Who Decides On Sanity and Safety?

[Guest]

Need to summarily ignore those people.

Just the live ones. The dead ones probably won't whine too much.

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

It seems your assumption here is that the experts release people who they think may still be dangerous. I'm no expert, but if you check the stats here in Canada you'll find the review board system is quite effective and the recitivism rate is quite low. I know there is that approach, especially south of the border, to throw everybody in jail and keep them there forever. And it doesn't work there so let's not have it here.

[Argus]

It seems your assumption here is that the experts release people who they think may still be dangerous. I'm no expert, but if you check the stats here in Canada you'll find the review board system is quite effective and the recitivism rate is quite low. I know there is that approach, especially south of the border, to throw everybody in jail and keep them there forever. And it doesn't work there so let's not have it here.

Really? What is the 'recidivism' rate for dangerous psychiatric patients?

[Michael Hardner]

Really? What is the 'recidivism' rate for dangerous psychiatric patients?

Exactly. We've arrived at the key piece of information.

And because the powers that be refuse to frame this in a way where a public can discuss it sensibly, we end up quoting common sense vs anecdotes vs newspaper headlines.

If one patient in ten reoffends with a violent act, is that too many to allow a release program to continue ? How about one in a million ?

[Smallc]

How do you know this is a significant enough problem to require implementing a new "system"?

Because the current system doesn't work. We've been dealing with someone who has mental health issues (the same one actually) in my community and he's been to jail several times...charges are dropped because he's ncr, he gets out, stops taking his meds and the cycle continues....and he isn't the only one. When you are convicted of a crime or are declared ncr, you should lose the ability to completely self monitor your medication.

[eyeball]

What sort of crimes are you talking about? Homicides or urinating in public on occasion?

....and he isn't the only one.

Not surprising given 20 - 25% of people suffer mental illness. What should be surprising is how little resources are used to help people when they get sick. Is it any wonder the system often doesn't work?

In any case, there are systems that do ensure patients can be monitored, there are even long lasting injectable drugs that can be given and court orders that patients who don't show up for their medication can be picked-up by police.

Of course if your provincial and national governments aren't up to speed on developments or adequate funding...

[Smallc]

Weapons offences among other things

[eyeball]

In any case...there's no real excuse for your community's inability to deal with the mentally ill more effectively, assuming that's what it genuinely wants. The extent of ignorance about mental illness in Canada is vast which explains why governments don't deal with it any better than they do.

[Smallc]

Everyone, from the police to town officials have tried, but the judge throws out the charges every time. His own family can't control him, and as soon as he gets out he stops taking his meds and has delusions about the CIA watching him and going to war.

[dre]

Because the current system doesn't work. We've been dealing with someone who has mental health issues (the same one actually) in my community and he's been to jail several times...charges are dropped because he's ncr, he gets out, stops taking his meds and the cycle continues....and he isn't the only one. When you are convicted of a crime or are declared ncr, you should lose the ability to completely self monitor your medication.

Anecdotes dont mean that a system doesnt work. You are proposing a large and costly beaurocracy to evaluate which people need to have "medication officers" babysit them three times a day, and a large apparatus to do it. The problem is relatively small and doesnt even come close to justifying any of this.

The only reason to ever go down this road would be if the recidivism rates for these people were much higher than for other convicts.

Youre trying to propose a solution without assessing the scope of the problem. Thats a really bad way to make public policy.

Edited March 1, 2014 by dre

[eyeball]

Good for the judge. I hope he keeps throwing him back until the proper authorities, that would be the medical system, starts doing it's job.

[Smallc]

Someone such as Lee should be monitored for life, would you not agree?

[Smallc]

Good for the judge. I hope he keeps throwing him back until the proper authorities, that would be the medical system, starts doing it's job.

He knew he wasn't supposed to own 17 guns including prohibited weapons...he wasn't crazy all that time.

[hitops]

In any case...there's no real excuse for your community's inability to deal with the mentally ill more effectively, assuming that's what it genuinely wants. The extent of ignorance about mental illness in Canada is vast which explains why governments don't deal with it any better than they do.

Nobody's knows what to do, including you. The extent of ignorance you are talking about, includes yourself.

[Bryan]

Anecdotes dont mean that a system doesnt work.

Yes they do.

[On Guard for Thee]

Really? What is the 'recidivism' rate for dangerous psychiatric patients?

10%.with NCR's.

34% with the rest.

[Guest]

10%.with NCR's.

34% with the rest.

What are NCRs?

34% seems a little high if you don't want to be decapitated and eaten on a bus.

So does 10%, I guess.

[On Guard for Thee]

What are NCRs?

34% seems a little high if you don't want to be decapitated and eaten on a bus.

So does 10%, I guess.

Sorry, let me clarify. A recent study in Canada (last year I believe) showed that 1 in 10 "Not Crimninally Responsible" offenders who re-integrate reoffend. 34% of all other criminals reoffend.

[Guest]

Sorry, let me clarify. A recent study in Canada (last year I believe) showed that 1 in 10 "Not Crimninally Responsible" offenders who re-integrate reoffend. 34% of all other criminals reoffend.

Thanks, I did google it, but I came up with some Corvette restorers.

Given those numbers, do you believe Vincent Li should be released on unsupervised trips if there is a 10% chance he will reoffend?

Given the extreme nature of the original offence.

Edited March 2, 2014 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

Someone such as Lee should be monitored for life, would you not agree?

Of course I would.

Nobody's knows what to do, including you. The extent of ignorance you are talking about, includes yourself.

I don't know everything but I've learned a lot about mental illness, schizophrenia in particular, and more than I would have believed possible about how much social stigma and public/official ignorance surrounds these. The most striking thing is how vindictive ill will far too many people have towards the ill.

Nobody knows everything there is to know about mental illness but there are lots of doctors who know enough to diagnose, treat and eventually release almost all of their patients. I've learned to trust almost all of the people I've met and dealt with in the medical system.

Edited March 2, 2014 by eyeball

[On Guard for Thee]

Thanks, I did google it, but I came up with some Corvette restorers.

Given those numbers, do you believe Vincent Li should be released on unsupervised trips if there is a 10% chance he will reoffend?

Given the extreme nature of the original offence.

Certainly based on the nature of this case, as well as others, the public safety is a major concern.

[carepov]

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.

You of all people should know that in these matters there is no such thing as "certainty" or "zero risk".

By this logic all violent criminals and drunk drivers should be locked up forever, right?

My understanding is that doctors and others on the parole board determine if the NCR person's odds of re-offending are less that that of the general population. If yes, then they are released.

Edited March 2, 2014 by carepov

[Michael Hardner]

My understanding is that doctors and others on the parole board determine if the NCR person's odds of re-offending are less that that of the general population. If yes, then they are released.

Ok, thanks for that bit of clarity.

I like that some on this thread are talking about risk in real and specific terms. "The public safety" is too vague a term for me.

It also reinforces the idea of "the" public, which is too simple a term to use when there are actually different groups with different values and objectives.