7 ms·

There was a very high profile case in Ontario over a decade ago. Basically, the man went into an absolute psychotic state on the travelling bus and cut the head

by mabbo 9y ago

There was a very high profile case in Ontario over a decade ago. Basically, the man went into an absolute psychotic state on the travelling bus and cut the head off a stranger while everyone else on the bus ran for their lives. A decade later, he's been released- under a lot of conditions and on a lot of medication, but people are very upset that he'd ever be free at all. In interviews, he's a very interesting person. "Regret" and "shame" aren't strong enough words. It's a hard debate- if he was not guilty due to a medical condition, then he was not found guilty and shouldn't be in prison, certainly. But he did cut a guy's head off. Would you want to live next to the guy who did that while not in control of himself? It's the extreme end of the situation, to be certain, but extremes are a great place to examine any system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tim_McLean

BearGoesChirp 9y ago
Where is the difference between 'I choose to do it' and 'I couldn't choose not to do it'? A lot of perceived differences between these I've seen others mention is based on free will, which is something science isn't sure even exists.
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  If you're responding to the parent's situation where someone causes violence due to mental issues leading to a loss of control, the latter may be treatable and curable, after which the threat is gone if the person, absent the mental issues that caused the loss of control, doesn't want to harm people. The former was a choice that may be made again, so is therefore always a threat even if they truly repent and are sorry for their choice.
  - derekp7 9y ago
    So basically the same thing if someone had a stroke violent seizure while at a restaurant, while cutting a steak, and accidentally stabbed the waiter in the heart killing him. In that case, a brain defect caused the person to kill the victim, yet in no way should he be held criminally responsible.
  - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
    So, for example, should pedophiles who abuse not be guilty of a crime and instead just be chemically castrated, because without the desire they wouldn't have wanted to harm a child? Consider many places involuntarily commit such individuals into psychiatric wards, though normally only after the prison sentence has been served.
- occamrazor 9y ago
  If free will does not exist, then also the prosecutors, judges and jury are not free, and there is no point deciding what they _should_ do. Hence it is safe to choose policies based on the assumption that free will exists.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > which is something science isn't sure even exists. “Free will” isn't something “science isn't sure even exists”, it is instead fundamentally incompatible with the model of reality which is required by science.
  - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
    I was trying to avoid going on too strong, but free will does seem akin to magic or miracles given our current scientific understanding.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  I categorize "free will" like tort law, not like physics. When you have "free will" for a choice, you're in a situation where you are able to commit a tort or a crime in the eyes of society. Like, do people have free will while they are sleepwalking? Science doesn't have a good answer, but people have successfully been acquitted of crimes they claimed they committed while asleep. It's far easier to answer questions about free will when you think of it in legal terms, and it matches up pretty well with your intuitions about things.
joecool1029 9y ago
>A decade later, he's been released- under a lot of conditions and on a lot of medication No, he's been given an 'absolute discharge'. There are no legal obligations for him.
- mabbo 9y ago
  Seriously? Wow I did not know he'd gotten that far. I mean, part of me thinks "good for him" for overcoming serious mental illness. The other part worries.
snuxoll 9y ago
Is he being monitored to ensure he stays on his regimen of medication? Is he having regular psychiatric evaluations, and has a psychiatrist deemed him NOT a threat to himself and others? If YES to ALL of the above, I have no problem with it. After a period of being monitored then remove the restrictions. This is one of the biggest issues we have in this country, our prison system is used to make up for a lack of mental health care.
- dpatrick86 9y ago
  Interesting hypothetical: maybe the state should pay someone with an open mind (like you) handsomely to have him as a new roommate and keep an eye on him.
  - fao_ 9y ago
    There's a difference between walking past someone in the street, and being in a scenario where they hypothetically have access to you 24/7
  - KGIII 9y ago
    I'd be interested in doing something like that. I'm not sure that they'd let me, as I have firearms in the home, though they are secured in safes and the ammunition is secured in different safes, I'd not want more money than it costs for upkeep and I'll not be a physical caretaker - I don't wash asses. Still, I've got plenty to keep someone occupied and they'd have to be alone when I travel. I guess I'd want to be pretty selective, the person(s) would have to be interesting and intelligent. I'm not sure if the missus would be happy about it, but she might be. She used to work with the mentally ill.
  - snuxoll 9y ago
    If I was still single and childless I'd do it. Wouldn't even need to be "handsomely", just enough to cover expenses.
seiferteric 9y ago
It is interesting because different people and different countries seem to have different ideas about he purpose of the the justice system. Punishment/retribution, correction/rehabilitation, or protecting the public. Someone like this may not be guilty due to insanity, but still be a danger to the public for example.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Well the purpose is of course all those things. Someone locked up for insanity wouldn't be released while they are still a danger to the public. But anyone imprisoned for a violent crime might be released while still a very clear danger to society, even murderers and similar. Time limited sentences work that way.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  I believe violent versus non-violent crimes should be treated distinctly in terms of evaluating (a) rehabilitation and (b) future offense odds. For non-violent crime, I think rehabilitation is the answer. For violent crime, I'm more comfortable with a model that involves sequestration, i.e. keeping the offender separate from society until their risk of re-offending falls suitably low.
