New legislation designed to keep mentally ill murderers - Your opinion is???????


Goober
+1
#1
Stephen Harper tears up over bill to keep mentally ill murderers in prison longer | Canadian Politics | Canada | News | National Post

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle8404428/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle8388921/


OTTAWA – New legislation designed to keep mentally ill murderers like Greyhound bus passenger beheader Vince Li and child killer Allan Schoenborn off the streets for longer periods, if not indefinitely, is raising concerns this is little more than a knee-jerk reaction to a few sensational, albeit rare, cases.

Bill C-54, the “Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act” will create a “high risk” designation for those deemed not criminally responsible for committing a particularly brutal offence or one that resulted in a serious personal injury that raises the likelihood of further violence.

Those given the high-risk designation will be barred from obtaining a conditional or absolute discharge that would allow them to live freely in the community, and the designation can only be revoked by the courts on the recommendation of a provincial or territorial mental health review board.

“We are giving the courts the powers they need to keep those deemed too dangerous to be released where they should be — in custody,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said at a news conference Friday in British Columbia, shortly after the bill was tabled in the House of Commons.

The bill will not change the Criminal Code criteria used to exempt an individual of criminal responsibility because of a mental disorder, nor will it affect someone’s access to treatment, he said.

The provisions will, however, be retroactive – which means if passed, they could apply to people such as Li, who decapitated fellow passenger Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus in Manitoba in 2008, and Schoenborn, who killed his three children in Merritt, B.C., the same year. Both were found not criminally responsible due to mental health problems and Crown prosecutors may be able to make a case to apply the new rules to them as long as both remain institutionalized.
 
lone wolf
+2
#2
Once upon a time there used to be places to keep the criminally insane
 
CDNBear
+4
#3
Ya.

They were called cellars and attics.
 
lone wolf
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Ya.

They were called cellars and attics.

One was on Thibault Hill - North Bay Psych - which has been "rationalized" out of existence
 
CDNBear
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

One was on Thibault Hill - North Bay Psych - which has been "rationalized" out of existence

I heard that's because the criminally insane still have rights.

Something along the same line as a womans right to choose.
 
Sal
#6
Quote:

raising concerns this is little more than a knee-jerk reaction to a few sensational, albeit rare, cases.

just because it is a knee-jerk reaction, doesn't mean it is wrong.

Quote:

Bill C-54, the “Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act” will create a “high risk” designation for those deemed not criminally responsible for committing a particularly brutal offence or one that resulted in a serious personal injury that raises the likelihood of further violence.

People that should never see sunlight except from behind bars will now be on the right side of them. These are not people who can be redeemed in most cases due to mental illness which has precipitated a heinous act demonstrating they are a danger to society.

How is this a problem? For whom would this be a problem?
 
CDNBear
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

How is this a problem? For whom would this be a problem?

Mental health and human rights activists?
 
Liberalman
-1
#8
To the Conservative government sterilization is still an option. To the PMO it’s all about their strong grip on their caucus.
.
.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#9
This sounds reasonable. They may be not guilty by reason of insanity but it doesn't mean they need to be free on the streets.
 
Sal
+2
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Mental health and human rights activists?

Really, why?

I consider myself to be for mental health and human rights.

They need to be contained for the good of society not out among us. I don't believe they should be tortured or punished as it would do no good. But they can not walk among us for our good and for their good.

So where does that break down? I seriously don't see it?
 
gerryh
+6
#11  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Stephen Harper tears up over bill to keep mentally ill murderers in prison longer | Canadian Politics | Canada | News | National Post
Prime Minister chokes up over Schoenborn
Ottawa to toughen rules for offenders found not criminally responsible - The Globe and Mail
OTTAWA – New legislation designed to keep mentally ill murderers like Greyhound bus passenger beheader Vince Li and child killer Allan Schoenborn off the streets for longer periods, if not indefinitely, is raising concerns this is little more than a knee-jerk reaction to a few sensational, albeit rare, cases.
Bill C-54, the “Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act” will create a “high risk” designation for those deemed not criminally responsible for committing a particularly brutal offence or one that resulted in a serious personal injury that raises the likelihood of further violence.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post

I'm sure this will shock some. Kudos to Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.
 
lone wolf
+3
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

I'm sure this will shock some. Kudos to Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.

Sometimes, Harpo does act in the interests of real people. This is one of them.
 
karrie
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

I heard that's because the criminally insane still have rights.

Something along the same line as a womans right to choose.


I think there needs to be a balance in cases like the one Harper is highlighting here. There is so much doubt, in so many people's minds, as to his mental state at the time. And his mental state in the future. I don't think it's unfair to take a harder look at cases like his, and find a way to find a balance.
 
taxslave
+1
#14
While it may be unfortunate but some people just have to be locked up forever to protect the rest of the population and themselves. The only other option would be to execute them.
 
damngrumpy
#15
The old days saw the criminally insane incarcerated for their protection and the
protection of society. If someone is not capable of being responsible for their actions,
they should not be running loose in the community. A person who is violent is not
subject to the constitution, as criminal activity trumps the constitution.
The real reason Harper does not want to go that far is because the medical costs for
the insane or mentally stressed would drive costs through the roof.
Yes people do have the right to sleep under bridges, but the treatment they have now
received from all governments is appalling.
 
petros
+1
#16
Nothing really changes. All it amounts to is a form of parole and labeling to appease the afraid.
 
