Big Guy Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) On the evening of July 30, 2008, Tim McLean, a 22-year-old Canadian man, was stabbed, beheaded and cannibalized while riding a Greyhound Canada bus about 30 km west of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. On March 5, 2009, McLean's killer, 40-year-old Vince Weiguang Li, was found to be not criminally responsible for murder and was remanded to a high-security mental health facility. Recently, lead psychiatrist Dr. Steven Kremer said Li, a schizophrenic, has stopped experiencing delusions and is a model, non-violent patient. Subsequently Li has just been granted unescorted and unsupervised trips into the local community. Conservative Federal Minister Shelly Glover has just called this “an insult to the community” and calls this a very bad decision. She claims that the safety of the community has not been taken into account, implying that the psychiatrist and the panel is wrong. Who should decide when someone who has been diagnosed with mental illness be considered not a threat to public safety? Edited February 28, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
guyser Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 Psychiatrists,Doctors, Parole peeps....but not a looney politician. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 Who should decide when someone who has been diagnosed with mental illness be considered not a threat to public safety? I will once again bring this around to the notion of publics... only an expert can say if someone is sane or likely to re-offend, but the general public has an understandable expectation of safety in Canadian society. A possible way to deal with this in this way would be: - Policies towards assessment of risk in mental illness patients (policy determined by experts - published on the web) - Process for reviewing cases, and publicizing results (policy determined by experts and bureaucrats, published on the web with feedback from the general public or local public) - Questions on the process (in person meeting with public, with results published on web) - Questions about specific cases (in person meeting, or web meeting for the public, answered by bureaucrats and experts) - Follow up on released patients (periodic frequent updates on statistics of reoffending, and details - published on the web for the general public to follow if interested) Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Argus Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) Psychiatrists,Doctors, Parole peeps....but not a looney politician. And can any of these people assure us the individual is no longer dangerous? Nope. There have been countless occasions when crazy people are pronounced sane by doctors, then go out and do some more crazy things. Then there's the old standby "Oh, if they just take their medication..." but they don't. What a shocker! Crazy people sometimes don't take their meds! Stop the presses! A guy I know only vaguely tried to commit suicide a few weeks ago. He was in intensive care for a while, on life support. When they fixed him up (physically) he was released. Guess what? He tried to commit suicide again within days! Shocker! The mental health care system in this country, and many others, is nowhere near approaching the term 'adequate' and the people who work in it can often only make educated guesses about what is wrong with someone or how they're like to behave in future. Edited February 28, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 And can any of these people assure us the individual is no longer dangerous? Nope. Of course not. Do you want to lock everybody away for ever though ? I expect that the experts could address that one. The answer is no. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 Most importantly - my "follow up" point above would improve on the current approach IMO by making the statistics and even details accessible to an interested public that could opt-in to a defined stakeholder group. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Bonam Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 Simple. Make any "expert" that authorizes the release of an individual that than re-offends personally liable (criminally and civilly) for the released individual's actions. Doctor authorizes release of Li, Li kills someone else, doctor goes to prison for life. That way "experts" will only release people that they truly believe are no longer dangerous, rather than just going through the motions with no personal connection to the reality that they are unleashing violent monsters onto the public. If they are so certain these individuals are all better now and pose no danger, this should be no problem at all. Quote
guyser Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 Bonum, smart guy, dumb post. Not to mention its a tired cliche answer. Do we do that with Cops? Doctors? Engineers? Anyone in any profession? I get the stakes are high but we cannot house everyone indefinitely Quote
