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

roy baty · May 30, 2013

Who's kidding who here? Perhaps some of the folks in here who feel they are far more human than those of us who think he and the general public is safer if he remains permanently institutionalized, would like to invite him over for a BBQ w/the family if he ever gets out? Somehow I don't think there will be any volunteers in here anytime soon. Anyone who feels Mr. Li's mental health and well being outweighs that of public safety should see a shrink themselves. To consider him and treat this unique psychopath like your average schizophrenic is irresponsible to say the least.

May 30, 2013

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?

It's not an assessment. It's a statement.

Edited May 30, 2013 by bcsapper

Rocky Road · May 30, 2013

It is definitly regrettable what he did, but the NCR designation is a compassionate policy that understands that while ill people are not making decisions with a sound mind. Hallucinations, delusions and racing thoughts can create a situation where bad things happen, all too often mentally ill people end up in jail. And sadly there is very little mental health care for them there.

On a positive note, mental health outcomes can largely be turned around with programs like Clubhouse International. See: http://www.iccd.org

The clubhouse model creates a community where wellness is the main goal, and people can focus on recovery.

waldo · May 30, 2013

Who's kidding who here? Perhaps some of the folks in here who feel they are far more human than those of us who think he and the general public is safer if he remains permanently institutionalized, would like to invite him over for a BBQ w/the family if he ever gets out? Somehow I don't think there will be any volunteers in here anytime soon.

you've shifted your raised concern to now focus on a presumption of absolute release... irregardless on what 'public safety conditions' might associate to it (e.g., living arrangements, meds testing, monitoring/tracking, etc.)

Anyone who feels Mr. Li's mental health and well being outweighs that of public safety should see a shrink themselves. To consider him and treat this unique psychopath like your average schizophrenic is irresponsible to say the least.

I expect some of the comments you're receiving are the result of a more generalized concern for how mental health... illness... is being "victimized" itself, in the name of so-called 'missing victim rights' or more broadly, public safety.

Archanfel · May 31, 2013

The problem with mental illness in the justice system is that nobody is taking responsibility, which creates moral hazard. Let's say a doctor said Mr. Li is not a threat anymore and Mr. Li killed somebody again because the doctor was mistaken, then the doctor would need to be charged. Maybe not for murder, but at least for negligent. It's a great power to assess the mental condition of somebody and with great power comes great responsibilities.

jbg · May 31, 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.

Let me throw out this question; do you think people should be held responsible for their actions. Li was no doubt mentally ill. However, did he know he was doing something wrong, or did he think he was buying sugar at the store or frying an egg?

carepov · May 31, 2013

Let me throw out this question; do you think people should be held responsible for their actions. Li was no doubt mentally ill. However, did he know he was doing something wrong, or did he think he was buying sugar at the store or frying an egg?

Firstly, the death of Tim was tragic, deepest sympathies to his family.

However his gruesome death was an accident. Li was not in control and therefore not responsible. Li should get treatment but no punishment.

Hypothetical question: a person with undiagnosed epilepsy has a seizure while driving and kills six pre-school children on the sidewalk, what should society do with this person?

May 31, 2013

Firstly, the death of Tim was tragic, deepest sympathies to his family.

However his gruesome death was an accident. Li was not in control and therefore not responsible. Li should get treatment but no punishment.

Hypothetical question: a person with undiagnosed epilepsy has a seizure while driving and kills six pre-school children on the sidewalk, what should society do with this person?

Never allow him to drive again.

bush_cheney2004 · May 31, 2013

....However his gruesome death was an accident. Li was not in control and therefore not responsible. Li should get treatment but no punishment.

No, his death most certainly was not an "accident". It was a homicide committed by a mentally ill person.

eyeball · May 31, 2013

Let me throw out this question; do you think people should be held responsible for their actions. Li was no doubt mentally ill. However, did he know he was doing something wrong, or did he think he was buying sugar at the store or frying an egg?

You started this thread without knowing a damn thing about psychosis didn't you?

You're like some kind of vandal. The damage that people like you can cause in society is truly monstrous, especially when you attain real political power.

Archanfel · May 31, 2013

Let me throw out this question; do you think people should be held responsible for their actions. Li was no doubt mentally ill. However, did he know he was doing something wrong, or did he think he was buying sugar at the store or frying an egg?

Depends. For a truely mentally illed person, no he shouldn't. Do you think a 3 years old should be held responsible for his actions? However, just like a 3 years old, a mentally illed person should have a guardian who is responsbile for his/her actions.

Bryan · May 31, 2013

You started this thread without knowing a damn thing about psychosis didn't you?

You're like some kind of vandal. The damage that people like you can cause in society is truly monstrous, especially when you attain real political power.

No. people defending these monsters are the ones causing damage to society. One Tim MacLean is too many.

eyeball · May 31, 2013

No, you're the one on the wrong side of things here Bryan. Another one too many too I'm afraid.

Bryan · May 31, 2013

No, you're the one on the wrong side of things here Bryan. Another one too many too I'm afraid.

Go spout your nonsense to Tim Maclean's mother's face. Let me know how that turns out.

waldo · May 31, 2013

No. people defending these monsters are the ones causing damage to society

are you declaring anyone that has been found 'not criminally responsible'... a monster?

eyeball · May 31, 2013

Go spout your nonsense to Tim Maclean's mother's face. Let me know how that turns out.