  - jrochkind1 9y ago
    I'm not sure prison is likely to lower anyone's risk of re-offending, alas.
    - elevensies 9y ago
      It may lower everyone's risk of re-offending by making them older when they get out: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14309/c-g/c-g04-eng.gif https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14309... (via https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14309-eng.htm https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14309... ) Although I guess it would make more sense to be looking at a chart of 2nd offences.
alkonaut 9y ago
> But he did cut a guy's head off. Would you want to live next to the guy who did that while not in control of himself? Well, if he is considered sane by trustworthy professionals, then why not? I can't see how it's different to live next to someone who is cured after 10 years of treatment, as opposed to say someone who was in prison for 10 years for the same crime (Where I live this would likely be considered more severe than the normal 12 years out after 9 though). Probably 18 or life, where "life" is often at least 18. I'd prefer not to live next to that person, but there isn't really much I can do about living next to an ex convict, or in this case an ex- mental patient?
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  >Well, if he is considered sane by trustworthy professionals, then why not? Psychology as a science is remarkable in its inability to make accurate predictions. I'd ask those professionals be criminally liable if their assessment proves inaccurate.
  - alkonaut 9y ago
    Someone decided the person was insane to begin with. If we could trust them to lock them up we need to trust them to release them too. Now, this is a nearly non existent problem isn't it? For major crimes, being locked up in psychiatric care is a longer, or indefinite sentence, than would be served in prison (this varies between countries of course).
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      > If we could trust them to lock them up we need to trust them to release them too. This guy was getting locked up no matter what. The only question was, was he getting locked up in a prison or in a psych ward? So do we trust psychiatry enough to say "lock him up here rather than there"? Sure. Do we trust them enough to say "It's safe to release him now"? That's a harder question.
      - kelnos 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
gyeonggi 9y ago
Not Ontario, the case was in Manitoba.
- mabbo 9y ago
  My mistake! I was going off memory (and later added the wiki article).
lloydde 9y ago
> There was a very high profile case in Ontario over a decade ago. Manitoba, not Ontario. I remember my shock of this happening in Western Canada where I was at the time.
cscheid 9y ago
> It's the extreme end of the situation, to be certain, but extremes are a great place to examine any system. Although there's some dissent, in law the typical expression you hear is the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law
- turbulents 9y ago
  The converse (bad law makes hard cases) resonates more with me--glad it's mentioned in the article.
- kelnos 9y ago
  I think that's a good point. We shouldn't judge a process based on the rare, outlying cases. We can't expect all of law to be perfect and do the right thing every time. Certainly there are levels of incorrectness that we don't want to live with, but we should expect that sometimes a guilty person will go free. And personally I would much rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person be imprisoned or executed.
belorn 9y ago
> Would you want to live next to the guy who did that while not in control of himself? I would prefer to not live next to anyone who if they got the wrong medical condition, the wrong combination of drugs or medical procedure, or wrong parasite, could go on a rampage and kill someone. The question is if that is possible, or if its just part of human biology that medical with the wrong set of circumstances there will be a fringe possibility that people do things which they otherwise would not.
erikbye 9y ago
> Would you want to live next to the guy who did that while not in control of himself? Perhaps there is a combined higher probability that one of your other neighbors will one day snap and go crazy than the medicated/or rehabilitated one doing so again. Unless you're not worried about that, but rather your "sensibilities are offended" by his action. Well, in that case, "the devil you know..."
downandout 9y ago
From an article about his release [1]: "... we have to be respectful of people who disagree with the decision on that basis, but recognize that we've made a decision as a civilized country that we don't punish people who really didn't know what they were doing at the time of the offence, and really didn't know that they were doing something wrong, and that's a very, very small subset of people..." In the US, our insanity defense laws are setup to maintain the appearance that we are a civilized country during the court phase - and then after the case vanishes from the headlines, we become savages that lock these people in padded rooms, often until they die. Canada actually is a civilized country that is willing to abide by the spirit of such laws, even when the outcome is controversial. I'm an American, but I find myself cringing more and more when I say that these days. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vince-li-discharge-1.3977278 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vince-li-discharge-1....

by mabbo 9y ago

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

Where is the difference between 'I choose to do it' and 'I couldn't choose not to do it'? A lot of perceived differences between these I've seen others mention is based on free will, which is something science isn't sure even exists.

