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

[jbg]

I have to wonder - if a person who is mentally ill is told that they needs help, and has friends repeatedly offer to get them that help, and then they commits a crime such as this - should their refusal to get help be taken into consideration when determining whether that person is criminally responsible?

The corollary to that is whether anyone took enough of an interest in the mentally ill person to advice to and offer to get him help.

[Guest American Woman]

The corollary to that is whether anyone took enough of an interest in the mentally ill person to advice to and offer to get him help.

It did happen in Li's case.

[jbg]

It did happen in Li's case.

But at what stage in the mental illness, and how persistently? Despite the fact that the Bubbers and the Eyeballs of the world think I'm heartless, on this issue I'm really torn.

[Guest American Woman]

But at what stage in the mental illness, and how persistently? Despite the fact that the Bubbers and the Eyeballs of the world think I'm heartless, on this issue I'm really torn.

"He was kind of a lost soul. It was as if he was always looking for something," a member of a Winnipeg family that befriended Li -- even having him over for Christmas dinner two years ago --told the Winnipeg Free Press on Saturday in an exclusive interview.

They say Li was troubled, in their opinion, but refused repeated offers to see a doctor and get help.

The family friend, who works in the mental health field, said it was obvious Li was struggling.

"He needed help, but he just wouldn't get it," she said.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=bc0edaf7-49f8-4144-9f4b-25de51a16ceb

[roy baty]

But at what stage in the mental illness, and how persistently? Despite the fact that the Bubbers and the Eyeballs of the world think I'm heartless, on this issue I'm really torn.

Good point. How ironic you used the word "heartless" when "senseless" could also be used to describe many of the arguments by those you mentioned who seem to classify Mr. Li as just your "average psychopath" and feel we should treat him as such.

[eyeball]

A lot of the hesitation people feel or present in the face of mental illness can be attributed almost entirely to the fear of mental illness, a lot of which is fuelled by the sort of hype being reserved for Mr Li. Stigmatization is why so many homeless people in the big city are from small towns, fleeing the stigma they feel in their communities and all to often even their families. Divorce, estrangement, financial stress are all too common in families in which a member suffers mental illness.

Loathing, fear's evil twin, is never far. In my little town a petition was circulated to stop an assisted living facility for people recovering from or learning to live with mental illness - based on the fear that we'd soon have creeps and weirdos wandering around town and needles in the ditches. A woman I know was told in so many words that we didn't need a support group for brain damaged people here either - her husband was accidentally and severely injured at work but you'd have thought it was his own damn fault.

Dealing with the far too widespread stigmatization, fear, ignorance and loathing that has persisted for centuries is clearly the number 1 impediment to making the world safer for the mentally ill or challenged so that they and their families do not feel like they are always on the verge of being persecuted. I can't really apologize for having little patience for anyone who doesn't get that and I really don't care why they don't get it, I'm just saying they should.

The ugly terms being used to describe Mr Li, the constant reminder of the graphic nature of what happened, and the uglier implication that he was somehow responsible for his condition if not his actions are what are really creepy and weird.

There is no question what-so-ever that he was not criminally responsible because he was ill at the time. The fact that still isn't sinking in, in this day and age, is the fault of people who who don't want to get it. AFAIC just about anyone who even takes the time to listen to them is deserving of being demonized. It's as bad if not even worse than racism.

[bush_cheney2004]

...AFAIC just about anyone who even takes the time to listen to them is deserving of being demonized. It's as bad if not even worse than racism.

Oh sure...it's far worse than "racism". Racism was/is such a better deal. Far less loathing and persecution over the centuries when it comes to racism....and many other "isms". The mentally ill are history's biggest victims by far. Everyone knows that the worst slur of all is....."crazy".

Edited June 8, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest American Woman]

A lot of the hesitation people feel or present in the face of mental illness can be attributed almost entirely to the fear of mental illness, a lot of which is fuelled by the sort of hype being reserved for Mr Li.

So what do you think about a situation where the family and/or friends recognized something is wrong - and strongly suggested that the person in question go for help - but the person refused to - and then ended up killing someone? In this instance, in a horrific manner? Do the mentally ill/challenged have no liability for what they do at all? Because that's a scary thought - if they have to commit violence before something is done, if they are then held not responsible, do they never have any responsibility for their actions - even as others see something is amiss? At what stage in the illness should a person be 'forced' to get help? At what stage does the person's refusal to get help make him culpable to some degree?

