Not Criminally Responsible law puts society at risk

[blackbird]

 

"An earlier trial found he was experiencing psychosis at the time of the killings and believed he was saving his children from sexual and physical abuse. Schoenborn was found not criminally responsible and in 2017, a B.C. Supreme Court justice ruled that he doesn't meet the criteria to be designated as a high-risk offender."

Wow!  A guy who murdered his three kids is not a "high-risk offender"???   How does a judge come to that conclusion?  Is he able to read people's minds into the future?  Seriously, this strikes me as bizarre.  This kind of thing is one the major problems with having such a designation of "not criminally responsible".   Once some judge in his infinite wisdom (tongue in cheek) makes a so-called NCR ruling, society is now at risk.  The relatives of the offender must continually suffer knowing the offender, who could quite possibly be dangerous, may be released on day passes and other release arrangements.  According to the law judges have been given the power of some kind of god.  This problem comes from the federal government and laws that enabled the NCR designation.

This hug-a-thug mentality is the same reason we have been seeing catch and release and the ongoing problems of dangerous and repeat offenders continually victimizing innocent citizens in Canada.  It was recently reported that 40% of cars are being stolen or 40% of the arrested offenders are people who were released on bail or parole.  It is just a revolving door and the criminal justice system is broken.  NCR originated from the same kind of mentality.  Hug-a-thug.

"

A hearing to decide whether a B.C. killer could continue to go out in public unescorted ended abruptly and without a decision on Wednesday, after the man shouted at members of the B.C. Review Board and his lawyer quit the case.

Allan Schoenborn yelled an expletive as the board chair asked his treating psychiatrist about what risks he may pose to children in public.

"If a child gets on the train, [do] you want me to get off the train? No booze, no women, no alcohol, no drugs and no children: Is that what it's going to be?" Schoenborn asked.

Schoenborn's outburst and concurrent legal issues derailed Wednesday's hearing at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital (FPH) in Coquitlam, B.C., where Schoenborn has been institutionalized since 2010.

Allan Schoenborn granted overnight leave from psychiatric hospital, 14 years after killing his 3 children

In 2008, Schoenborn stabbed and smothered his children Kaitlynne, 10, Max, 8, and Cordon, 5, inside the family trailer in Merritt, B.C.

An earlier trial found he was experiencing psychosis at the time of the killings and believed he was saving his children from sexual and physical abuse. 

Schoenborn was found not criminally responsible and in 2017, a B.C. Supreme Court justice ruled that he doesn't meet the criteria to be designated as a high-risk offender."

Hearing for B.C. man who killed his 3 children adjourned over outburst, legal issues | CBC News

This whole problem could have been avoided if there were no such thing as a not criminally responsible ruling or legislation in Canada.  As it stands, the justice system is broken and caught in a bind between a rock and a hard place.  This law puts society at risk.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

How does a judge come to that conclusion?

Mostly on the recommendation of doctors -experts in mental health in this case.

There's probably also the precedents set by the number of other patients who are successfully released following treatment.

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Mostly on the recommendation of doctors -experts in mental health in this case.

There's probably also the precedents set by the number of other patients who are successfully released following treatment.

Every person who commits murder or some other crime did it because their mind was evil or faulty.  There is no excuse for murder or crime.  The idea that people are somehow mentally not responsible is an idea from the pit of hell, i.e. the work of Satan.  People like yourself believe anything that liberals and progressives put forward.  

Mental health psychiatrists are no more qualified than anyone else to judge who should be declared not criminally responsible because the whole idea is wrong.  Of course psychiatrists are going to be used by defence lawyers and go to court because that is what they get paid for.  It is a good-paying business.  People who commit murder etc. are responsible for their crimes and always have been all through history.  Families of victims should not have to put up with this garbage any longer. 

The whole thing is a clear sign of a decadent and fallen society.  

It is a crime against society and families of victims to be put through the wringer endlessly in courts and hearings to decide parole or conditional releases of murders, etc.

Edited Saturday at 06:36 PM by blackbird

[herbie]

So move to Texas and hold tailgate parties when they execute mentally challenged children.

Obviously mental impairment is just fakey and not a real thing, eh?

[blackbird]

17 minutes ago, herbie said:

Obviously mental impairment is just fakey and not a real thing, eh?

Is that your excuse?

[herbie]

What's the point accusing people of what you don't believe is real?

[blackbird]

" 3  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: ""  Romans 13:3, 4  KJV

The powers that be are to exercise their authority and punish evil doers.  Doesn't say anything at all about letting criminals off if someone says they have mental problems, or any of various other problems such as homelessness, being a visible minority, etc. etc. Again "for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."  Get it?

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

What's the point accusing people of what you don't believe is real?

I don't deny mental impairment exists.  In fact, it is the way much of society is.  However, that does not excuse evil and is not an excuse to get away with murder or anything else.  Once society starts doing that, they are on a slippery slope and nobody can expect to be safe and justice will disappear as it often has now.  You think would be criminals don't know this?  Simple as that.