Sangermaine 9y ago
If you're responding to the parent's situation where someone causes violence due to mental issues leading to a loss of control, the latter may be treatable and curable, after which the threat is gone if the person, absent the mental issues that caused the loss of control, doesn't want to harm people. The former was a choice that may be made again, so is therefore always a threat even if they truly repent and are sorry for their choice.
- derekp7 9y ago
  So basically the same thing if someone had a stroke violent seizure while at a restaurant, while cutting a steak, and accidentally stabbed the waiter in the heart killing him. In that case, a brain defect caused the person to kill the victim, yet in no way should he be held criminally responsible.
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  So, for example, should pedophiles who abuse not be guilty of a crime and instead just be chemically castrated, because without the desire they wouldn't have wanted to harm a child? Consider many places involuntarily commit such individuals into psychiatric wards, though normally only after the prison sentence has been served.
occamrazor 9y ago
If free will does not exist, then also the prosecutors, judges and jury are not free, and there is no point deciding what they _should_ do. Hence it is safe to choose policies based on the assumption that free will exists.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> which is something science isn't sure even exists. “Free will” isn't something “science isn't sure even exists”, it is instead fundamentally incompatible with the model of reality which is required by science.
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  I was trying to avoid going on too strong, but free will does seem akin to magic or miracles given our current scientific understanding.
ThrustVectoring 9y ago
I categorize "free will" like tort law, not like physics. When you have "free will" for a choice, you're in a situation where you are able to commit a tort or a crime in the eyes of society. Like, do people have free will while they are sleepwalking? Science doesn't have a good answer, but people have successfully been acquitted of crimes they claimed they committed while asleep. It's far easier to answer questions about free will when you think of it in legal terms, and it matches up pretty well with your intuitions about things.

joecool1029 9y ago

>A decade later, he's been released- under a lot of conditions and on a lot of medication No, he's been given an 'absolute discharge'. There are no legal obligations for him.

mabbo 9y ago
Seriously? Wow I did not know he'd gotten that far. I mean, part of me thinks "good for him" for overcoming serious mental illness. The other part worries.

snuxoll 9y ago

Is he being monitored to ensure he stays on his regimen of medication? Is he having regular psychiatric evaluations, and has a psychiatrist deemed him NOT a threat to himself and others? If YES to ALL of the above, I have no problem with it. After a period of being monitored then remove the restrictions. This is one of the biggest issues we have in this country, our prison system is used to make up for a lack of mental health care.

dpatrick86 9y ago
Interesting hypothetical: maybe the state should pay someone with an open mind (like you) handsomely to have him as a new roommate and keep an eye on him.
- fao_ 9y ago
  There's a difference between walking past someone in the street, and being in a scenario where they hypothetically have access to you 24/7
- KGIII 9y ago
  I'd be interested in doing something like that. I'm not sure that they'd let me, as I have firearms in the home, though they are secured in safes and the ammunition is secured in different safes, I'd not want more money than it costs for upkeep and I'll not be a physical caretaker - I don't wash asses. Still, I've got plenty to keep someone occupied and they'd have to be alone when I travel. I guess I'd want to be pretty selective, the person(s) would have to be interesting and intelligent. I'm not sure if the missus would be happy about it, but she might be. She used to work with the mentally ill.
- snuxoll 9y ago
  If I was still single and childless I'd do it. Wouldn't even need to be "handsomely", just enough to cover expenses.

seiferteric 9y ago

It is interesting because different people and different countries seem to have different ideas about he purpose of the the justice system. Punishment/retribution, correction/rehabilitation, or protecting the public. Someone like this may not be guilty due to insanity, but still be a danger to the public for example.

