Canada judge: Man not responsible for beheading

[Manedwolf]

First they take away the means to defend from this sort of thing. And then there's no justice, either.

Nice place, Canada.

WINNIPEG, Manitoba (AP) - A Canadian judge ruled Thursday that a man accused of beheading and cannibalizing a fellow Greyhound bus passenger is not criminally responsible due to mental illness.

The decision means Chinese immigrant Vince Li will be treated in a mental institution instead of going to prison. The family of victim Tim McLean dismissed the trial as a "rubber stamp" that allows Li to get away with murder.

"A crime was still committed here, a murder still occurred," said Carol deDelley, McLean's mother. "There was nobody else on that bus holding a knife, slicing up my child."

The judge said Li should not be held criminally accountable for stabbing McLean dozens of times last July and dismembering his body while horrified passengers fled.

Justice John Scurfield said Li's attack was "grotesque" and "barbaric" but "strongly suggestive of a mental disorder."

"He did not appreciate the actions he committed were morally wrong. He believed he was acting in self-defense," Scurfield said.

Both the prosecution and the defense argued Li can't be held responsible because Li was suffering from schizophrenia and believed God wanted him to kill McLean because the young man was a force of evil.

He will be institutionalized without a criminal record and will be reassessed every year by a mental health review board to determine if he is fit for release into the community.

DeDelley said a yearly hearing is ridiculous, and that Li should be locked up for the rest of his life.

Li's trial barely lasted two days and only heard from two witnesses, both psychiatrists, who testified he is mentally ill.

That Li killed the 22-year-old carnival worker was never in question at the trial. Li has admitted he killed McLean but pleaded not guilty.

Witnesses said Li attacked McLean unprovoked as their bus traveled at night along a desolate stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway.

An agreed statement of facts between the prosecution and defense detailed how passengers stood outside the bus as Li stabbed McLean dozens of times and beheaded and mutilated his body. Finding himself locked inside the bus, Li finally escaped through a window and was arrested.

Li then apologized and pleaded with police to kill him.

Police said McLean's body parts were found throughout the bus in plastic bags, and the victim's ear, nose and tongue were found in Li's pocket.

A psychiatrist called by the prosecution Wednesday testified that Li cut up McLean's body because he believed that he would come back to life and take revenge.

McLean's family is vowing to turn their attention to fighting the law that allows people who are found not criminally responsible to be released into the community once they are deemed well, without serving a minimum sentence in jail.

DeDelley said her son didn't die in vain. His death highlights concerns about the justice system, she said.

"Now people are aware that there is a problem," she said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96O0PAO0&show_article=1

I can honestly say that if I was one of the police there, I would have emptied the mag at the guy as he tried to come out the window. No chance of survival. End. That's not mental illness. That's evil.

[Iain]

Yeah there's no justice.

A paranoid schizophrenic should definitely be treated as though he isn't a paranoid schizophrenic.

Or in the real world - he's not going anywhere for a very long time, and that is quite correct. He's dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is responsible.

[Strings]

Umm... slightly different tack here.

If he was "mentally unwell" enough to preform the described attack, then he shouldn't be in society. For the good of society, he SHOULD be executed: humanely, quickly, and as painlessly as possible.

 You don't pet a rabid dog, nor do you try and "cure" it. You destroy it, to end it's misery and protect society as a whole.

 I feel no rancor towards Li, but society DOES need to be protected here. And that's best accomplished by ending that threat (and granting him his wish).

 What happens when he's out again? And trust me, he will be...

[Iain]

Or let's deal with the mentally ill as human beings and maybe pay attention to them before this kind of thing happens, or they kill themselves or whatever.

Mentally ill human beings are not rabid dogs.

[Manedwolf]

Or let's deal with the mentally ill as human beings and maybe pay attention to them before this kind of thing happens, or they kill themselves or whatever.

Mentally ill human beings are not rabid dogs.

You're gonna have fuuuuun in the next few decades over there...

Some people just need deleting. That's all there is to it.

[Iain]

Some people need to get less worked up about subjects they can't back their opinions up on, other than some poor snipe at the UK. That's all there is to it.

Let's have more about how you'd have shot him.

edited - with your edit we're back into your little fantasy as just predicted.

[Manedwolf]

Some people need to get less worked up about subjects they can't back their opinions up on, other than some poor snipe at the UK. That's all there is to it.

Let's have more about how you'd have shot him.

Let me ask you this, Iain. In a public place, you see a "mentally ill" sort who has not just killed someone, but is cutting them to pieces and eating parts. They're obviously the human equivalent of a rabid animal. They do not notice you at all, but there's other people wandering nearby that they could go after next, even kids. You have a handgun with a laser. Their back is to you.

What would you do?

[Manedwolf]

Fantasy?

FANTASY?

It's a reality, Iain. Bad things happen in the world. Bad things.

It's why I have a weapon. It's why I train with it. It's why I'm aware of backstops, and ballistics, and all that sort of thing. So I can stop a threat to myself or innocent people if I need to without harming bystanders.

