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

[Guest American Woman]

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.

Where did I say it "drives [me] nuts?" Try to leave the dramatics out of your responses and reply to what I do say. Until you're able to do that, I won't be engaging in any discussion with you.

[Guest]

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.

That team of doctors and specialists is not foolproof. What part of remaining in a comfortable secure facility (no torture, honest) for the rest of his days is "Hell on Earth"?

The only consideration is making sure no-one else is a victim. The only way to do that is to keep him locked up. Unfortunate, but better than the alternative.

Edited June 1, 2013 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

If you're responding to my post, have I said otherwise??

you said he intended to kill someone. He was found incapable of legal intent at the time of the killing. So yes. You said otherwise.

[cybercoma]

e.

That team of doctors and specialists is not foolproof. What part of remaining in a comfortable secure facility (no torture, honest) for the rest of his days is "Hell on Earth"?

The only consideration is making sure no-one else is a victim. The only way to do that is to keep him locked up. Unfortunate, but better than the alternative.

there's nothing foolproof that will guarantee you wil never kill anyone either. Edited June 1, 2013 by cybercoma

[eyeball]

That team of doctors and specialists is not foolproof. What part of remaining in a comfortable secure facility (no torture, honest) for the rest of his days is "Hell on Earth"?

The only consideration is making sure no-one else is a victim. The only way to do that is to keep him locked up. Unfortunate, but better than the alternative.

His doctors are a lot more credible than the CPC.

Hell on Earth will be in the shitty lock-ups, crappy treatment and vindictiveness that the mentally ill can look forward to if society follows right-wing prescriptions on how to deal with mental illness. I doubt comfort will be very high on the list of priorities of anyone who treats mental illness like it was a lifestyle choice or a moral failing that needs to be corrected and deterred by punishment.

[Guest]

e.there's nothing foolproof that will guarantee you wil never kill anyone either.

Absolutely correct. And if I ever do, and I am found not criminally responsible, you have my permission to put me in a secure facility for the rest of my life.

[cybercoma]

Why wait until you do? We deserve to be protected from you.

[Guest]

His doctors are a lot more credible than the CPC.

Hell on Earth will be in the shitty lock-ups, crappy treatment and vindictiveness that the mentally ill can look forward to if society follows right-wing prescriptions on how to deal with mental illness. I doubt comfort will be very high on the list of priorities of anyone who treats mental illness like it was a lifestyle choice or a moral failing that needs to be corrected and deterred by punishment.

Well, let's work to alleviate those conditions then. He should never again be put in a situation where there is a possibility he will succumb once more to the voices in his head. That's my belief. You might not agree.

What does the CPC have to do with it?

[Guest]

Why wait until you do? We deserve to be protected from you.

No you don't. Your right to protection from me is cancelled out by my right to protection from you. Until one of us does something to turn "equals" into "does not equal".

[Guest American Woman]

you said he intended to kill someone. He was found incapable of legal intent at the time of the killing. So yes. You said otherwise.

I said he intended to kill someone, and he did. Nowhere did I say anything about legal intent. So, no. I most definitely did not say otherwise.

Edited June 1, 2013 by American Woman

[eyeball]

Well, let's work to alleviate those conditions then. He should never again be put in a situation where there is a possibility he will succumb once more to the voices in his head. That's my belief. You might not agree.

What does the CPC have to do with it?

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.

[Guest]

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.

Well, as I said before, I don't think the doctors are foolproof. Nor are they accountable. So I most definitely do not believe in going with what they say, unless they agree with me.

Would you be okay with him being locked up forever under a Liberal government?

[BubberMiley]

I said he intended to kill someone, and he did. Nowhere did I say anything about legal intent. So, no. I most definitely did not say otherwise.

What's the difference between "intent" and "legal" intent?

[Guest American Woman]

What's the difference between "intent" and "legal" intent?

One is criminal and the other isn't.