There is no question what-so-ever that he was not criminally responsible because he was ill at the time. The fact that still isn't sinking in, in this day and age, is the fault of people who who don't want to get it. AFAIC just about anyone who even takes the time to listen to them is deserving of being demonized. It's as bad if not even worse than racism.

Your bias is showing. Worse than racism?? Are you even aware of history/reality? Edited June 8, 2013 by American Woman

[eyeball]

At what stage in the illness should a person be 'forced' to get help?

When they are certified ill by doctors.

At what stage does the person's refusal to get help make him culpable to some degree?

What do you mean stages and degrees? Is there a set of government guidelines that tell people when to report scary people to the authorities? What about family members who are afraid of reporting their ill loved ones to the authorities, do we report them too? Madness lies the way you're thinking.

So what do you think about a situation where the family and/or friends recognized something is wrong - and strongly suggested that the person in question go for help - but the person refused to - and then ended up killing someone? In this instance, in a horrific manner?

I'd think it was sad and unfortunate and try to prevent more of the same by pursuing a policy of educating society with hopes of dispelling the stigmatization surrounding mental illness that is all too often what prevents people from seeking help.

Do the mentally ill/challenged have no liability for what they do at all? Because that's a scary thought - if they have to commit violence before something is done, if they are then held not responsible, do they never have any responsibility for their actions - even as others see something is amiss?

It's only so scary because you're not thinking straight. You're letting your fear run away with you. Has anyone calculated the chances of somebody being beheaded and eaten by am undiagnosed schizophrenic? You see, this is the problem you're faced with when you live in a society that is so misguided on what to think, believe or do when confronted with mental illness. Of course it doesn't help when you've got the media blowing the most graphic cases into freak shows and politicians using them in turn to whip up support for their policies and misguiding people into voting for them.

There needs to be a massive multi-year public education program to dispel the mythology and fear surrounding mental illness so that people who are sick or who have family or friends or may be ill don't fear coming out. Maybe we also need politicians who have been affected by mental illness, indirectly and one would hope directly too.

As I've pointed out repeatedly in this and similar threads, the mentally ill are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators of violence, 2.5 - 4 times more likely. 1 in 5 people will suffer a mental illness in their lifetime - have politicians really given that any serious thought as to the implications of that? Why aren't we playing 50 questions and rushing to pass legislation that deals with all the possible what-if's in the case of millions and millions of us? Why isn't Harper surrounding himself with pictures of murdered schizophrenics like my friend George for example? Our boys were good friends who grew up together, George got sick around the same time my son did. Anyways...where are the photo-ops with grieving friends and family members and cries for victim's rights in the case of the George's of the world?

Why do my wife and I still feel a pulse of fear whenever the call display indicates a number we don't recognize calling from the city?

Your bias is showing. Worse than racism?? Are you even aware of history/reality?

Sure, but like you said, I'm biased. But if you insist, I'm willing to back off and settle on it being just as bad.

[Guest American Woman]

When they are certified ill by doctors.[

And how do they get to be certified ill by doctors if they refuse to see a doctor? ie: refuse to get help?? That's the question.

What do you mean stages and degrees? Is there a set of government guidelines that tell people when to report scary people to the authorities? What about family members who are afraid of reporting their ill loved ones to the authorities, do we report them too? Madness lies the way you're thinking.

Madness lies in your reading comprehension skills. I'm asking questions. It's call a discussion. Ever heard of it?

I'd think it was sad and unfortunate and try to prevent more of the same by pursuing a policy of educating society with hopes of dispelling the stigmatization surrounding mental illness that is all too often what prevents people from seeking help.

If people realize that they need help but are afraid to get it, how are they not partly culpable for what they end up doing? That's the question I raised. If someone refuses to get help, why should they hold no responsibility if they end up killing someone? You say what YOU claim I am thinking is madness - how is that line of thought not madness?

It's only so scary because you're not thinking straight. You're letting your fear run away with you.

Good God you have a hard time with anything outside of your line of thought. You even have to assign others' thoughts to them. Seems to me one of us isn't thinking straight - and it's not me.

As I've pointed out repeatedly in this and similar threads, the mentally ill are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators of violence, 2.5 - 4 times more likely.