Did you ever imagine you'd find yourself exploiting grieving mother's to satisfy some ideological urge to crack down and get tough on people for the crime of being ill?

Bryan · May 31, 2013

Did you ever imagine you'd find yourself exploiting grieving mother's to satisfy some ideological urge to crack down and get tough on people for the crime of being ill?

Your constant deflections that the crime is "being ill" are reprehensible. Vince Li's crime was killing an innocent man, cutting his head off, and eating him. It's not an ideological urge to protect people from that, but it certainly is a pathological one to deny the public the right to be protected from it.

Archanfel · May 31, 2013

Did you ever imagine you'd find yourself exploiting grieving mother's to satisfy some ideological urge to crack down and get tough on people for the crime of being ill?

I am curious, how do you propose that we avoid future incidents?

You do have to acknowledge that some people will try to cheat the system using the insanity defense. That's why I like the Chinese system better where you have to have previous records of mental issues before the court consider the defense. It's not perfect, but it works to a certain extent. (Mind you, what they actually do in China is probably far from how the law is written)

Having said that, in Mr. Li's case, I think he did have previous records, so I don't really believe he should bear criminal responsibility. The question then becomes who should bear the responsibilities. If somebody let a tiger loose in downtown Toronto and people get hurt. The tiger certainly shouldn't bear any responsibility, but don't you think the owner should bear responsibility? If so, how is that different from a doctor who let a dangerous patient loose? Did Li's previous doctor misdiagnose?

What about today? Let's say Mr Li was released and killed somebody else, should the doctor who released him bear responsibilities?

Mind you, even if you agree with me, I don't know whether it's feasible. Doctors would simply stop release patients just to be safe, which is not good either. So I am curious what would you do.

Archanfel · May 31, 2013

Your constant deflections that the crime is "being ill" are reprehensible. Vince Li's crime was killing an innocent man, cutting his head off, and eating him. It's not an ideological urge to protect people from that, but it certainly is a pathological one to deny the public the right to be protected from it.

But is it his crime if he is not criminally responsible? I ask you the same question as I asked eyeball. If somebody released a tiger in downtown Toronto and people got hurt, should we blame the tiger or should we blame the person who released it?

Moonlight Graham · May 31, 2013

Let me throw out this question; do you think people should be held responsible for their actions. Li was no doubt mentally ill. However, did he know he was doing something wrong, or did he think he was buying sugar at the store or frying an egg?

This article, with an interview with Li, is pretty much how I'm thinking. I'm not saying they should release the guy from hospital, it all depends on how he progresses and the conditions of his release to ensure public safety, and if public safety could be ensured in the first place.

As for your question:

In an interview with Chris Summerville, head of the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, Li spoke for the first time saying that he began hearing "the voice of God" in 2004.

"The voice told me that I was the third story of the Bible, that I was like the second coming of Jesus (and that) I was to save people from a space alien attack," he said, according to a transcript published by Canadian media

So I guess in Li's mind, he thought he was protecting himself and others.. As for the eating body parts and showing off the cut-off head, I have no idea what was going through his ill mind.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

Moonlight Graham · May 31, 2013

Comments from a medicated Mr. Li himself re: his release and public safety.

It’s a fear Li recognizes, and even seems to share. “I should be [in this hospital],” he said. “I should be under a treatment order. I hope to leave one day, but I have to make sure it wouldn’t happen again. That there would be no voices. I would change my name to be anonymous. But I would still be in touch with my doctor."

Archanfel · May 31, 2013

This article, with an interview with Li, is pretty much how I'm thinking. I'm not saying they should release the guy from hospital, it all depends on how he progresses and the conditions of his release to ensure public safety, and if public safety could be ensured in the first place.

As for your question:

So I guess in Li's mind, he thought he was protecting himself and others.. As for the eating body parts and showing off the cut-off head, I have no idea what was going through his ill mind.

Does it really matter? Can some guy shoot his daughter's boyfriend because he believed he was protecting her? Other than immediate self defense, only the police has the power to protect the public.

I also find it's funny that the author concluded "In this, Li is almost certainly telling the exact truth" despite not being a doctor himself. What did he base his conclusion on? Li could very well be lying. Therefore, it's not a look into the "mind" since we haven't invented mind reading yet. It's more like a look into what Li and his doctors said.

cybercoma · May 31, 2013

Does it really matter? Can some guy shoot his daughter's boyfriend because he believed he was protecting her? Other than immediate self defense, only the police has the power to protect the public.

You have very little understanding of schizophrenia and psychosis, if you think it's even remotely comparable to you analogy.

The internet is a wonderful thing. It lets everyone share their dangerous and uneducated opinions on any topic they please and expect to have their opinions acknowledged and respected.

Edited May 31, 2013 by cybercoma

BubberMiley · May 31, 2013

Vince Li's crime was killing an innocent man, cutting his head off, and eating him.

Wrong. He wasn't convicted of a crime. He was found not criminally responsible.

It's not an ideological urge to protect people from that, but it certainly is a pathological one to deny the public the right to be protected from it.

And they are protected from it. He is not getting out. Escorted visits to the beach while in a supervised program isn't denying the public protection from him. And I own a cottage at the beach he would be going to, so I am very much a member of that public.

carepov · May 31, 2013

Hypothetical question: a person with undiagnosed epilepsy has a seizure while driving and kills six pre-school children on the sidewalk, what should society do with this person?