alkonaut 9y ago
Well the purpose is of course all those things. Someone locked up for insanity wouldn't be released while they are still a danger to the public. But anyone imprisoned for a violent crime might be released while still a very clear danger to society, even murderers and similar. Time limited sentences work that way.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
I believe violent versus non-violent crimes should be treated distinctly in terms of evaluating (a) rehabilitation and (b) future offense odds. For non-violent crime, I think rehabilitation is the answer. For violent crime, I'm more comfortable with a model that involves sequestration, i.e. keeping the offender separate from society until their risk of re-offending falls suitably low.
- jrochkind1 9y ago
  I'm not sure prison is likely to lower anyone's risk of re-offending, alas.
  - elevensies 9y ago
    It may lower everyone's risk of re-offending by making them older when they get out: https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14309/c-g/c-g04-eng.gif https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14309... (via https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14309-eng.htm https://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2016001/article/14309... ) Although I guess it would make more sense to be looking at a chart of 2nd offences.

alkonaut 9y ago

> But he did cut a guy's head off. Would you want to live next to the guy who did that while not in control of himself? Well, if he is considered sane by trustworthy professionals, then why not? I can't see how it's different to live next to someone who is cured after 10 years of treatment, as opposed to say someone who was in prison for 10 years for the same crime (Where I live this would likely be considered more severe than the normal 12 years out after 9 though). Probably 18 or life, where "life" is often at least 18. I'd prefer not to live next to that person, but there isn't really much I can do about living next to an ex convict, or in this case an ex- mental patient?

KekDemaga 9y ago
>Well, if he is considered sane by trustworthy professionals, then why not? Psychology as a science is remarkable in its inability to make accurate predictions. I'd ask those professionals be criminally liable if their assessment proves inaccurate.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Someone decided the person was insane to begin with. If we could trust them to lock them up we need to trust them to release them too. Now, this is a nearly non existent problem isn't it? For major crimes, being locked up in psychiatric care is a longer, or indefinite sentence, than would be served in prison (this varies between countries of course).
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    > If we could trust them to lock them up we need to trust them to release them too. This guy was getting locked up no matter what. The only question was, was he getting locked up in a prison or in a psych ward? So do we trust psychiatry enough to say "lock him up here rather than there"? Sure. Do we trust them enough to say "It's safe to release him now"? That's a harder question.
    - kelnos 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

gyeonggi 9y ago

Not Ontario, the case was in Manitoba.

mabbo 9y ago
My mistake! I was going off memory (and later added the wiki article).

lloydde 9y ago

> There was a very high profile case in Ontario over a decade ago. Manitoba, not Ontario. I remember my shock of this happening in Western Canada where I was at the time.

cscheid 9y ago

> It's the extreme end of the situation, to be certain, but extremes are a great place to examine any system. Although there's some dissent, in law the typical expression you hear is the opposite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law

turbulents 9y ago
The converse (bad law makes hard cases) resonates more with me--glad it's mentioned in the article.
kelnos 9y ago
I think that's a good point. We shouldn't judge a process based on the rare, outlying cases. We can't expect all of law to be perfect and do the right thing every time. Certainly there are levels of incorrectness that we don't want to live with, but we should expect that sometimes a guilty person will go free. And personally I would much rather a guilty person go free than an innocent person be imprisoned or executed.

belorn 9y ago

> Would you want to live next to the guy who did that while not in control of himself? I would prefer to not live next to anyone who if they got the wrong medical condition, the wrong combination of drugs or medical procedure, or wrong parasite, could go on a rampage and kill someone. The question is if that is possible, or if its just part of human biology that medical with the wrong set of circumstances there will be a fringe possibility that people do things which they otherwise would not.

erikbye 9y ago

> Would you want to live next to the guy who did that while not in control of himself? Perhaps there is a combined higher probability that one of your other neighbors will one day snap and go crazy than the medicated/or rehabilitated one doing so again. Unless you're not worried about that, but rather your "sensibilities are offended" by his action. Well, in that case, "the devil you know..."

downandout 9y ago

From an article about his release [1]: "... we have to be respectful of people who disagree with the decision on that basis, but recognize that we've made a decision as a civilized country that we don't punish people who really didn't know what they were doing at the time of the offence, and really didn't know that they were doing something wrong, and that's a very, very small subset of people..." In the US, our insanity defense laws are setup to maintain the appearance that we are a civilized country during the court phase - and then after the case vanishes from the headlines, we become savages that lock these people in padded rooms, often until they die. Canada actually is a civilized country that is willing to abide by the spirit of such laws, even when the outcome is controversial. I'm an American, but I find myself cringing more and more when I say that these days. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vince-li-discharge-1.3977278 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/vince-li-discharge-1....