SLM
+4
#17
You know what concerns me about this? Not that certain individuals like the two mentioned in the article would be kept under much tighter constraints and not allowed to roam freely within the community, because I do think that should happen. They shouldn't be free in that sense. Nor does it trouble me that this does actual damage to all those with mental illness, it won't. Let's face it, the mentally ill that get the best of the best treatment are these guys. So no worries, society as a whole will continue to step over the homeless rambling guy on the street corner. That is until he pulls a knife and cuts off someone's head, if he does. Until such a time, he will continue to remain invisible.

No, what bother's me is that people like the two mentioned in the article will become the poster children for mental illness. The media will perpetuate this, it'll make for good copy. There will be a lot of hand wringing done over our treatment of the mentally ill, using our continued incarceration of subject one and subject two as the main talking points. It will be another black and white, all or nothing issue. And in the meantime the rambling homeless guy on the corner remains on the corner, suffering and ignored.

So no, Vince Li should not ever be allowed to roam freely. Although his illness may be no fault of his own, it has already been established what tragedy can happen when he's allowed to roam freely, unsupervised and unmedicated. There has to be a middle ground between locking someone up for the rest of their lives and simply allowing them to be released. And if this bill is a step towards establishing a balance between the two, then I will support it.
 
petros
+2
#18
Quote:

Let's face it, the mentally ill that get the best of the best treatment are these guys.

Far from it. Forensic Units are the least of the least.
 
SLM
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Far from it. Forensic Units are the least of the least.

These high profile cases? Really? The average unknown mentally ill inmate, sure. But just like these guys, due to their infamy and contrary to their bank balances, seem to somehow retain the best of the best in legal representation, I'd be willing to bet that they get the psychiatric opinions of the top psychiatrists too. At some point or another at least.
 
JLM
#20
I think the sad reality is these people can never be fully trusted. There should definitely be an institution besides prison available for them as in many cases it is not their fault. I heard some expert????????????? remarking on the nut from Merritt who murdered his 3 children that there is a 93% chance he'll never reoffend. Well, thank you very much but I sure don't want anyone in my community who has a 7% chance of killiing some one..............it's bad enough we have people like that that we don't know without having anyone we can identify.
 
petros
+1
#21
Legal aid is best of the best?

The top shrinks don't work in Forensics Units.

As it stands, if someone is busted for anything and sent to a Forensics Unit they have to meet the same criteria in their provincial health review as a murder does to get released.

A sentence to a Forensics Unit is indefinite, there is no time limit or minimum.

When you're no longer loopy, you're free to go.

Keep in mind the screw ball on he bus was one of those people who stopped taking meds and went into "discontinuation syndrome". He won't get out because he didn't follow through on treatment prior. He is incurable.

The Dr guy didn't have a case history of loopiness, he deep ended and then snapped out of it which does happen. He is no threat.

You have to be genuine loopy to get a sentence to the forensics units and genuine rehabilitated to get out. You can't fake it.
 
JLM
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post


No, what bother's me is that people like the two mentioned in the article will become the poster children for mental illness. The media will perpetuate this, it'll make for good copy. There will be a lot of hand wringing done over our treatment of the mentally ill, using our continued incarceration of subject one and subject two as the main talking points. It will be another black and white, all or nothing issue. And in the meantime the rambling homeless guy on the corner remains on the corner, suffering and ignored.

So no, Vince Li should not ever be allowed to roam freely. Although his illness may be no fault of his own, it has already been established what tragedy can happen when he's allowed to roam freely, unsupervised and unmedicated. There has to be a middle ground between locking someone up for the rest of their lives and simply allowing them to be released. And if this bill is a step towards establishing a balance between the two, then I will support it.

Absolutely, I'd venture to say that 90% of the mentally ill are absolutely harmless as far as other people are concerned. These aren't the folks that Harper was addressing.

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

The old days saw the criminally insane incarcerated for their protection and the
protection of society. If someone is not capable of being responsible for their actions,
they should not be running loose in the community. A person who is violent is not
subject to the constitution, as criminal activity trumps the constitution.
The real reason Harper does not want to go that far is because the medical costs for
the insane or mentally stressed would drive costs through the roof.
Yes people do have the right to sleep under bridges, but the treatment they have now
received from all governments is appalling.

Absolutely, society is soon going to have to make a big decision, the population is aging, fewer people are working, more people are physically and mentally ill, so the day is fast approaching where we have to make a decision about which ones to save and which ones to let go. Of course it's not just limited this is but will affect all aspects of services to people. As it goes right now the situation is just running us further into debt that we don't have a chance in Hell of ever paying off. Which politician is going to have the guts to make the decision and report it to the people?
 
Sal
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpyView Post

The old days saw the criminally insane incarcerated for their protection and the
protection of society. If someone is not capable of being responsible for their actions,
they should not be running loose in the community. A person who is violent is not
subject to the constitution, as criminal activity trumps the constitution.
The real reason Harper does not want to go that far is because the medical costs for
the insane or mentally stressed would drive costs through the roof.

