Canada judge: Man not responsible for beheading

[MillCreek]

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.

Unfortunately, this approach is now the norm due to the refusal of the healthcare insurers to pay for counseling or psychotherapy.  There is ample medical literature showing that the best results are usually achieved with a combination of medication and therapy.  But the insurers don''t want to pay a psychiatrist for therapy.  They want them just to prescribe, and farm out any therapy to the considerably cheaper social workers, counselors or psychologists.  As a result, many patients get meds only or very minimal therapy.  Some patients do OK with this while others do not.  

Most psychiatrists absolutely hate this and feel they have been marginalized to the role of 'pushing pills'.  But if the insurance company won't pay for combined treatment, and the patient cannot or will not pay for it, they don't have a lot of options.

[BridgeRunner]

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.

Depends what state.  Whether that kind of verdict is legal depends on what the state requires for proving an insanity plea.

[gunsmith]

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.

We used to do that, we would put certifiably crazy people in the psych ward, then, the same people
who screamed for disarming the working class also screamed about violating the rights of crazy people by locking them up.
Canada is a haven for the North American liberal, disarm everyone, psycho's have equal rights and well, you see the result.

[French G.]

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.

I found the problem. Maybe we lock the prosecutor up with this guy and give them both a steak knife gift set. Prosecutors are to prosecute, not coddle the accused.

I'm not much of a state imposed capital punishment guy, but I do carry a gun and believe in the "Some people just need killing" idea. That guy would be one of them. Totally disgusting. Moreso that no one attacked him to stop the victim from being killed.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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? 

Yes, they should receive treatment.  While they're in prison.  Serving out a full sentence.

Mentally ill or not, the guy still killed a child and ate the remains.  There needs to be a serious barrier between this guy and the populace.  Whether that barrier should be steel bars or six feet of dirt is a question I don't want to get into here.

Maned is right, this sort of thing is particularly problematic in a place like Canada where self defense is outlawed.  If you can't protect yourself and your family, and the justice system doesn't want to protect you either, then what options do you have left?

[De Selby]

The standard for insanity is so high in America that you're more likely to be incompetent to stand trial than to be found insane - and people who were in the same state during the crime as they were when adjudged incompetent to stand trial are still generally "sane" for the purposes of the crime.

That said, executing the severely mentally ill (which this guy obviously was - calling it "pure evil" is hysteria) is barbaric and is not legal in any country besides places like Saudi Arabia.

Self defense as a factor is farcical.  You cannot defend against a schizophrenic who has an episode while you're sleeping on the bus.  You need to take your own car to avoid other people...and then there's the problem of schizophrenic episodes behind the wheel, isn't there?

Sometimes the self-defense fantasy gets a bit out of hand.  So too does the "hang 'em high" justice.

[Strings]

And you're ignoring the main point I was trying to make. I don't suggest execution as a form of "punishment", nor "justice". I suggest it ouot of a sense of protecting society from someone who has demonstrated that they are a severe threat.

 Sorry if that's a harsh line to take. Personally, if I was so far gone that eating people sounded like a good idea, I'd hope someone would do me the kindness of putting ME out of MY misery.

[De Selby]

And you're ignoring the main point I was trying to make. I don't suggest execution as a form of "punishment", nor "justice". I suggest it ouot of a sense of protecting society from someone who has demonstrated that they are a severe threat.

 Sorry if that's a harsh line to take. Personally, if I was so far gone that eating people sounded like a good idea, I'd hope someone would do me the kindness of putting ME out of MY misery.

The state is not doing people favors when it executes them, especially not when it executes them because they're mentally unwell.

Locking up these people in a mental institution protects society just as well as a prison.  Not executing the mentally ill protects humanity from the trend towards state-mandated eugenics, which is dangerous in its own right.

We've done this experiment in the world with treating crazy people like rabid dogs....it did not turn out well. 

[MicroBalrog]

Self defense as a factor is farcical.  You cannot defend against a schizophrenic who has an episode while you're sleeping on the bus. 

People HAVE shot terrorists/homicidal wackos on buses before. It is not a fantasy.

[cordex]

There's the old Heinleinism that if they can't be treated, the most humane thing to do is to kill them.  On the other hand, if they could (for the sake of argument) be treated and are restored to a full capacity of recognizing right from wrong while knowing that they committed such a heinous crime, how could they live with themselves?  To personalize this: If I had committed this crime and was at some later point restored to my current level of cognitive capacity with all morals and values intact, I would terminate my own life if someone didn't do it for me.  Come to think of it, that might be one helpful indicator of sanity.  If you felt someone was otherwise cured except they were massively depressed and suicidal, then I'd say they have been cured.  If they're kind, gentle and happy as a clam after being "cured", they're still broken.

