided that schizophrenia is more like a lifestyle choice or a moral failing that requires suffering to rectify.

BTW how on Earth do you make someone suffer humanely?

[Guest American Woman]

Treatment of mentally ill people is properly a public expense and it's something we should be doing more of. I daresay that someone should have paid attention to Li and his problems before it was too late.

Unless he was talking about the voices in his head, unless he was speaking of his fear of aliens, no one would be aware of what was going on inside of his head. He didn't realize there was anything wrong with himself, so how would others have any inkling, unless he spoke of these things? - which apparently he didn't.

That being said, despite a Court's finding him not guilty by reason of a mental defect, there is some level at which he must suffer the consequences of his action. Maybe place him in a far more humane facility than a typical prison but beach passes are going a bit far.

Why should someone "suffer" because of something they had no control over? It's not like a drunk driver, who chooses to drink and drive and ends up killing someone. They aren't in control either, but it's because of their choosing to drink that they have no control. He didn't choose to have schizophrenia. He had no control over how his brain is made up.

My concern at this point is protecting people from something like this occurring again, not making him "suffer" for it. As I said, I think part of his "treatment" should be keeping him in a controlled environment, not ever allowing him to be on his own. The risk of schizophrenics stopping their meds is too great, and when this is the result of his mind being in a schizophrenic state, that needs to be taken into account.

Are you saying that Li did what he did the same way he'd fry an egg or buy sugar at the store? Would he have tried to do it with a Mountie present?

It's impossible to say if he would have done it with a Mountie present. It's difficult to know if he would have even recognized a Mountie as "the law." Perhaps if he did, he would have felt safe, thinking the Mountie could protect everyone from an alien invasion. Perhaps he would have seen the presence of a Mountie as proof that there was a danger. Who knows? But he wouldn't have thought, "I can't do this in front of a Mountie because it's against the law." He thought he was doing the world a favor. Obviously he was going to get caught sooner or later, and taken in by said Mountie. This he would have realized - if he were in his right mind. Which he wasn't. And without his meds, he could very well go to that place in his head again. That's my concern. Preventing such a horrific tragedy from happening again. Edited June 2, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

No. Li absolutely did intend to kill. There is no controversy whotsoever in that position, to this day he admits as such. What made him not criminally responsible was his belief that the person he was killing was an alien.

This is true. He absolutely intended to kill. It was no "accident."

[Moonbox]

No, this is simply a case in which you've decided that schizophrenia is more like a lifestyle choice or a moral failing that requires suffering to rectify.

BTW how on Earth do you make someone suffer humanely?

I don't think he meant 'make him suffer' in the sense that we're going to torture him or keep him chained to a wall. I don't want to speak for jbg, but I imagine he meant something more along the lines of Mr. Li will have to deal with the consequences of these actions for the rest of his life, and that in light of what he's done it's unlikely he'll be treated or dealt with the same way as a mental patient who did not chop off someone's head and eat them.

[jbg]

I don't think he meant 'make him suffer' in the sense that we're going to torture him or keep him chained to a wall. I don't want to speak for jbg, but I imagine he meant something more along the lines of Mr. Li will have to deal with the consequences of these actions for the rest of his life, and that in light of what he's done it's unlikely he'll be treated or dealt with the same way as a mental patient who did not chop off someone's head and eat them.

I did mean "suffer" in the sense that he is unlikely to enjoy true freedom or dignity. I think that he should be punished less severely than people adjudged responsible for their actions, no question. But I do think there is a difference between a person with psychological problems that hurts no one and someone who inflicts monstrous damage. It would be sophistic to pretend otherwise.

[Guest American Woman]

I did mean "suffer" in the sense that he is unlikely to enjoy true freedom or dignity. I think that he should be punished less severely than people adjudged responsible for their actions, no question. But I do think there is a difference between a person with psychological problems that hurts no one and someone who inflicts monstrous damage. It would be sophistic to pretend otherwise.

If he didn't know that he did wrong, if he lacked that thought capability through absolutely no fault of his own, why should he "suffer?" That makes no sense. I would think that he is suffering, knowing now what he did. I don't think he should be allowed to ever be out on his own, and therein lies the difference that you refer to regarding what he did, but there's absolutely no reason to make him "suffer." It would be pointless.

[BubberMiley]

This is true. He absolutely intended to kill. It was no "accident."

He didn't mean to kill the individual on the bus; he meant to kill the demon in his mind. Therefore, killing the individual on the bus was indeed an "accident."

But I agree he should never be allowed to live unsupervised again. I don't feel threatened by his supervised visit to my beach though.

[Guest American Woman]

He didn't mean to kill the individual on the bus; he meant to kill the demon in his mind. Therefore, killing the individual on the bus was indeed an "accident."

I said he meant to kill, and he did. I didn't say he intended to kill the individual, such as he was; I said that he intended to kill. And again, he did. It was no "accident" that he did kill - and the "demon" he was trying to kill wasn't just in his mind - it was physically sitting next to him, in the form of his victim.

Edited June 2, 2013 by American Woman

[Sandy MacNab]

One is criminal and the other isn't.

That is just politically correct hair-splitting.

[roy baty]

He didn't mean to kill the individual on the bus; he meant to kill the demon in his mind. Therefore, killing the individual on the bus was indeed an "accident."

But I agree he should never be allowed to live unsupervised again. I don't feel threatened by his supervised visit to my beach though.

I have to agree with you on that one Bubber. There was a demon in his mind.

[cybercoma]

I said he meant to kill, and he did. I didn't say he intended to kill the individual, such as he was; I said that he intended to kill. And again, he did. It was no "accident" that he did kill - and the "demon" he was trying to kill wasn't just in his mind - it was physically sitting next to him, in the form of his victim.

Really being pedantic here.

[eyeball]

There is a good reason why doctors advise you to not help the psychotic try to rationalize their hallucinations and delusions away.

That way madness lies.

[bush_cheney2004]

Really being pedantic here.

No, the homicide was no accident, even in the abstract. Apologists will continue to insist otherwise.

[Guest American Woman]

Really being pedantic here.

Really being ignorant here.

[Moonbox]

He didn't mean to kill the individual on the bus; he meant to kill the demon in his mind.

Interestingly he felt eating it/him was also a good idea.

Therefore, killing the individual on the bus was indeed an "accident."

No, killing the individual on the bus was not an accident. The fact that his perception of who/what that individual 'was' may be in question, but not whether the act of killing was an accident.

But I agree he should never be allowed to live unsupervised again. I don't feel threatened by his supervised visit to my beach though.

I don't feel society owes Mr. Li that consideration or the taxpayer expense. What Mr. Li wants, as far as I'm concerned, is irrelevant. Edited June 3, 2013 by Moonbox

[waldo]

all these 'internet psychiatrists' around here... presuming on the degree/classification of schizophrenia... reality perception, the ability to form reasoned intent during an episodic event, etc..