Calgary man found not criminally responsible in double murder

[Locutus]

"heard voices"

anyway...

CALGARY - Derek Puffer was "possessed by voices" when he killed radio legend Bill Powers and his wife, Donna Lee Powers, and can not be held criminally responsible, a judge ruled Friday.

Justice Kristine Eidsvik said Puffer neither appreciated the nature and quality of his actions, nor knew what he was doing was morally wrong, when he fatally stabbed the couple.

"Mr. Puffer was very ill on July 4, 2013," Eidsvik said of the date the confessed killer took the lives of his adoptive mom and stepdad.

"He heard voices commanding him to do a variety of irrational (things) including stabbing his mother and stepfather ... which he did," Eidsvik noted, in agreeing with defence lawyer Alain Hepner the accused could not be held criminally responsible."

She said it was clear Puffer believed if he didn't follow the orders to stab his parents he would be killed by the voices in his head.

"If he didn't obey he felt that the voices would kill him through a chip in his brain," she said of Puffer's delusional belief he was the victim of a mind-control experiment.

"Mr. Puffer was possessed by voices who would kill him if he did not obey," Eidsvik said.

The Calgary Court of Queen's Bench judge said Puffer had been an untreated schizophrenic for years, having stopped taking his medications after his diagnosis in 1995.

And the judge said Calgarians should not be angered Puffer will not be jailed on two counts of second-degree murder.

"It would be unfair ... in a democratic society to impose the consequence and stigma of criminal responsibility on an accused who did not voluntarily commit an act."

Puffer will be sent to the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatry Centre to await a hearing before a review board to determine his future care.

Sun News : Calgary man found not criminally responsible in double murder

 

[SLM]

Cripes. You know what? I get it. Severe mental illness, it does happen, I get the disease illness part vs criminal responsibility part.

But don't pump him full of meds, pronounce him 'all better' and take out for a double double in 6 months for crying out loud! Until they can adequately assure the public that all really is better, don't give him the opportunity to go off his meds and do this again. Help him, by all means, but don't make someone else potentially pay for it with their life.

Argh. Rant over.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

The Calgary Court of Queen's Bench judge said Puffer had been an untreated schizophrenic for years, having stopped taking his medications after his diagnosis in 1995.

And the judge said Calgarians should not be angered Puffer will not be jailed on two counts of second-degree murder.

"It would be unfair ... in a democratic society to impose the consequence and stigma of criminal responsibility on an accused who did not voluntarily commit an act."

Puffer will be sent to the Southern Alberta Forensic Psychiatry Centre to await a hearing before a review board to determine his future care

Yet we can not legally make him take his meds. When they put him in the nuthouse as he no doubt will be, he will be given his meds and will be all goody and will be pronounced cured. Then he will be released and told to take his meds. And he won't since he won't be forced (again) and will kill somebody else. Rinse and repeat.

Why wouldn't Albertans be angered?

 

[shadowshiv]

And it goes on and on. I don't care if you were "insane" at the time of the crimes. The fact remains that you killed people, and you should still do the time.

 

[JLM]

And it goes on and on. I don't care if you were "insane" at the time of the crimes. The fact remains that you killed people, and you should still do the time.

Well, I agree the culprit should do the time BUT I think it's important he/she "does the time" in the right place. Are traditional prisons equipped to rehabilitate nut cases? (Glad to see some sensible posts on the forum)

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

And it goes on and on. I don't care if you were "insane" at the time of the crimes. The fact remains that you killed people, and you should still do the time.

There's an old hypothetical from Talmudic law on the subject of responsibility. It goes like this: If a man is working on his roof and he slips, falls, and in the process accidentally falls on and penetrates his neighbour's wife, he is guilty of adultery.

This is the absolutist view. The idea is that the act must be punished regardless of anything.

By contrast, systems that descend from the English common law generally apply some variation of the M'Noughton standard: a person is not guilty of a crime if he did not understand what he was doing, or if understanding what he was doing, he was under an irresistable compulsion that deprived him of free will.

Which of these do you prefer? Or do you have some other standard?

 

[JLM]

There's an old hypothetical from Talmudic law on the subject of responsibility. It goes like this: If a man is working on his roof and he slips, falls, and in the process accidentally falls on and penetrates his neighbour's wife, he is guilty of adultery.

This is the absolutist view. The idea is that the act must be punished regardless of anything.

By contrast, systems that descend from the English common law generally apply some variation of the M'Noughton standard: a person is not guilty of a crime if he did not understand what he was doing, or if understanding what he was doing, he was under an irresistable compulsion that deprived him of free will.

Which of these do you prefer? Or do you have some other standard?

I would say his neighbour should be charged with trespassing!

 

[shadowshiv]

There's an old hypothetical from Talmudic law on the subject of responsibility. It goes like this: If a man is working on his roof and he slips, falls, and in the process accidentally falls on and penetrates his neighbour's wife, he is guilty of adultery.

This is the absolutist view. The idea is that the act must be punished regardless of anything.

By contrast, systems that descend from the English common law generally apply some variation of the M'Noughton standard: a person is not guilty of a crime if he did not understand what he was doing, or if understanding what he was doing, he was under an irresistable compulsion that deprived him of free will.

Which of these do you prefer? Or do you have some other standard?

I prefer the one where he doesn't get let out in a couple of years with the potential to do it all over again. He killed two people, there is nothing hypothetical about that.

 

[El Barto]

I prefer the one where he doesn't get let out in a couple of years with the potential to do it all over again. He killed two people, there is nothing hypothetical about that.

Video game ptsd ?

 

[Sal]

I can't find anything in the article to suggest in anyway that buddy will be out and about shortly.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I prefer the one where he doesn't get let out in a couple of years with the potential to do it all over again. He killed two people, there is nothing hypothetical about that.

Which is essentially saying you don't have a standard other than "T'aint raht, gol-dangit!"

OK, thanks.

 

[Cannuck]

Yet we can not legally make him take his meds.

Yes we can

And it goes on and on. I don't care if you were "insane" at the time of the crimes. The fact remains that you killed people, and you should still do the time.

Of course. Ill people should all be held accountable and responsible for their illness.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Of course. Ill people should all be held accountable and responsible for their illness.

Damn right! If we kill everybody who's HIV positive, or might could have ebola, and all the crazies, the rest of us'll be a lot safer.

Cut down on emissions, too, so there's an added benefit. It's a twofer!

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Yes we can

I call bull on this. There are countless examples of guys who have been given meds and who do something crazy because they stopped. The guy on the Greyhound a couple years back is example that comes immediatly to mind.

 

[shadowshiv]

Which is essentially saying you don't have a standard other than "T'aint raht, gol-dangit!"

OK, thanks.

Sure, essentially say whatever you think I meant. It's no skin off my back either way.

 

[Cannuck]

I call bull on this...

Oh...well....I guess I must be wrong then....carry on.