Edited June 1, 2013 by American Woman

[BubberMiley]

You're saying you can willfully intend to kill someone and it's not a criminal act? Where does it say that in the criminal code? I would be very interested if you can provide an actual distinction between the two terms that you didn't just make up on the spot.

[Guest American Woman]

You're saying you can willfully intend to kill someone and it's not a criminal act? Where does it say that in the criminal code? I would be very interested if you can provide an actual distinction between the two terms that you didn't just make up on the spot.

And I'd be very interested if you can provide an explanation as to why it was determined that he was declared not guilty of "legal intent," rather than the courts saying 'he never intended to kill anyone; he accidentally stabbed and cut off a person's head." You know, like in the example given - of an epileptic seizure where the person accidentally runs over kids.

But since you are apparently unaware, it's not a "criminal act" when the person who did the killing was not able to form the criminal intent; ie: unable to ascertain that what they are doing is wrong. Someone suffering from a mental illness can very well do something intentionally but not know that it's wrong.

Hope that helps clear things up for you.

Edited June 1, 2013 by American Woman

[gunrutz]

The only monsters here are people who would treat mentally ill people as monsters.

I couldnt care less how many people think this way, i have full sympathy for anyone with mental ilness, however my willingness to help, or accomodate, ends at thier uncontrolable desire to decapitate and eat someone. We can't FIX everyone, some people are simply too dangerous, too broken, to be trusted, thankfully they are a very few, but this ideology that has a need to see everyone made whole is in my opinion borne out of a defect of its own. There are billions of us on this planet, choosing to allow freedom, any freedom, to someone who uncontrollably or otherwise murders is ridiculous, just what do you feel so bad about that justifies you're need of his freedom and why do you feel that way? There are 7 something billion of us who haven't cut anyones head off, we don't need him in society, and his freedom is secondary to our safety.

[BubberMiley]

Hope that helps clear things up for you.

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.

[BubberMiley]

There are 7 something billion of us who haven't cut anyones head off, we don't need him in society, and his freedom is secondary to our safety.

You're right. And no one is setting him free, so that point is irrelevant. Edited June 1, 2013 by BubberMiley

[carepov]

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.

I see your point, the epilepsy example and Li's case are not alike because Li's actions were not an accident. I disagree, but have other questions if you don't mind.

What if Li was "sane" but he fell into a deep sleep and killed Tim in his sleep? Would that be different?

How about a child, let's say 4 years old, that walks into the neighbor's house, finds a gun and kills the occupants of the house? Let's say she was being babysat by their 12 year old sibling at the time who was distracted. Is that "intentional homicide"?

[eyeball]

Well, as I said before, I don't think the doctors are foolproof. Nor are they accountable. So I most definitely do not believe in going with what they say, unless they agree with me.

Would you be okay with him being locked up forever under a Liberal government?

I'll be happy when politicians have little if anything to do with determining what should be done. There are just far too many who have proven to lack the moral or ethical, never mind the professional background, for much of what they do.

[eyeball]

You're saying you can willfully intend to kill someone and it's not a criminal act? Where does it say that in the criminal code? I would be very interested if you can provide an actual distinction between the two terms that you didn't just make up on the spot.

This is what I mean when I say this issue seemingly drives people nuts especially when they try to sound or be humane when defending inhumane policies. Ironically I take this is an indication that people are naturally humane but because so many of our institutions cleave towards being sociopathic and because society is so enculturated to place great faith in them many people become tangled up in a dissonance trap that drives them nuts.

Politicians don't have a chance when it comes to resisting the low road.

[Guest]

I'll be happy when politicians have little if anything to do with determining what should be done. There are just far too many who have proven to lack the moral or ethical, never mind the professional background, for much of what they do.

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

[cybercoma]

I said he intended to kill someone, and he did. Nowhere did I say anything about legal intent. So, no. I most definitely did not say otherwise.

you're being pedantic as usual. The bottom line is that he was found incapable of intent and not criminally responsible.

[Bryan]

you're being pedantic as usual. The bottom line is that he was found incapable of intent and not criminally responsible.

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.