That's a different issue, and it has nothing to do with this one.

Sure, but like you said, I'm biased. But if you insist, I'm willing to back off and settle on it being just as bad.

That's mighty big of you. I'm sorry for your problems, but others have their's too. Like the parents of the man who had the misfortune to be on the bus sitting next to Li. As I asked earlier - if someone refuses to get help, why do they hold no responsibility for what they end up doing? Edited June 9, 2013 by American Woman

[eyeball]

Blah blah blah

I agree, It's been a fucking waste of time talking to you again too.

[roy baty]

I agree, It's been a fucking waste of time talking to you again too.

Man, I feel sorry for you. You are en extremely bitter person. You need to move on and accept the fact that just because you have experience with someone w/schizophrenia does not make everyone else with a different opinion on the topic of the OP is a bad or evil person person as you seem to think they are. Perhaps you should seek some counseling yourself, or bring it up @ your next session, whichever applies.

Edited June 9, 2013 by roy baty

[Canuckistani]

I have to wonder - if a person who is mentally ill is told that they needs help, and has friends repeatedly offer to get them that help, and then they commits a crime such as this - should their refusal to get help be taken into consideration when determining whether that person is criminally responsible?

No, because they're incapable of making rational decisions, including accepting that they are mentally ill. If they can't differentiate right from wrong when cutting somebody's heart out, why would they be able to accurately assess their condition?

[Guest American Woman]

No, because they're incapable of making rational decisions, including accepting that they are mentally ill. If they can't differentiate right from wrong when cutting somebody's heart out, why would they be able to accurately assess their condition?

No one is expecting them to assess their condition. What I'm referring to is others seeing something amiss and telling them that they should get help. At that point, the professional would assess their condition.

If they are so incapable of making rational decisions, such as seeking help when needed, then they need to be forced to get help before something like this happens.

As I think about it, alcoholism is a disease, too, but we don't let alcoholics get away with drinking and driving and killing someone as a result because they are ill. I'm simply raising a question - at what point does a mentally ill person have to take some responsibility for their actions? Certainly a refusal to get help could be part of that determination.

Edited June 9, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Man, I feel sorry for you. You are en extremely bitter person. You need to move on and accept the fact that just because you have experience with someone w/schizophrenia does not make everyone else with a different opinion on the topic of the OP a bad or evil person person as you seem to think they are. If you do, perhaps you should seek some counseling yourself, or bring it up @ your next session, whichever applies.

Agreed. All I was doing is engaging discussion; an attitude such as I received sure isn't going to do anything to raise public awareness about mental illness. I was accused of all sorts of things, all born out of nothing that I have actually said. But rational discussion, answering questions that are raised, is the only way things are going to get where they need to be. Mental illness doesn't just affect those inflicted and/or their families; it has an impact on society, too. I happen to have a real good understanding of mental illness, but that knowledge doesn't answer all the questions that are raised; questions that concern the rest of society, too, and what's best for all concerned.

[Canuckistani]

So what do you think about a situation where the family and/or friends recognized something is wrong - and strongly suggested that the person in question go for help - but the person refused to - and then ended up killing someone? In this instance, in a horrific manner? Do the mentally ill/challenged have no liability for what they do at all? Because that's a scary thought - if they have to commit violence before something is done, if they are then held not responsible, do they never have any responsibility for their actions - even as others see something is amiss? At what stage in the illness should a person be 'forced' to get help? At what stage does the person's refusal to get help make him culpable to some degree?

You're conflating two ideas. They're not responsible for their actions, so can not be held responsible - seems obvious.

That's different than being forced to get help. They're not culpable, but that doesn't mean we just let the wander about, doing as they please. The difficulty is the civil rights question - you can't pre arrest somebody, sane or insane, before they do something, and being mentally ill is not a crime. In fact as a group, the mentally ill are less violent than "normal" people. Someone who is obviously "weird" but hasn't hurt anybody and can function adequately, as was Li's case before he killed, do we really want to lock them all up (there's tons of them out there) or even force them all to take medications with their horrible side effects? This is the conundrum. Personally I would like us to be a bit more aggressive in forcing help on these people, but then we'd better get busy opening or building more mental institutions.

