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

[carepov]

Of course it doesn't "depend." A drunk driver is held accountable, even when the driver is ill with alcoholism. Same goes for a drug addict. If they kill someone, they are held responsible. They, too, are ill with addiction and not able to make rational judgments, but they are held accountable.

Your question was "You think driving drunk and killing someone is worse than cutting someone's head off and eating them?"

How do you think Dayma Roblero's parents would respond to that question?

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/judge_to_drunk_driver_in_crash.html

What if a repeat drunk driver crashed into a school bus killing 50 children as the bus dropped off a cliff. Wouldn't the drunk driver be "worse" than Li?

[bush_cheney2004]

I asked you for examples within Canadian law... is this your way of saying you beaked off about civil liability without actually having an example of a successful civil liability case brought against a person found not criminally responsible?

as before, as again, "in the context of this thread and its emphasis on the mentally ill and 'not criminally responsible (NCR)', what is the relevance and basis for you repeatedly drawing an analogy to pedophiles?"

Well, the very term implies as much....."not CRIMINALLY responsible". Just sayin'.....

Besides, even were I to find such a civil case, you would still remain unsatisfied. The relevance and basis is obvious.

[waldo]

Your question was "You think driving drunk and killing someone is worse than cutting someone's head off and eating them?"

and why do you continue to enable her... enable this false analogy between mental health/NCR and drunk driving/alcoholism/drug addiction?

[bush_cheney2004]

No. I don't think we are at the point where we can release someone maniacal enough to commit murder without any apparent motive back into society. I would probably only do that if I purposely wanted to create a fearful environment to the point of paranoia - increasing my value and importance to society....oops...sorry! Did I say that out loud? Don't let that get around.

It is odd.....they all have opinions as to why Americans should not have guns guaranteed by their constitution (prior restraint), but cannibals get a free pass. Glad I don't go to the beach anymore.....

[waldo]

Well, the very term implies as much....."not CRIMINALLY responsible". Just sayin'.....

Besides, even were I to find such a civil case, you would still remain unsatisfied. The relevance and basis is obvious.

whatever you're "just sayin'"... it's something you weren't prepared to back-up! Well done

[carepov]

That's part of the problem.....the potential risk is great and the public is being asked to take such risk(s), not Li. His "treatment" includes a leash for life.

The psychiatric panel determined that there is very little risk to allowing Li escorted outings. Do you agree?

AFAIK, no one has assessed the risk of an unescorted outing. What makes you think that you are qualified to assess this risk?

[waldo]

Hey, I liked going to the beach as much as the next guy/gal.....does he get a free bucket and shovel too ? Don't forget the sunscreen!

but cannibals get a free pass. Glad I don't go to the beach anymore.....

trolling reported

[bush_cheney2004]

The psychiatric panel determined that there is very little risk to allowing Li escorted outings. Do you agree?

AFAIK, no one has assessed the risk of an unescorted outing. What makes you think that you are qualified to assess this risk?

I am qualified to assess (by your own admission) that the risk is not zero. My opinion doesn't matter, but I am still entitled to have one. But I am not completely heartless...maybe Li can be a pen pal with Charles Manson.

[bush_cheney2004]

trolling reported

Thank you....I look forward to my suspension. trying to shut people up because you do not agree with style or content is typical.

[carepov]

and why do you continue to enable her... enable this false analogy between mental health/NCR and drunk driving/alcoholism/drug addiction?

Because I am interested in this analogy and her response. I realize that it is not a perfect analogy, but I still think it is useful. I am interested in knowing how our society can accept giving drunk drivers that end up killing a slap on the wrist while insisting that we lock up Li for life and not allow escorted outings. I don't get it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Because I am interested in this analogy and her response. I realize that it is not a perfect analogy, but I still think it is useful. I am interested in knowing how our society can accept giving drunk drivers that end up killing a slap on the wrist while insisting that we lock up Li for life and not allow escorted outings. I don't get it.

Thank you for considering other perspectives. Case law has developed around drunken/impaired driving as voluntary/involuntary manslaughter, not intentional homicide. Li committed an act that enjoys no such familiarity or mercy.

[carepov]

I am qualified to assess (by your own admission) that the risk is not zero. My opinion doesn't matter, but I am still entitled to have one.

That's part of the problem.....the potential risk is great and the public is being asked to take such risk(s), not Li. His "treatment" includes a leash for life.

So what is your assessment. Is the risk, "not zero" or "great"? And oh yeah, risk of what?

[carepov]

Thank you for considering other perspectives. Case law has developed around drunken/impaired driving as voluntary/involuntary manslaughter, not intentional homicide. Li committed an act that enjoys no such familiarity or mercy.

Of course there is no familiarity but why not mercy? Are you saying because we are used to children dying in car accidents caused by drunk drivers that our society should have more mercy for the drunk drivers?