I'm guessing you just don't understand that.

I remember a few months ago, there was a gang of chavs smashing in the windows of a High Street jeweler there. Nobody did a damned thing. People backed away, let them do it. Except for an elderly WWII vet. He stepped up and took one of them down with a "disabling move" he had remembered from the service, the rest fled.

Says a lot. What have you lost?

Something to think about. "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."

Oh, and by the way? Don't you ever DARE call it a "fantasy" again. It's something I hope I never have to do, EVER. But it's something I would if I had to.

[Iain]

Keep your capitals to yourself, and don't try and browbeat me with your hysterical rantings.

You're the one who said that he would have offed the guy given a chance, who presented me with some sort of 'get away scot-free' scenario for killing someone. If you wanted me to answer that question you wouldn't have phrased it in that way, because you know full well there is a big difference between killing to save a life right then and there and engaging in some Judge Manedwolf scenario.

[Manedwolf]

Keep your capitals to yourself, and don't try and browbeat me with your hysterical rantings.

You're the one who said that he would have offed the guy given a chance, who presented me with some sort of 'get away scot-free' scenario for killing someone. If you wanted me to answer that question you wouldn't have phrased it in that way, because you know full well there is a big difference between killing to save a life right then and there and engaging in some Judge Manedwolf scenario.

I find it very telling that you're far more concerned with the rights of the criminally insane attacker, and haven't mentioned the victim that he ate at all.

[Perd Hapley]

Or let's deal with the mentally ill as human beings and maybe pay attention to them before this kind of thing happens, or they kill themselves or whatever.

Mentally ill human beings are not rabid dogs.

Agreed.  Humans should be executed when they do that sort of thing. 

[Manedwolf]

Or let's deal with the mentally ill as human beings and maybe pay attention to them before this kind of thing happens, or they kill themselves or whatever.

And let me ask you this, Iain. What does that mean, precisely?

Raise taxes for more "care" for the mentally ill? Be our brother's keeper for people we don't know?

Why am I responsible for making sure that someone sitting on a bus doesn't freak out and kill and start eating someone? Why is society responsible for that? Why are people burdened with an obligation to "pay attention to" people who might become psychotic murderers, especially strangers?

Answer? They aren't. Not unless government gets in their wallet to "help", against their will.

But they can, of their own free will, with tools they're allowed by our Constitution, quickly put down anyone who decides to commit such an antisocial and heinous act in their presence, to defend their fellow innocents.

[MillCreek]

Speaking for myself, I have no problems paying taxes to care for the mentally ill, or having mentally ill offenders confined to a secure medical facility.  Executing someone who has been adjudged mentally ill, and the illness was the the cause of the offense, strikes me as barbaric.  We are better than that as a people, and as a species.

Perhaps it is my experience in healthcare, but I am very aware of how just a small change in our neurochemistry makes the difference between sanity and madness.

[AZRedhawk44]

Speaking for myself, I have no problems paying taxes to care for the mentally ill, or having mentally ill offenders confined to a secure medical facility.  Executing someone who has been adjudged mentally ill, and the illness was the the cause of the offense, strikes me as barbaric.  We are better than that as a people, and as a species.

Perhaps it is my experience in healthcare, but I am very aware of how just a small change in our neurochemistry makes the difference between sanity and madness.

Not just taxed (excessively, IMO)... but also intruded upon for mental health evaluations.

If the government is going to tax, then they are going to act in some manner.  If the tax is to protect us from crazies and the purpose is so we don't have to gat them down on the bus before eating us, then logic dictates we are going to get "probed" somehow, repeatedly, by our tax dollars.  Just to attempt to catch the 0.001% crazies.

No thanks.  I'm with Maned.  Keep your probes and questions and shrinks and evaluations, I'll keep my .45 on my hip and shoot cannibals.  Cheaper, less intrusion on liberty, and frankly it's more reliable than relying on the efficiency and accuracy of government workers.

[Strings]

You have someone who has demonstrated a mental illness that not only made them attack an innocent man, but mutilate and (if I understand correctly) start to eat him. And you say execution of this individual is "barbaric"?

This is not someone who's a lil' depressed here: this is a clear and present danger to society at large. How long before he's released as "cured"? What happens when he misses his meds? Who has to deal with the mess then?

I'm not advocating execution of everyone with a slight imbalance to their bodily chemistry. I AM suggesting that removing such a threat from society is the best way to proceed.

 Housing them in a "secure mental facility" will only work as long as he's kept there. And there have been many (FAR too many) who get released, only to cause more trouble down the road. Because we don't want to be labeled "barbaric".

 Case in MA. Sexual predator, been in the system as an offender since he was a young teen. Released (IIRC, against doctor's reccomendations), dodged supervision (which is NOT hard), and ended up molesting a young boy IN THE PUBLIC LIBRARY.

 Because we're not "barbaric".

 Recall an interview with a prison psychologist, who had (at the time) been with the system for 30 years. When asked how many sexual offenders had been "rehabilitated", he answered "none".