I think there is a time and a place to give leniency to someone who has committed a crime based on circumstance or mental state.  When you're talking about a particularly violent, random and unprovoked murder, the idea of dismissing all criminal charges for any reason whatsoever is utterly ludicrous.

[MillCreek]

This story was published in my local paper this morning.  This man killed and could possibly kill again.  Based on the earlier posts, many of the posters in this thread suggest that they would have immediately shot the perpetrator, had they been present, and that the perpetrator should be executed.  If not, please explain why you would make an exception in this case.

Former pro wrestler accused in nursing home death

By STEVE KARNOWSKI – 18 hours ago

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — During his glory days as a pro wrestler, Verne Gagne shared the spotlight with other burly men in trunks, guys with names like Killer Kowalski, Mad Dog Vachon, The Crusher and Baron Von Raschke.

But all of that seemed well in the past until just weeks ago, when authorities say Gagne, 82 and suffering from Alzheimer's disease, apparently body-slammed a 97-year-old fellow patient at the suburban nursing home where they both lived, causing the man's death.

Bloomington police are investigating, but not even the victim's widow wants to see the dementia-stricken Gagne prosecuted.

"It's been so hard on both families," said Greg Gagne, Gagne's son and a former wrestler himself.

Helmut Gutmann, a former cancer researcher who suffered from dementia himself, died Feb. 14, about three weeks after breaking his hip in the confrontation. Authorities ruled his death a homicide.

Police said there was no clear indication of what set Gagne off, and neither man could remember the incident afterward. Behavior and personality changes are common as Alzheimer's progresses, and victims of the mind-robbing disease can become agitated.

Like others with the disease, Gagne had all but lost his short-term memory, while his recollections of long-ago events were vivid. But whether he was suffering a flashback to his days in the ring, as some have speculated, is anybody's guess.

Police said they plan to forward the case to prosecutors by the end of the week for possible charges. Gagne, who has since turned 83, has been moved to another institution.

Joseph Daly, a former prosecutor who is now a professor at Hamline University Law School in St. Paul, said he doubts Gagne will be charged. State law prohibits prosecuting anyone who is too mentally deficient to understand the proceedings or offer a defense. Daly said that would appear to apply to Gagne.

"It's a tragedy for the man who was killed, it's a tragedy for the man's family, but it's equally a tragedy for the family of Verne Gagne," said Daly, who has warm memories of Gagne from his youth.

In the ring, Gagne (pronounced GAHN-yuh) drew on his background as a college wrestling champion in the 1940s, and typically finished off opponents with his trademark "sleeper hold" — a headlock that appeared to make the beaten man pass out.

Gutmann's widow, Betty Gutmann, said she was told by residents and staff members at the nursing home that Gagne picked her husband up and threw him to the ground. She said that they had had one scuffle before, when her husband had been shouting at other residents and Gagne put a chokehold on him. Gutmann wasn't hurt in that incident.

But Betty Gutmann is not blaming Gagne, saying he didn't know what he was doing.

She said most Alzheimer's victims are old and frail, and when they lash out, they don't usually cause much harm. The difference with Gagne is that "he was a professional athlete and was trained to do certain moves. This is what makes him much more dangerous than the ordinary person" with dementia.

Helmut Gutmann fled Nazi Germany in 1936, became a U.S. citizen and joined the Army, where he worked to try to develop an antidote for mustard gas, among other projects, according to his family. He spent 40 years as a cancer researcher at a veterans hospital in Minneapolis.

The company that runs the nursing home refused to comment, citing federal privacy laws.

Gagne was the founder and owner of the American Wrestling Association and wore its championship belt. In the 1960s and '70s, his "All-Star Wrestling" was a TV sensation. The show was a modest affair, taped before small audiences at various Minneapolis TV stations. But it was syndicated on up to 120 channels across the Midwest and as far away as San Francisco, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Winnipeg, Canada.

He mostly stopped wrestling in 1981 but remained active in the business. He trained more than 140 wrestlers from the late 1950s up until 1990, including Blackjack Lanza, Larry "The Axe" Hennig, The Iron Sheik, Sgt. Slaughter and Jesse "The Body" Ventura, who later became governor of Minnesota.

Times turned tough for Gagne in the early 1980s with the rise of the glitzier World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment), which went national on cable TV. Vince McMahon's WWF lured away the AWA's flashiest star at the time, Hulk Hogan, and other fan favorites, Greg Gagne recalled. The AWA, founded in 1960, folded in 1991.