Bonam Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 Bonum, smart guy, dumb post. Not to mention its a tired cliche answer. Do we do that with Cops? Doctors? Engineers? Anyone in any profession? I get the stakes are high but we cannot house everyone indefinitely Doctors can be sued for malpractice. Engineers can certainly face serious consequences if they are negligent in their duties or make mistakes leading to loss of life. The people making these evaluations are highly trained, highly educated professionals and bear significant responsibility, just like doctors and engineers, if not even more so. I was not being completely serious with my post, but there seems to me something inherently appealing about the idea of having the people releasing mentally unstable individuals or criminals back into the population bear some of the risk, rather than none as they currently do. It's very easy to make risky decisions when it is not yourself that you are putting at risk. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 Simple. Make any "expert" that authorizes the release of an individual that than re-offends personally liable (criminally and civilly) for the released individual's actions. That's not going to work, obviously. Why not just say that they can't ever get out ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
guyser Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 Doctors can be sued for malpractice. Engineers can certainly face serious consequences if they are negligent in their duties or make mistakes leading to loss of life. The people making these evaluations are highly trained, highly educated professionals and bear significant responsibility, just like doctors and engineers, if not even more so.Intent is a horrible thing to attempt to prove, same for any error committed by a professional , thus very hard to win any of those cases. In any event, any release done I would suspect is done with an eye on the probability of re-offending and not done lightly. Tase of Li is a horrible example for anyone to use for slamming the system. He has been an open book since the day he was arrested. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 I think my proposal would be far better than what we have today... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Bonam Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 (edited) That's not going to work, obviously. Why not just say that they can't ever get out ? Why wouldn't it work? If the professionals feel he is no risk to the public, then clearly they should be willing to take that zero risk upon themselves, right? What gives some psychologist the right to put the public at risk and hold no responsibility for said risk? Whenever you have actions disconnected from consequences, people will act wrongly. Keep in mind I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, but so far no one has really provided much of a refutation why it wouldn't work, except "obviously" or "dumb post". Intent is a horrible thing to attempt to prove, same for any error committed by a professional , thus very hard to win any of those cases. You don't have to prove malicious intent to convict someone of malpractice or negligence. In any event, any release done I would suspect is done with an eye on the probability of re-offending and not done lightly. What probability of re-offense is quantitatively used as a cut-off criterion for releasing someone? How is the likelihood of someone re-offending computed? What are the uncertainties? What methods are used to ensure that someone takes medication if medication is required to keep their chances of re-offense low? What level of consensus among different professionals is required to authorize release? What records and statistics are kept and available for public review? What steps are taken against professionals who repeatedly make mistakes in releasing individuals that are more dangerous than is acceptable? What steps are taken against professionals who fail to release individuals that really are better and should have been released? I disagree with your suspicion, personally, I suspect release is done far far more lightly than it should be. We should have a robust, quantitative, accountable system, and we currently do not have that. Edited February 28, 2014 by Bonam Quote
dre Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 On the evening of July 30, 2008, Tim McLean, a 22-year-old Canadian man, was stabbed, beheaded and cannibalized while riding a Greyhound Canada bus about 30 km west of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. On March 5, 2009, McLean's killer, 40-year-old Vince Weiguang Li, was found to be not criminally responsible for murder and was remanded to a high-security mental health facility. Recently, lead psychiatrist Dr. Steven Kremer said Li, a schizophrenic, has stopped experiencing delusions and is a model, non-violent patient. Subsequently Li has just been granted unescorted and unsupervised trips into the local community. Conservative Federal Minister Shelly Glover has just called this “an insult to the community” and calls this a very bad decision. She claims that the safety of the community has not been taken into account, implying that the psychiatrist and the panel is wrong. Who should decide when someone who has been diagnosed with mental illness be considered not a threat to public safety? Doctors and statisticians. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
dre Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 I disagree with your suspicion, personally, I suspect release is done far far more lightly than it should be. We should have a robust, quantitative, accountable system, and we currently do not have that. Iv looked into this a bit before and found that recidivism rates are pretty low, and violent crime and murder are declining. Canada also compares favorablly to its peers in terms of our rate of violent and deadly crimes. Doesnt mean there isnt room for improvement, but no matter what we did clueless reactionaries would still declare our whole system a failure as soon as theres one emotional re-offense or as soon as they think one person got out too early. Need to summarily ignore those people. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
