carepov Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 No, his death most certainly was not an "accident". It was a homicide committed by a mentally ill person. Yes it was an accident and a homicide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 I am curious, how do you propose that we avoid future incidents? With ongoing treatment and assessment. All I'm proposing is that we do that without being hard-boiled pricks about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted 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. Whoever said the public shouldn't be protected? The only ideological urge on display around here is the imperative that we be hard-boiled pricks when doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archanfel Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 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. Did I say anything about schizophrenia? I don't know why Li thought he was defending himeself and others. In fact, I don't know why anybody would believe in a superium being. I am wondering whether that matters. If Li did what he did because he lost the ability to reason, then it doesn't matter what he believed in. He could have believed in the victim was his son, but his thought process can still lead to murder. If Li didn't lose his ability to reason, then it doesn't matter what he believed in either as long as it's in his thought process that he can't kill for whatever reason. Even if God told him to do thing, he should have known better than carrying it out. Therefore, what Li believed in should have absolutely no bearing on the issue. The question is whether he could reason or not. If Li could reason, then he should be responsible for his action no matter what he believed in, but he also should have the power to direct his own action. If Li couldn't reason, then he should not be responsible for his action no matter what he believed in, but he also should lose the power to direct his own action. Would you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archanfel Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) With ongoing treatment and assessment. All I'm proposing is that we do that without being hard-boiled pricks about it. Not sure what you meant by "being hard-boiled pricks about it.". However, what if the ongoing treatment and assessment failed and Mr Li. commited a crime again, who should be responsible for that? Note that Mr. Li was under treatment and assessment before he commited crime in the first place, they apparently failed for some reason yet nobody took responsibility. How would we know that the current treatments and assessments are any better if nobody is going to be responsible for a second failure? Edited May 31, 2013 by Archanfel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 If Li could reason, then he should be responsible for his action no matter what he believed in, but he also should have the power to direct his own action. If Li couldn't reason, then he should not be responsible for his action no matter what he believed in, but he also should lose the power to direct his own action. The trial is over. He was found not criminally responsible. Now it is up to his doctors and his institution's staff to make sure he doesn't have the opportunity to kill again. So far, they've done their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Not sure what you meant by "being hard-boiled pricks about it.". Why am I not surprised? However, what if the ongoing treatment and assessment failed and Mr Li. commited a crime again, who should be responsible for that? Somebody with at least a shred of humanity I would hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archanfel Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) Never mind. My mistake. Edited May 31, 2013 by Archanfel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archanfel Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 The trial is over. He was found not criminally responsible. Now it is up to his doctors and his institution's staff to make sure he doesn't have the opportunity to kill again. So far, they've done their job. Yes, so far. Is it really up to them? If so, you wouldn't mind holding them responsible if Mr. Li did have the opportunity to kill again, right? Why do you think Mr. Li had the opportunity to kill the first time? Wasn't it up to his doctors to make sure he didn't have the opportunity to kill? The trial for Mr. Li is over, the trial for those doctors never happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Yes, so far. Is it really up to them? If so, you wouldn't mind holding them responsible if Mr. Li did have the opportunity to kill again, right?Right. Why do you think Mr. Li had the opportunity to kill the first time? Wasn't it up to his doctors to make sure he didn't have the opportunity to kill? The trial for Mr. Li is over, the trial for those doctors never happened.he had no doctors. He was undiagosed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archanfel Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) Right. he had no doctors. He was undiagosed. Ok, thank you for correcting me. I am glad we agree on any future incidents though. A further point though, do you think that would limit Mr. Li's right unfairly? If they have to be responsible for Mr. Li's future actions, the doctors might never release him just to be safe regardless his mental conditions. Do you think that's a reasonable tradeoff for public safety? Edited May 31, 2013 by Archanfel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 With ongoing treatment and assessment. All I'm proposing is that we do that without being hard-boiled pricks about it. But there's the rub. Treatment is only management, there's no cure for schizophrenia. Medications often manage the disease quite well, so when he's released he should be monitored for the rest