Yes people do have the right to sleep under bridges, but the treatment they have now
received from all governments is appalling.

I am confused about what Harper does not want to go for?

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Absolutely, society is soon going to have to make a big decision, the population is aging, fewer people are working, more people are physically and mentally ill, so the day is fast approaching where we have to make a decision about which ones to save and which ones to let go. Of course it's not just limited this is but will affect all aspects of services to people. As it goes right now the situation is just running us further into debt that we don't have a chance in Hell of ever paying off. Which politician is going to have the guts to make the decision and report it to the people?

Which situation JLM?
 
CDNBear
+2
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

Really, why?

I consider myself to be for mental health and human rights.

You're not an activist.

Quote:

They need to be contained for the good of society not out among us. I don't believe they should be tortured or punished as it would do no good. But they can not walk among us for our good and for their good.

Some people think confinement is torture.

Quote:

So where does that break down? I seriously don't see it?

Extremist ends.

Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

I think there needs to be a balance in cases like the one Harper is highlighting here. There is so much doubt, in so many people's minds, as to his mental state at the time. And his mental state in the future. I don't think it's unfair to take a harder look at cases like his, and find a way to find a balance.

Bingo!

But unfortunately we always miss balance on our way from one extreme to the other.
 
Sal
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

You're not an activist.

Some people think confinement is torture.

Extremist ends.

Bingo!

But unfortunately we always miss balance on our way from one extreme to the other.

Well let's wait a week then and they shall hit the media. I will be really disappointed if people do go all paranoid and extreme about this. We have had too much recent tragedy to the south of us where they have let people out and they either go on a killing spree or they have been caught just prior to it, armed to the teeth.

LOL on extremes...I just posted that in another thread...where did camp middle go?
 
JLM
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

I am confused about what Harper does not want to go for?

Which situation JLM?

The demands on the taxpayer to provide for all the services people demand.
 
CDNBear
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

Well let's wait a week then and they shall hit the media. I will be really disappointed if people do go all paranoid and extreme about this. We have had too much recent tragedy to the south of us where they have let people out and they either go on a killing spree or they have been caught just prior to it, armed to the teeth.

You see, that the problem. We need to address these type of issues without the influence of horrific events.

These issues need to be examined and dealt with while not emotionally impacted.

Quote:

LOL on extremes...I just posted that in another thread...where did camp middle go?

There are to many extremists. Of which you have never been. I would imagine with your training and chosen field of work, you have learned how to reach realistic compromises, without the detrimental influence of media hyperbole.
 
Sal
+2
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

The demands on the taxpayer to provide for all the services people demand.

Well it's about priority. If we could clean up the bleed from the top and tighten things in where needed, I do believe there would be enough money to provide decent health care (mental and physical) and provide for those who need a hand up.

The waste is appalling and self perpetuating and runs through all parties.

One of the first examples off the top of my head involves budgeting in a government work environment. What genius decided the budget runs thus: here's $100.00 for the year. At the end of the year if you don't spend your $100. I am going to claw it back for next year. However should you spend $110. you mustn't be receiving sufficient funds, therefore I will give you $120. At the end of the year its a race to spend. WTF

Who thinks like that?
 
SLM
+3
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post


But unfortunately we always miss balance on our way from one extreme to the other.

That's because, I think, change is pendulum. Change is really not flip flopping, although it may seem that way when we look at the extreme ends of it. But it moves back and forth, like a pendulum swinging. When it swings too far in one direction, we react to that and pull it back. But I like to think that we don't pull it back quite as far as where it initially started out. Maybe it's just the optimist in me, you know, the one that's buried deep, deep down inside, lol.

Balance will come. We, humans, are feeling and thinking animals. We can and do learn. It just takes us a really, really long time with some things.
 
JLM
+1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

Well it's about priority. If we could clean up the bleed from the top and tighten things in where needed, I do believe there would be enough money to provide decent health care (mental and physical) and provide for those who need a hand up.

The waste is appalling and self perpetuating and runs through all parties.

One of the first examples off the top of my head involves budgeting in a government work environment. What genius decided the budget runs thus: here's $100.00 for the year. At the end of the year if you don't spend your $100. I am going to claw it back for next year. However should you spend $110. you mustn't be receiving sufficient funds, therefore I will give you $120. At the end of the year its a race to spend. WTF

Who thinks like that?

Yep, I think that ties in with what I've been saying all along about reducing the number of bureaucrats. Of course it's never going to happen but we need the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet in charge of Government. But possibly more people with a business degree and fewer with a legal degree could be steered into politics. -
 

Similar Threads

0
Newly designed $100 bills stolen
by Locutus | Oct 13th, 2012
11
New Engine Designed, Runs on Water
by TenPenny | Jun 15th, 2010
0
An Intelligently Designed Teacher STORY
by jimmoyer | Oct 10th, 2005
1
Canadian Designed Saddam's SUPERGUNS!
by JidoSpod | Nov 3rd, 2002
no new posts