[bush_cheney2004]

So what is your assessment. Is the risk, "not zero" or "great"? And oh yeah, risk of what?

The risk is not only greater than zero, but the potential for more violent psychotic events is unknown. Nobody expects the shrinks to quantify such things exactly, but again, the public is being asked to take all the risk, not Li.

[waldo]

Thank you....I look forward to my suspension. trying to shut people up because you do not agree with style or content is typical.

yes - in this regard, I most certainly do not agree with your style or content where you repeatedly attempt to draw false and unwarranted comparisons to the mentally ill/persons found NCR and pedophiles... where you repeatedly and purposely attempt to stigmatize the mentally ill... where you repeatedly and purposely write inane comments for no other purpose than to troll for responses. Your MLW shock-jock routine is long past its expiry date!

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course there is no familiarity but why not mercy? Are you saying because we are used to children dying in car accidents caused by drunk drivers that our society should have more mercy for the drunk drivers?

No, I am saying that because of such familiarity and known risk, society is far more accepting of the outcome(s).

[bush_cheney2004]

yes - in this regard, I most certainly do not agree with your style or content where you repeatedly attempt to draw false and unwarranted comparisons to the mentally ill/persons found NCR and pedophiles... where you repeatedly and purposely attempt to stigmatize the mentally ill... where you repeatedly and purposely write inane comments for no other purpose than to troll for responses. Your MLW shock-jock routine is long past its expiry date!

Noted.....you are off topic. Reported.

[waldo]

Thank you for considering other perspectives. Case law has developed around drunken/impaired driving as voluntary/involuntary manslaughter, not intentional homicide. Li committed an act that enjoys no such familiarity or mercy.

again... you draw the false and unwarranted comparison. Mental disorder, as a point of legal criteria under the Criminal Code of Canada for a defense of NCR, is defined as a 'disease of the mind'... it can include mental abnormalities which cause impairment. However, the definition of mental disorder does not include voluntary intoxication, drug induced impairement or transient mental states (e.g., hysteria, concussion, etc.).

[waldo]

Noted.....you are off topic. Reported.

if my most accurate description of your recent posts in this thread is, as you say, "off topic"... what does that make your recent posts?

[bush_cheney2004]

again... you draw the false and unwarranted comparison. Mental disorder, as a point of legal criteria under the Criminal Code of Canada for a defense of NCR, is defined as a 'disease of the mind'... it can include mental abnormalities which cause impairment. However, the definition of mental disorder does not include voluntary intoxication, drug induced impairement or transient mental states (e.g., hysteria, concussion, etc.).

I have already reviewed Section 16 of the Criminal Code and it is not so cut and dry. Your opinion is yours, and it doesn't have to agree with mine or anybody else's. And that's OK.....makes for a good forum. Go bully somebody else for a while.

[bush_cheney2004]

if my most accurate description of your recent posts in this thread is, as you say, "off topic"... what does that make your recent posts?

On topic...with sarcasm and humour. Do you mind ? Is it a crime in Canada more serious than NCR cannibalism?

(See how that works....more sarcasm and humour...intelligent people can recognize this.)

Edited June 10, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[carepov]

The risk is not only greater than zero, but the potential for more violent psychotic events is unknown. Nobody expects the shrinks to quantify such things exactly, but again, the public is being asked to take all the risk, not Li.

The public is being asked to accept supervised outings. What's the risk in that?

There is far greater risk to the public in denying these outings. The public is at risk of taking regressive steps in their attitudes towards mental illness. The "public" includes those with mental illness, including those with schizophrenia and their families.

Either way there is no such thing as zero-risk. The lowest risk option is to treat Li and allow escorted outings. The vision of course is to de-stigmatize mental illness so that people can get treatment before violent psychotic episodes occur.

[carepov]

No, I am saying that because of such familiarity and known risk, society is far more accepting of the outcome(s).

So when we release drunk drivers we know that they will not re-offend?

[waldo]

I have already reviewed Section 16 of the Criminal Code and it is not so cut and dry. Your opinion is yours, and it doesn't have to agree with mine or anybody else's. And that's OK.....makes for a good forum. Go bully somebody else for a while.

bull****... you've been all about case law these last few pages. Where's the case law to support your "not so cut and dry" claim? Let's have you go 2:2. You already blew-up... reeeel good... with your claims concerning civil liability, let's have you do the same here. Where's the case law to support this, your latest unsubstantiated claim?

[bush_cheney2004]

So when we release drunk drivers we know that they will not re-offend?

No, we know that they will most likely re-offend in a familiar way after they serve a sentence and/or pay a fine and suffer other financial sanctions (e.g. higher car insurance premiums, wage garnishment, etc.). Li's supporters are asking society to accept an unknown risk of murder for little or no "penance".