Edited Saturday at 09:48 PM by blackbird

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

So move to Texas and hold tailgate parties when they execute mentally challenged children.

Obviously mental impairment is just fakey and not a real thing, eh?

And yet ironically in Texas “affluenza” is a legitimate defence:  kill 4 people and then complain you grew up so rich and spoiled you didn’t learn right from wrong and you get off easy without jail time.
 

These are the same people who scream that ther should be an end to “the abuse excuse” for horribly abused/neglected low income (read: black) children who grow up to become criminals. And of course they’re equally unsympathetic to the mentally ill and mental handicapped

Edited Saturday at 09:47 PM by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't deny mental impairment exists.  In fact, it is the way much of society is.  However, that does not excuse evil and is not an excuse to get away with murder or anything else.  Simple as that.

The NCR whining from the right just won’t die. NCR has the law of the land for decades and yet the incidenceof someone being found NCR who then committing a subsequent serious offence is virtually zero. 
 

People found to be NCR also don’t “get away” with their crime, if it’s something serious like murder they are hospitalized until they are deemed to no longer pose a threat to themselves or others, which can mean the rest of their life if their condition doesn’t improve. Even when they do get released from hospital they are closely monitored again potentially for the rest of their lives, to ensure they are taking any required medications and treatments and complying with any other conditions. 

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

Every person who commits murder or some other crime did it because their mind was evil or faulty.

Faulty? I suppose that's one way of describing a broken mind or brain disease.

In any case it's a good thing we treat mental illness in hospitals with medicine and therapy instead of with exorcists, priests and bonfires.

In meantime...you fundies don't really believe in mental illness do you? 

That's quite ironic l actually.

[blackbird]

30 minutes ago, eyeball said:

In any case it's a good thing we treat mental illness in hospitals with medicine and therapy instead of with exorcists, priests and bonfires.

Using mental illness or temporary mental illness as an excuse to escape conviction for crime is not acceptable in my view.  Psychiatry is often highly questionable.  Diagnosing someone as having been mentally ill is very questionable and subjective opinion.  Their opinion on someone being temporarily insane when they committed a crime should be highly suspicious.

You should know I don't believe in exorcists, priests and bonfires.  You are talking about something in the Roman church in the middle or dark ages, which was not Biblical.

"

Anti-psychiatry, sometimes spelled antipsychiatry,[1] is a movement based on the view that psychiatric treatment is often more damaging than helpful to patients, highlighting controversies about psychiatry. Objections include the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis, the questionable effectiveness and harm associated with psychiatric medications, the failure of psychiatry to demonstrate any disease treatment mechanism for psychiatric medication effects, and legal concerns about equal human rights and civil freedom being nullified by the presence of diagnosis. Historical critiques of psychiatry came to light after focus on the extreme harms associated with electroconvulsive therapy or insulin shock therapy.[2] The term "anti-psychiatry" is in dispute and often used to dismiss all critics of psychiatry, many of whom[who?] agree that a specialized role of helper for people in emotional distress may at times be appropriate, and allow for individual choice around treatment decisions.

Beyond concerns about effectiveness, anti-psychiatry might question the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of psychotherapy and psychoactive medication, seeing them as shaped by social and political concerns rather than the autonomy and integrity of the individual mind. They may believe that "judgements on matters of sanity should be the prerogative of the philosophical mind", and that the mind should not be a medical concern. Some activists reject the psychiatric notion of mental illness.[3] Anti-psychiatry considers psychiatry a coercive instrument of oppression due to an unequal power relationship between doctor, therapist, and patient or client, and a highly subjective diagnostic process. Involuntary commitment, which can be enforced legally through sections, is an important issue in the movement. When sectioned, involuntary treatment may also be legally enforced by the medical profession against the patient's will."

Anti-psychiatry - Wikipedia

 

Edited Sunday at 12:08 AM by blackbird

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Using mental illness or temporary mental illness as an excuse to escape conviction for crime is not acceptable in my view.

Yes, I've noticed you're just about the most unforgiving Christian I've ever met. 

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You should know I don't believe in exorcists, priests and bonfires.  You are talking about something in the Roman church in the middle or dark ages, which was not Biblical.

You're probably more into stoning the mentally ill.

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Psychiatry is often highly questionable.  Diagnosing someone as having been mentally ill is very questionable and subjective opinion.

It's nowhere near as mysterious or unscientific as you make it out to be. We're also a far far cry from the days of electroshocking and insane asylums and the effectiveness of medicine has come even farther.

[blackbird]

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

In meantime...you fundies don't really believe in mental illness do you? 

We are talking about the NCR as a defence in court for crimes like murder.

Check this article out:

"What psychiatrists still don't know about mental illness"

"

Anne Harrington puts it plainly: "We don't understand any major mental disorder biologically."  

The Harvard historian of science takes no pleasure in relating this surprising fact. She knows that people with depression, schizophrenia and bipolar conditions want better treatments for their symptoms. She also acknowledges that psychiatrists and researchers ARE "working hard to change that situation."