PIK Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 Doctors can be sued for malpractice. Engineers can certainly face serious consequences if they are negligent in their duties or make mistakes leading to loss of life. The people making these evaluations are highly trained, highly educated professionals and bear significant responsibility, just like doctors and engineers, if not even more so. I was not being completely serious with my post, but there seems to me something inherently appealing about the idea of having the people releasing mentally unstable individuals or criminals back into the population bear some of the risk, rather than none as they currently do. It's very easy to make risky decisions when it is not yourself that you are putting at risk.Just like the engineer that said that roof parking lot out west was safe, he is probably facing jail time. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Michael Hardner Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 Why wouldn't it work? If the professionals feel he is no risk to the public, then clearly they should be willing to take that zero risk upon themselves, right? I think the most you can expect somebody to risk would be possibly their reputation, not their own liability. If that were the case, then the doctors would just never release people, so if that's what we're planning for then let's just say it. What gives some psychologist the right to put the public at risk and hold no responsibility for said risk? Whenever you have actions disconnected from consequences, people will act wrongly. Because that is his/her job. Just as it is for other doctors, for engineers, and for other professionals. Risk isn't either zero or 100%, it's in between. The professional has to make a reasonable assessment and there's an understanding that sometimes a mistake will be made. Any reasonable public would understand that, which is why we can safely say that no reasonable public exists. Instead, you have headlines that scream how did this happen every time something goes wrong. You don't have to prove malicious intent to convict someone of malpractice or negligence. But just because somebody re-offends, it doesn't mean the doctor did anything wrong. It's a professional pinion, not an assurance. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 Just like the engineer that said that roof parking lot out west was safe, he is probably facing jail time. There's a difference between gross negligence and making a weighted assessment of risk. If an engineer doesn't visit a building but certifies it, for example, then that's gross negligence. A doctor can only be so sure that somebody will/won't reoffend. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 Doesnt mean there isnt room for improvement, but no matter what we did clueless reactionaries would still declare our whole system a failure as soon as theres one emotional re-offense or as soon as they think one person got out too early. Need to summarily ignore those people. Yes, or as I said - set up the process so that those who are impatient or knee-jerk have no interest in participating. These are risks to be weighed. If you want to make the system impervious to failure then it's far more onerous a burden to manage. This is the problem with not having a public, as you point out, the consequences are played out in the press - for the masses, cued up for emotional impact and outrage. A public offers considered opinions and feedback, while the masses simply form an angry mob. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Smallc Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 There needs to be a system to monitor medication usage when people with mental health issues are released. Quote
Bryan Posted February 28, 2014 Report Posted February 28, 2014 The problem with Vince Li is we don't think he might be dangerous, we know for a fact that he is. A doctor's opinion on how likely he is to reoffend is irrelevant, because we have already seen how severe the consequences are if he does. And if he does? Hey, he's not responsible for that, right? Quote
Argus Posted March 1, 2014 Report Posted March 1, 2014 That's not going to work, obviously. Why not just say that they can't ever get out ? Can mental illness of that sort ever really be cured? My understanding is it canot be. All they can do is zone you out with drugs. But if you ever stop taking the drugs.... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted March 1, 2014 Report Posted March 1, 2014 There's a difference between gross negligence and making a weighted assessment of risk. If an engineer doesn't visit a building but certifies it, for example, then that's gross negligence. A doctor can only be so sure that somebody will/won't reoffend. A doctor cannot say AT ALL whether someone like this will reffend. All he can say is "As long as he continues to take his drugs properly and continues to come to regular check-ups with his psychiatrist then he will probably be okay." If he stops taking his drugs for any reason then all bets are off. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Wilber Posted March 1, 2014 Report Posted March 1, 2014 Li is not your normal mentally ill person. He sawed a kid's head off with a knife and proceeded to eat him. Probably ain't good enough. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
dre Posted March 1, 2014 Report Posted March 1, 2014 There needs to be a system to monitor medication usage when people with mental health issues are released. How do you know this is a significant enough problem to require implementing a new "system"? Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
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.