During the big purge, ie when mental hospitals were shut down, the idea was to open many small supportive homes for the mentally ill. That costs money, not something that tax slashing govts want to spend, so they were just dumped on the streets. Now we pay in justice system and healthcare costs that are far higher than providing proper care in the first place. We just had a year long experiment (was it longer?) where mentally ill people were housed with inhouse services. It was calculated that this program saved $20,000 per year per person vs these people being homeless, but the federal govt shut down funding. Always with the penny wise, pound foolish.

[Canuckistani]

No one is expecting them to assess their condition. What I'm referring to is others seeing something amiss and telling them that they should get help. At that point, the professional would assess their condition.

If they are so incapable of making rational decisions, such as seeking help when needed, then they need to be forced to get help before something like this happens.

As I think about it, alcoholism is a disease, too, but we don't let alcoholics get away with drinking and driving and killing someone as a result because they are ill. I'm simply raising a question - at what point does a mentally ill person have to take some responsibility for their actions? Certainly a refusal to get help could be part of that determination.

We do let alcoholics get away with being alcoholics, we only intervene when they do something illegal. No forcing alcoholics into treatment just because they overdo the booze.

As I say, if we go that route, we'd better get busy opening treatment facilities and hiring community nurses because there are a lot of untreated mentally ill people out there. And that gets into a civil rights issue - Russia was big on forcing people into treatment, and we rightly criticized them for it. Finding the right balance here is not so easy.

[Guest American Woman]

We do let alcoholics get away with being alcoholics, we only intervene when they do something illegal. No forcing alcoholics into treatment just because they overdo the booze.

We do more than intervene - we hold them responsible.

As I say, if we go that route, we'd better get busy opening treatment facilities and hiring community nurses because there are a lot of untreated mentally ill people out there. And that gets into a civil rights issue - Russia was big on forcing people into treatment, and we rightly criticized them for it. Finding the right balance here is not so easy.

I agree; it's not easy to find the right balance. It's impossible without dialogue and understanding that society has rights, too. So perhaps if people refuse to seek help, and they've been advised that they need it, they should be aware that such refusal will be part of the process of determining responsibility. To simply dismiss them of any and all responsibility regardless hardly seems like the right thing to do. Again. There are the rights of others to consider, too, and by refusing to seek treatment/assessment, perhaps one should be held accountable for that decision to some degree. Perhaps more people who need help would seek it if that were the case. In this instance, Li had nothing to lose by refusing to get help - he would have, apparently, had everything to gain - and he and his victim would have their lives. They would have both benefited greatly, as would the victim's family.

[Canuckistani]

We should be providing more of the services I have described - ie community based supportive housing. That would prevent a lot of problems.

Wouldn't have caught Li tho, and I don't think anything we do, short of locking up everybody who acts a bit "weird" would do so. Many people look lost, almost none go on to kill and eat other people.

With Li, and other NCR people, I have no problem with releasing them back into the community if deemed safe to do so, as long as close support and monitoring exists in that community - ie make sure they take their meds every day. If they don't, or otherwise go off the rails, they should be re-institutionalized. Not for punishment because they are responsible, but for the safety of themselves and the community. As for something to lose by going for help, that was not likely his motivation. It's the stigma of being labelled, as well as his internal reality that tells him he's quite sane and how will he stop the aliens if he's locked up.

We do no punish alcoholics for being alcoholics. They are free to drink themselves to death. We punish them because of illegal actions they take that might be driven by their alcoholism. We do deem them rational beings able to make decisions. Which is kind of funny, because when somebody is blotto, they're not rational, not able to make good decisions, so maybe they should all be found NCR for killing somebody too. And in fact we do have the diminished capacity defense for just that. "I was too drunk to form intent, you're honor, so I'm not guilty of murder"

[Guest American Woman]

We should be providing more of the services I have described - ie community based supportive housing.

I won't argue with that.

Wouldn't have caught Li tho, and I don't think anything we do, short of locking up everybody who acts a bit "weird" would do so. Many people look lost, almost none go on to kill and eat other people.

The woman in question, the one who repeatedly told him that he needed help, works in the mental health field.

Certainly we don't have to "lock up everybody who acts a bit 'wierd," that was not the suggestion at all, but if he had taken up the offer of help, he likely would have been diagnosed and on meds before he killed someone. So yeah, getting help very well could have "caught Li." Furthermore, it was more than "looking lost." Did you even bother to read the article??

