Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Manedwolf on March 05, 2009, 04:56:59 PM
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...)
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :O
-
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.
-
- 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.'"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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...
-
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...
-
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.
Bath School Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_school_bombing)
-
Anyone want to make a friendly wager on how soon the evil nutcase in question is deemed "rehabilitated" by the Cannucks?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I do sleep easier at night knowing that there is no way that anyone who gets to make decisions about mental illness could actually possibly have less knowledge than has been demonstrated in this thread.
-
A paranoid schizophrenic should definitely be treated as though he isn't a paranoid schizophrenic.
Even though your post was in jest, he should. I don't WANT special treatment apart from anyone else - why should he get it?
-
I do sleep easier at night knowing that there is no way that anyone who gets to make decisions about mental illness could actually possibly have less knowledge than has been demonstrated in this thread.
The people making the decisions here and in Canada are the same people, uber socialist.
They decide we may not carry firearms, they decide to the best treatment for the mentally ill
is to toss them into society, sink or swim.
You'll see these sick people all over San Francisco, peeing on themselves, muttering vulgarities
as they search for food in trash bins. You also smell them as they will go for years without washing
or changing their excrement filled clothes.
Despite being a clear menace to their own well being, uber socialist refuse to address their needs
because of some "right" to die of sickness and disease, alone, in a cardboard box under a freeway.
Once in a while they lash out, they go on some kind of violent spree, almost always in some uber socialist
location like Canada IL, NY, SF, LA etc or Greyhonud bus's
I want them placed in institutions where they are forced to take their meds, get therapy, and wash
and have a safe place to sleep.
That makes me a horrible person, the dreaded Conservative.
-
I'm not going to address the slightly bizarre 'liberals are the root of all evil' aspects gunsmith, I like you and I'm not going down that road.
My post wasn't supposed to indicate that I'm happy about the way the mentally ill are treated, or that I would be unhappy with your solution in very many circumstances, and unlike others I'm happy to pay for that in some form, again though - don't think that present solutions are the best ones.
All I meant was that at least those making these decisions understand the basic principle that we've looked at in law for, well a long time - the notion of criminal responsibility. When are we not responsible for our actions through age, mental ill health or whatever. When the voices really are telling you what to do, and you are totally in the grip of that, you just are not criminally responsible for what you do.
Oh yes, in order not to attract self-parodying condemnation I suppose I should finally unnecessarily state the bleeding obvious - the victims family have my sympathies. I understand their upset, but good law does not respond emotively to such upset (see many gun laws) and change basic legal notions about responsibility.