In the 1990s, Hennepin County took Verne Gagne's 58 acres and home on Lake Minnetonka for a park, paying him only a fraction of what the family thought it was worth, Greg Gagne said. By the time that fight was over and the bills were paid, he said, his parents had little money left.

Another blow came three years ago when Gagne was diagnosed with Alzheimer's at the Mayo Clinic, his son said.

"His short-term memory is not there," Greg Gagne said. "But we were up there the other day, and if you talk about his first-grade teacher he can discuss that." He said his father also reminisces about his days as a wrestler and football player at the University of Minnesota.

Daly, the law professor, counts himself among the many saddened by what happened at the nursing home. He fondly recalled a day when he was a teenager working at a local drug store and Gagne came in and struck up a conversation.

"Here he was, talking to a teenager about wrestling, about sports, about life," Daly said. "I remember thinking, `Wow, what a nice person.'"

[roo_ster]

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

Happened to a college buddy of mine.

Was depressed for years, kinda trudging through life with no direction after college.  It would cycle, get better, get worse.

On his last upswing he got motivated enough to off himself and was successful.  He was moral enough to just do himself in and not kill anyone else, for which I am thankful.

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.

For the family of the victim who was killed, beheaded, dismembered, and eaten, you are correct: there was no justice served.

FTR, I am not on board with the "somebody's not responsible because they have mental illness" viewpoint.

Since we are dismissing evil, there is no, "The Devil made me do it," defense.  No, the person who does this sort of thing ought to bear the responsibility for their actions, however we judge their mental state.  I think they ought to get the same punishment (in the case of the death penalty) or similar punishment (in case of a prison sentence).  Meaning, a secure mental hospital for, at minimum, the same number of years they would have gotten in prison were they judged sane.

If this were to occur where I was situated to prevent it or stop the nutcase, I hope I would do so, ASAP.  Considering he is armed and has just killed someone, shooting to stop him is morally justifiable.

Locking up these people in a mental institution protects society just as well as a prison.  Not executing the mentally ill protects humanity from the trend towards state-mandated eugenics, which is dangerous in its own right.

I am with you in opposition to eugenics, but executing the mad slasher is not eugenics.  The reason for his execution would not be his mental illness, but his actions. 

Also; given the track record of mental institutions releasing folks for which they have discretion who end up taking up their old, violent ways; I think an asylum does not rate with a maximum security prison and a parole board of flinty-eyed citizens.

[roo_ster]

This story was published in my local paper this morning.  This man killed and could possibly kill again.  Based on the earlier posts, many of the posters in this thread suggest that they would have immediately shot the perpetrator, had they been present, and that the perpetrator should be executed.  If not, please explain why you would make an exception in this case.

No exception.

Some other oldster is trying to kill grandpa or, maybe in a few years, one of my folks?  Do what you got to do, to include deadly force to stop the rampaging geriatric headcase.

Motivation is immaterial in such situations and the attacked or his defender is correct in using whatever means necessary to prevent injury or death of the victim.

I would prosecute.  The killer gets to spend the rest of his days in a secure mental hospital.  If he is too dangerous for that, get him in line for the big shot.

[WeedWhacker]

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe_Elementary_School_attack

I'd thought there was a dynamiting of a school before 1959, but this seems to be the one I was thinking of. Of course, it also might be the exception that proves the rule... :P

For the record, I'm of the same opinion as you regarding the recent willy-nilly use of antidepressants and psychotic slaughter of the disarmed.

[Werewolf]

...We've done this experiment in the world with treating crazy people like rabid dogs....it did not turn out well. 

Where? When? How?

Interesting if true...

[Werewolf]

There's the old Heinleinism that if they can't be treated, the most humane thing to do is to kill them.  On the other hand, if they could (for the sake of argument) be treated and are restored to a full capacity of recognizing right from wrong while knowing that they committed such a heinous crime, how could they live with themselves?  To personalize this: If I had committed this crime and was at some later point restored to my current level of cognitive capacity with all morals and values intact, I would terminate my own life if someone didn't do it for me.  Come to think of it, that might be one helpful indicator of sanity.  If you felt someone was otherwise cured except they were massively depressed and suicidal, then I'd say they have been cured.  If they're kind, gentle and happy as a clam after being "cured", they're still broken.

Or they're cured and pragmatically have accepted the fact of what they have done, realize that they cannot change the past and wish nothing more than to move on and become a contributing member of society...