 These people are considered "mentally unstable". They're a threat to society. But we won't execute them, for fear of the label "barbarian". Because we're "more advanced than that".

 People, having dealt (directly) with people who are mentally unstable, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and accept the label "barbarian". If prefering to remove such a clear and present danger from society makes me "barbaric", fine.

 But I'll bet that you'll sleep better at night, knowing that "barbarians" like me are willing to take that hit, so that "more civilized" folks like yourselves don't have to worry about getting et (or having your children raped, or sold into slavery, or...)

[Hawkmoon]

Aside from the fact this guy may eventaully go free and not even have a criminal record, even though he committed a capital crime, I can't buy the whole verdict. If he was so psycho that he allegedly "didn't know it was wrong" to kill the kid -- why did he say he was sorry and ask the police to kill him?

IMHO he did know what he had done, and he did know it was wrong, and he beat the rap with a psycho plea.

Nothing new here, nothing to get excited about, move along please, just keep moving ...

[BridgeRunner]

If he was so psycho that he allegedly "didn't know it was wrong" to kill the kid -- why did he say he was sorry and ask the police to kill him?

Agreed.  I've got nothing against insanity pleas, but I suspect that applying it in this case is a bit of a stretch.  I guess it depends on the standard for determining insanity.  In the US, in most jurisdictions, I understand that the standard is pretty stringent. 

[MechAg94]

I think this is a text book example of why a whole lot of people do not like insanity pleas. 

IMO, your mental state should not completely absolve you of responsibility for your actions.  IMO, he should get sentenced.  If he is later pronounced cured, he should be transferred to prison for the remainder of the sentence.  We can debate on whether the death penalty should apply, but I don't he should get out of punishment completely.  IMO, it is a matter of justice for the victim and the victim's family. 

[MechAg94]

I was trying to remember if this guy had been on medication before this or not, but can't remember if that came up in the original article.  It got me thinking though. 

How is not taking your meds for a known disorder any different from a drunk driver choosing to drive drunk?  I'm sure there is a difference under the law, but should there be?  Drunk drivers who kill people are treated pretty harshly by the law in most cases. 

[MillCreek]

Some interesting FAQs on the insanity defense: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html

I think that the 'guilty but mentally ill' concept is interesting.  The problem is that most such inmates sentenced under this sort of verdict usually don't receive meaningful psychiatric treatment in prison.  And if they are mentally ill, shouldn't they? 

[Ryan in Maine]

Well, I'm thinking of it like this:
- Is this a guy who could have been helped by a prescription to an antidepressant, a benzo, or a mood stabilizer?
- Is this a guy who could have been helped by talking it out with a shrink?
- If I was about to be assaulted would I pause to ask if they were mentally stable? Would I care?
- Does someone capable of committing such an act by any means deserve to exist among us?

The answer to all those questions is no as far as I'm concerned.

The crime was severe. Someone like that is a liability in society and beyond the help of modern sciences.

I'm all for helping those who can be helped, but that's not the situation in this case.  

[MechAg94]

Some interesting FAQs on the insanity defense: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html

I think that the 'guilty but mentally ill' concept is interesting.  The problem is that most such inmates sentenced under this sort of verdict usually don't receive meaningful psychiatric treatment in prison.  And if they are mentally ill, shouldn't they? 

That is a good question about proper treatment.  I'm sure you could also say that many normal prisoners don't get meaningful rehabilitation.  It doesn't mean I want to let them out. 

Anyway, I am not really saying he should be treated in a prison or not, I just think that if he is treated and found to be cured, he should go to prison to finish his time, not be let go as if the crime never happened. 

[Manedwolf]

- Is this a guy who could have been helped by a prescription to an antidepressant, a benzo, or a mood stabilizer?

There's an interesting new theory on unguided use of antidepressants, a sort of ironic one, too. It applies to the sorts of docs that just throw some pills at the patient and tell them to come back next month.

The idea is that while the antidepressant is not enough to cure the depression, it is just enough to get the person moving from absolute inaction to just enough action to do something drastic to "end it all"...like a massacre.

Sort of like a plane sitting on the runway, vs one that's given not enough power to get into the air, but just enough to fireball.

If that's true, that ought to be looked at more. Because "on antidepressants" has indeed been a universal constant of the recent massacres, and this just didn't happen before the Age of the Pill...did it? School massacres especially?

[Ryan in Maine]

Well, I've been on meds for depression/anxiety/panic attacks since I was 18. I can tell you first hand that I had very unpleasant reactions to over three-quarters of what I've had picked out for me. Among the reactions were a worsening of my emotions. That happened on four different meds.

It has taken years of tweaking my meds and dosages to find something that works. Now that I've had a good formula for the past couple years I'm getting to a point where I can get off meds.

Antidepressants/etc. are bandages two sizes too small.

[Dannyboy]

What does the fact that it happened in Canada have to do with anything?  He could just as easily have gotten the same verdict in the States.  Especially states that don't have concealed carry laws or Jersey-like carry laws.