of this life to make sure he's taking the meds and institutionalized again if he's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 do you think that would limit Mr. Li's right unfairly? If they have to be responsible for Mr. Li's future actions, the doctors might never release him just to be safe regardless his mental conditions. Do you think that's a reasonable tradeoff for public safety?Yes. I don't think he ever will be released freely. I think he will be supervised and under treatment for the rest of his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archanfel Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Looks like we are all in agreement already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) Whoever said the public shouldn't be protected? The only ideological urge on display around here is the imperative that we be hard-boiled pricks when doing so. There's nothing idealogical about it. He sawed off someone's head, held it up for everyone to see and then he proceeded to eat him. He killed someone in pretty much the most gruesome way possible, and that person is the victim, not Mr. Li. Edited May 31, 2013 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archanfel Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 There's nothing idealogical about it. He sawed off someone's head, held it up for everyone to see and then he proceeded to eat him. He killed someone in pretty much the most gruesome way possible, and that person is the victim, not Mr. Li. If Mr. Li was mentally ill, I would think both of them are victims in a tragic event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 How can you be sure that the person does not drive again? Good point. All you can do is remove his licence and make driving a crime. At least then, if he drives, he can be locked up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 But there's the rub. Treatment is only management, there's no cure for schizophrenia. Medications often manage the disease quite well, so when he's released he should be monitored for the rest of this life to make sure he's taking the meds and institutionalized again if he's not. What you've said is true of any schizophrenic. The rub in Vincent Li's case is that the treatment and management being prescribed around here and probably in a lot of similar threads in other forums by the usual suspects is that it be attended with a degree of vindictiveness that is just plain wrong on multiple levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 The rub in Vincent Li's case is that the treatment and management being prescribed around here and probably in a lot of similar threads in other forums by the usual suspects is that it be attended with a degree of vindictiveness that is just plain wrong on multiple levels. What's wrong with not rolling out the red carpet for someone who murdered, cut the head off, and partially ate another human being without any provocation? I'd expect a little "vindictiveness", nothing wrong with that. Someone has to be held accountable. If it's not Li, it better be his doctor (as someone else suggested). These doctors have an inflated opinion of themselves and their drugs and have nothing on the line if they're wrong, which is why they are so eager to unleash creatures like Li on the public. This aspect of our system is broken. So long as people like this keep getting released, it will keep generating outrage, no matter how much it might offend people like yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) What's wrong with not rolling out the red carpet .really? Rolling out the red carpet? Edited June 1, 2013 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 (edited) 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? Yes it was an accident and a homicide. How is homicide, a deliberate act, an "accident?" It was no "accident" that he killed. That was his intention. That is not the case in the hypothetical that you presented - a person with undiagnosed epilepsy who has a seizure while driving and kills six pre-school children on the sidewalk has no such intention. That is an accident. Furthermore, a person who finds out that they have epilepsy isn't likely to at some point think "I'm ok now, I don't need my meds anymore, I can stop taking them." Epilepsy and schizophrenia are two different types of disorders, and not comparable. Having said that, in light of Li's disorder, part of his "treatment" should be than he is not allowed to be on his own. Given his disorder and his history, it is not safe to let him be out on his own where he could decide that he doesn't need his meds because he's feeling so much better - which is a trait of many schizophrenics. Furthermore, by far, most schizophrenics do not kill; the gruesome act he committed is rather unique to him, and he should be "treated" accordingly. He is a threat to society. Edited June 1, 2013 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 He was found not criminally responsible because he wasn't capable of intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 I guess there will always be a bunch of deluded sphincters who think schizophrenia and psychosis is some sort of amoral lifestyle choice that requires a regimen of punishment along with medication. In addition to the demons tormenting the psychotic they've also got a bunch of miserable right-wingers to contend with. A real Hell on Earth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 He was found not criminally responsible because he wasn't capable of intent. If you're responding to my post, have I said otherwise?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 He is a threat to society. Are you a trained psychiatrist? The team of doctors and specialists who are treating Li are clearly leaning the other way but for some reason that drives you nuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.