[Viking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe_Elementary_School_attack

I'd thought there was a dynamiting of a school before 1959, but this seems to be the one I was thinking of. Of course, it also might be the exception that proves the rule...

For the record, I'm of the same opinion as you regarding the recent willy-nilly use of antidepressants and psychotic slaughter of the disarmed.

Bath School Massacre

[Bigjake]

Anyone want to make a friendly wager on how soon the evil nutcase in question is deemed "rehabilitated" by the Cannucks?

[Strings]

Thank you, jfruser, for hitting what I was trying to say!

Look... I'm not talking about Joe Lilmessedup, who diddles himself out on the sidewalk. I'm talking about people that are an OBVIOUS threat to society. It's a far cry from "we're executing this guy because he got torqued off, killed and started to eat somebody" to "we're executing this person because they aren't socially fit".

As for the ex wrestler: yes, I would execute. Clear and present danger...

[De Selby]

Where? When? How?

Interesting if true...

It really caught on in Germany and in America during the 20's and beyond.  The program of executing the mentally ill was ended in Germany after 1945.  In America, it had mostly been confined to forcibly sterilizing the mentally ill...which went on in some cases until the 1970's.

jfruser,

Mental hospitals are not designed to punish, although they are restrictive (more so than prisons.)  The problem with your theory of executing the person for the murder is that a murder is by definition conduct for which the defendant is morally culpable.  Unless you believe that being mentally ill is the product of malice, you don't have a situation where the conduct meets the definition of murder. 

The very concept of crime is about responsibility and motives, not about objective circumstances.  That's why sometimes people cause a death and the most that happens is a lawsuit, and other times they cause a death and get the death penalty.  Not all actions that result in death are criminal.  And you wouldn't want to live in a place where that was the rule.

[Bigjake]

It really caught on in Germany and in America during the 20's and beyond.  The program of executing the mentally ill was ended in Germany after 1945. 

More horse biscuits.  Not a huge surprise though.

There's a marked difference between killing the elderly/mentally ill as a matter of SOP, than there is in executing one evil nutjob for killing a random citizen and eating parts of him.

Way to Godwin the thread, though.

[Strings]

SS, PLEASE get over the concept of "executing the mentally ill for being mentally ill". Nowhere have I advocated that. However, removing someone (executing them) when they've demonstrated that they are a clear and present danger to society? that, I can get behind...

 Again, I'll use the rabid dog theory. It isn't the dog's fault that he got rabies, but it's still SOP to destroy the animal: both to end it's suffering, and for the good of society.This would be a very similar situation.

 As for the whole concept of "punishment": I'm NOT suggesting execution as a form of punishment, but as a way of protecting society. and gods forbid this person ever is "cured": imagine, for just a moment, the guilt he'll be forced to feel. For an action taken when he wasn't responsible for his own actions. Talk about "cruel punishment"...

 Maybe we barbarians are just a little more civilized than you think you are?

[cordex]

Or they're cured and pragmatically have accepted the fact of what they have done, realize that they cannot change the past and wish nothing more than to move on and become a contributing member of society...

Hmm ... I'd say that simply accepting and moving on after something of that magnitude goes well beyond pragmatism and well into inhumanly cold.

The very concept of crime is about responsibility and motives, not about objective circumstances.  That's why sometimes people cause a death and the most that happens is a lawsuit, and other times they cause a death and get the death penalty.  Not all actions that result in death are criminal.  And you wouldn't want to live in a place where that was the rule.

There's a significant difference between deaths involving accidents or lawful lethal intervention and reaching around the seat in front of you with a knife and intentionally sawing a stranger's head off, then gnawing on the corpse.

Just sayin'.

[Werewolf]

Hmm ... I'd say that simply accepting and moving on after something of that magnitude goes well beyond pragmatism and well into inhumanly cold.

The inability to deal with what is and what was, the inability to accept that which cannot be changed is, for some, a major cause of mental illness.

No man can change the past. It is what it is and no amount of wailing, cry, gnashing of the teeth will change that.

It is silly and can be self destructive to worry over it. Learn from the past? Yes. Worry over it to the point of self destruction? No.

Granted the magnitude of the crime in question is great but if the man cannot accept what he did then he will never be cured; in which case he should never be released back into society.

[KD5NRH]

Yes, they should receive treatment.  While they're in prison.  Serving out a full sentence.

Exactly.  I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of premeditated murders (as well as many other crimes) could not have been carried out by anyone who was altogether mentally well, thus insanity as a defense to such a crime in some cases but not in others, is ridiculous.