Jackablade on 6/3/2009 at 17:32
Quote Posted by Turtle
Try them in court, sentence them to time in an institution, under medical/psychological care and see how they are coping at the end of their term.
Isn't this essentially what happened, whether it involved a court or not?
Starrfall on 6/3/2009 at 17:41
Quote Posted by Thirith
Has there been any research into whether the death penalty provides closure for friends and family of victims? I'm asking because I'd assume that it doesn't, but I also know that this is my European pinko leftist bias talking rather than any actual knowledge.
Oh god let's not turn this into a death penalty thread. I think the family would have been happier (if not happy) if Li had been held responsible as a non-insane criminal, regardless of what the penalty ended up being. (I didn't watch the video though so maybe I'm wrong!) Anyways I thought canada didn't have a death penalty.
Quote Posted by Turtle
I still don't understand how mental illness should preclude someone from being tried in court.
It doesn't necessarily - generally speaking you can be competent to stand trial and still raise an insanity defense, and a mental illness doesn't automatically mean you're incompetent to stand trial. (For example maybe you have schizophrenia and committed a crime because goblins were telling you to, but by the time of trial you're being treated and are able to stand trial.) However a mental illness can raise a question as to the defendant's competency, and so the court would have a hearing to decide the issue. (Here anyways, dunno about canada) The hearing asks something like whether the defendant understands the nature of the proceedings and if he doesn't he's incompetent to stand trial. Then I think they get committed with the goal of getting them to a competent state so they can be tried later.
Volitions Advocate on 6/3/2009 at 18:10
No, there is no death penalty in Canada.
Unless of course your crime was commited when there was a death penalty, then even if your'e convicted tomorrow it can apply to you. Obviously this isn't the case.
I doubt the family wanted him dead, they just wanted him to take responsibility for what he did.
What i'm about to say is not verified by me.. yet.. I'll look into it because im a current events junky, especially when it's local like this one.
But according to my wife they found out that this guy's wife had no idea he was a pchizophrenic (how the hell do you spell that?) And that for the past several months he was taking greyhound trips no nowhere for no reason.
Maybe it's circumstantial, but that seems a little too coincidental to me.
Let's just hope that this guy, if he IS actually insane, that he'll get the help he needs, and that if he actually does rehabilitate people won't be out for his blood. I just hope he isn't faking it. Because it would take one cool, collected, and manipulative SOB to do all this stuff and get away with it.
Once again. I haven't verified the above story, so if somebody else has (or verified its not the truth) please go ahead and post it here to clear things up.
Turtle on 6/3/2009 at 18:23
I'm speaking of the people who are declared incompetent to stand trial.
Nicker on 6/3/2009 at 18:44
My understanding (from "expert" commentary on the CBC and elsewhere) is that this was the best verdict to keep him off the streets the longest. Because the prosecution and the defense agreed on his mental illness, the judge had limited choices, none of which involved a finding of criminal intent.
Nevertheless, this guy hasn't dodged a 15 year jail sentence, he's bought a real life sentence in a secure mental institution, with no automatic right to release or parole.
I am sure many of us would feel similarly to the family of the victim but that's one of the reasons we have laws and processes. I for one am glad we have a dispassionate method for assessing guilt, innocence and punishment. Lynch mobs are uglier than any criminal they might hang.
Starrfall on 6/3/2009 at 19:03
Quote Posted by Turtle
I'm speaking of the people who are declared incompetent to stand trial.
In that case it's because we recognize due process and that means you can't try someone who's incompetent. Incompetent to stand trial means something very specific - that the defendant does NOT have the "sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" or "a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.'" (I looked it up)
How on earth would you try and convict someone who meets that standard? How would you even accept their plea? How would you be able to accept their testimony? How are they supposed to meaningfully exercise the right to confront their accusers? How can they make the decisions that parties have to make in litigation? It'd be a joke and any prosecutor who's not a total douchebag would never go through with it anyways.
The way we do it now they're still probably going to end up in an institution, but they'll have the due process protections that come with involuntary commitment and they won't have to deal with all the consequences of having a criminal conviction imposed upon them.
jtr7 on 6/3/2009 at 19:12
Quote Posted by Ulukai
Thing is, though, I'm not convinced one iota that any of us can predict how we would act or feel if it was our loved one missing a head, no matter how holier-than-thou we may feel posting about it on the Internet.
Correct.
AR Master on 6/3/2009 at 20:05
hey i dont have time to read this thread but has anyone explained how this is society's fault yet
Turtle on 6/3/2009 at 20:07
Quote Posted by Starrfall
The way we do it now they're still probably going to end up in an institution, but they'll have the due process protections that come with involuntary commitment and they won't have to deal with all the consequences of having a criminal conviction imposed upon them.
I guess I'm not familiar enough with this part of the system to know what the decisions usually are against mentally incompetent people.
Are they placed into institutions for a set amount of time, or until they're "better", at which point they face charges?
Or maybe they're institutionalized indefinitely and forgotten about.
AR Master on 6/3/2009 at 20:14
They're "treated" in a facitility and their case is reviewed every year so the parents of this guy have to go to this place to plead their case on why he shouldn't be released. Should the board determine some year down the road that he's no longer a threat, he'll be released back into society with no criminal record.
More likely what will happen is that he'll never be granted "parole" and be rejected every year until he dies in the padded room. Were he ever to be released he wouldn't be able to make one step without the Canadian media reporting on every detail of it (until he sues them for "human rights" violations and wins millions of dollars)