But her book, Mind Fixers: Psychiatry's Troubled Search for the Biology of Mental Illness, surveys a flawed medical field that has been unable to come to any clear consensus around the causes of — or cures for — mental illness. "

What psychiatrists still don't know about mental illness | CBC Radio

If psychiatrists don't know about mental illness, how can they be used in court to determine the guilt or innocence of an alleged murderer?

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's nowhere near as mysterious or unscientific as you make it out to be. We're also a far far cry from the days of electroshocking and insane asylums and the effectiveness of medicine has come even farther.

Hate to have to tell you, but the article I gave you says otherwise.  Psychiatry is a very doubtful and questionable practice.

[PIK]

I think i read that a biker in a case in a BC raid is claiming native status. His case is on hold,till they check it out. If so it could be a smaller sentence. Looking for link. Tru or not, should that be allowed?

[blackbird]

8 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes, I've noticed you're just about the most unforgiving Christian I've ever met. 

We're talking about the problem of the NCR.  If you think accusing me is a good argument go for it.   I don't believe murderers should get off because someone says they have mental problems.  Pretty simple but you don't get it.

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, herbie said:

So move to Texas and hold tailgate parties when they execute mentally challenged children.

Obviously mental impairment is just fakey and not a real thing, eh?

Should we ask the dead children how they feel about it? Ohh... wait....

He painted stuff on the wall with their blood. 

And they agreed to let him out on day parole in the same area his ex wife lives in - so she can bump into him while shopping or the like.  The guy who slaughtered her children in the most grotesque fashion. 

But as usual - you only give a shit about the criminal . Who cares if his wife has to live in trauma running into him on the streets? So what if a  few young children are dead? The IMPORTANT thing is HIS well being. 

What a piece of work you are.  Hope  your family gets slaughtered by a nut bar (Other than you) some day, we'll see how you feel about it then. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Hate to have to tell you, but the article I gave you says otherwise.  Psychiatry is a very doubtful and questionable practice.

She's certainly entitled to her opinions on the subject. Get back to us when judiciaries start using her work to rule that NCR rulings should be disallowed because psychiatry has everything wrong. In the meantime psychiatry has and is providing relief to millions upon millions of people around the world.

They also can't find the biological basis for conscious awareness so it's not surprising to me that the biological basis for some of the other things going on in peoples heads remains elusive as well. They're getting closer all the time though.

Check out neuroscientist Antonio Damasio's book The Feeling of What Happens.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

We're talking about the problem of the NCR.  If you think accusing me is a good argument go for it.   I don't believe murderers should get off because someone says they have mental problems.  Pretty simple but you don't get it.

Oh I certainly get that but I also get that an ancient supernatural belief informs most if not all of your thinking about this which on its own completely rules out your credibility on the topic. I mean, you made that patently clear when you said The idea that people are somehow mentally not responsible is an idea from the pit of hell, i.e. the work of Satan.

And I'm supposed to believe you truly don't believe in possession? Careful though, prove that and by the end of the day it'll be used as an NCR argument.

[herbie]

2 hours ago, PIK said:

I think i read that a biker in a case in a BC raid is claiming native status. His case is on hold,till they check it out. If so it could be a smaller sentence. Looking for link. Tru or not, should that be allowed?

Whataboutism.... we're not talking about that. This fella is claiming that if you're mentally unaware of right and wrong, you should still be tossed in jail.

Not that some people will try anything at all, but his likings don't matter for shit against the opinion of qualified professionals.
 

[CdnFox]

40 minutes ago, herbie said:

Whataboutism.... we're not talking about that. This fella is claiming that if you're mentally unaware of right and wrong, you should still be tossed in jail.

 

It's the same thing.  Natives claim that they are less responsible than a 'normal' person because their mental trauma causes them to commit crimes. 

This guy is saying he's not responsible because HIS mental health issues cause him to commit crimes. 

No matter with their reasoning or the source of their 'instability', the fact is a terrible crime was committed. I assume you'd at least agree with that much, that it's like really bad when children get brutally murdered and their organs are used to write things on the wall?

So while his illness can be taken into account, that crime still needs to be paid for.  AND - how can you ever be sure they won't 'relapse' and decide slaughering more children is a good idea?

 

[cougar]

14 hours ago, blackbird said:

 

Wow!  A guy who murdered his three kids is not a "high-risk offender"???  

So what is your problem?

He murdered his OWN three children that were likely going to turn out like him and maybe kill children of other families.

Then the no-criminally responsible do not walk free.  They are committed to an institution and often it is worse than jail time with no parole.

 

 

[Nefarious Banana]

9 minutes ago, cougar said:

So what is your problem?

He murdered his OWN three children that were likely going to turn out like him and maybe kill children of other families.

Then the no-criminally responsible do not walk free.  They are committed to an institution and often it is worse than jail time with no parole.

 

 

Ignorant attitude and post.

[cougar]

2 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Ignorant attitude and post.

Dumb red communist post, as it can be expected from you.  😃  Whip your bronco a little harder and F* off! 🤣