With Li, and other NCR people, I have no problem with releasing them back into the community if deemed safe to do so, as long as close support and monitoring exists in that community - ie make sure they take their meds every day.

So what are you suggesting - that he be provided with a private nurse? But again, since my question is culpability, why, when someone refused repeated offers to see a doctor and get help, should that not be considered re: responsibility?

f they don't, or otherwise go off the rails, they should be re-institutionalized. Not for punishment because they are responsible, but for the safety of themselves and the community. As for something to lose by going for help, that was not likely his motivation. It's the stigma of being labelled, as well as his internal reality that tells him he's quite sane and how will he stop the aliens if he's locked up.

The "aliens" appear to have come about at a later date; at the time, his victim was "an evil force." As for the stigma of being labelled - too bad regarding culpability. You think that's enough of an excuse?? That such a reason would exonerate him for brutally killing someone because of his refusal??

We do no punish alcoholics for being alcoholics.

We punish them if they drive drunk and kill someone. We hold them responsible even though they are ill and weren't in their right mind at the time.

They are free to drink themselves to death. We punish them because of illegal actions they take that might be driven by their alcoholism.

Yep. They are ill, they need to drink, they do, the drive and kill someone - and they are held responsible, even though they aren't in a rational frame of mind.

We do deem them rational beings able to make decisions.

So you think an addict is able to "make rational decisions" regarding whether or not to have a drink or use? Seriously?? Do you understand what addiction is?

Which is kind of funny, because when somebody is blotto, they're not rational, not able to make good decisions, so maybe they should all be found NCR for killing somebody too. And in fact we do have the diminished capacity defense for just that. "I was too drunk to form intent, you're honor, so I'm not guilty of murder"

Uh, yeah. That's worked as a defense.

[bush_cheney2004]

....We punish them if they drive drunk and kill someone. We hold them responsible even though they are ill and weren't in their right mind at the time.

Touche !

[jbg]

No, because they're incapable of making rational decisions, including accepting that they are mentally ill. If they can't differentiate right from wrong when cutting somebody's heart out, why would they be able to accurately assess their condition?

So in your blissful world the damage they do in the process is without consequence? Again, I'm torn, and I don't know how to balance myself the extent to which their mental illness discharges them from responsibility and my belief that they have some knowledge they are doing something wrong.

[carepov]

We punish them if they drive drunk and kill someone. We hold them responsible even though they are ill and weren't in their right mind at the time.

To me it is disturbing that the majority of people expressing their opinion about Li want to punish him more severely than a drunk driver. What am I missing here?

[carepov]

So in your blissful world the damage they do in the process is without consequence? Again, I'm torn, and I don't know how to balance myself the extent to which their mental illness discharges them from responsibility and my belief that they have some knowledge they are doing something wrong.

Of course there are many consequences; Li is living with the consequences. In this case the court found Li to be not criminally responsible (NCR) to me this means he has no criminal responsibility I don't understand why you would believe otherwise, but for argument's sake let's say he was partially responsible because "he had some knowledge that he was doing something wrong". The question is what should society do with those found NCR?

Most people seem to be think that we should give Li no freedom for the rest of his life, why?

a) Is it to prevent Li from killing or hurting anyone else? It seems obvious to me that is the panel of psychiatrists say that he is safe to progress in small steps towards freedom then it's safe. The argument about going off medications seems mute to me if he is given his medication via injection.

b.) Is it to "set an example" and prevent others from committing similar acts and ensuring that they realize that they cannot "get away with it"? This seems ridiculous.

c) Is it vengeance? Does it make Tim's family feel better knowing that Li has no freedom for the rest of his life? I sympathize with the grief felt by Tim's family but I do not understand how preventing Li from going on supervised outings can somehow help?

d) Again, what am I missing? Why else would we want to prevent Li from going on supervised outings?

Edited June 10, 2013 by carepov

[bush_cheney2004]

To me it is disturbing that the majority of people expressing their opinion about Li want to punish him more severely than a drunk driver. What am I missing here?

It is not about punishing Li, but rather assuring public safety in the wake of his psychotic attack and murder. Li is responsible for his actions, and government is responsible for public safety. "Sick" pedophiles don't get such sympathy....why should Li ?