| Blogs > a176 |
|
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
On December 13 2012 18:18 Callynn wrote: I am however glad that there is not a bunch of idiots you can influence as a laywer that 'vote' whether or not someone is guilty. The jury system is something I'm glad about that it's not here. The jury system is a display of democracy. Do you not like democracy? | ||
|
Shottaz
United Kingdom414 Posts
| ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
On December 13 2012 18:59 Shottaz wrote: If he truly is cured, how can he live with himself? I imagine that was a large part of his treatment. | ||
|
eSen1a
Australia1058 Posts
| ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On December 13 2012 16:57 Poltergeist- wrote: Mentally insane or not, 18 months is too short in my opinion for murdering 2 kids. He was not institutionalized for murder, he was institutionalized for being mentally ill. The 18 months were not 'for' any crime, but for treatment. Yes, it's very sad that this occurred, sadly most tragic events do not have the closure that we expect or want because they are far more complex that how we generally wish to admit them being. It's very easy to say you did this, you should get punished without acknowledging a whole host of issues and contentions ranging from responsibility to eye-witness accounts. I'm sorry to hear that this person was so mentally ill that it led to the murder of his children. Edit: On December 13 2012 20:47 eSen1a wrote: There is something wrong when a society values the well-being of an individual over the collective safety of the community. I would expect that has has been deemed reasonably safe otherwise he would not have been released from hospital care. And in this instance, both the 'well-being of the individual' and the 'collective safety of the community' were covered by the judgement of the jury: the individual was institutionalized for the safety of the community and released when he no longer posed a threat (and I'm sure he's not just wandering about, he'll be receiving on-going pastoral care). Your response sounds suspiciously like a knee jerk reaction. | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
| ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
They are far more dangerous than sane criminals. The law should protect the innocent and not the guilty. If you are deranged enough to seriously hurt another human being, your responsibility is to seek restraint and treatment. If you do not and a crime does occur, you should be held fully responsible. | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On December 13 2012 21:31 Kickboxer wrote: I never understood why mentally ill people weren't held accountable for their crimes. They are far more dangerous than sane criminals. The law should protect the innocent and not the guilty. If you are deranged enough to seriously hurt another human being, your responsibility is to seek restraint and treatment. If you do not and a crime does occur, you should be held fully responsible. If you are 'deranged' you are probably not going to be able to identify that there is something wrong with you. The jury deemed him not guilty on the grounds of his mental health. He was held responsible in that he was institutionalized to be given treatment. The law does not directly protect people. If those children were to be murdered by a mentally fit person the law would not have prevented it. It would simply pick up the pieces afterwards and administer justice. In consideration of his past actions medical professionals have deemed him safe enough to return to society. I am sure their assessment of his 'threat' to society is far better than those that you which can exercise in reading a short news story. A very tragic string of events, and like most tragedies the pain will linger on well far the event, and like all tragedies there will not be the final act of closure. It seems natural that we would want to chastise the apparent perpetrator but fortunately for most developed criminal justices systems this is not the case. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
Chances are this guy will have another mental "slip" and he will hurt more people. This happens all the time, even in a country as small as mine. Existing laws, for some inane reason, elect to protect insane people instead of their sane victims, which makes zero sense apart from the construction of some dubious moral pedestal from where psychologists can feel good about themselves. Have there been cases in GB as recently as last year where a "recovered" insane person murdered another random casualty? I bet they have. Here, two different ones occurred during the past five years. That's roughly a quarter of all the registered homicides. Not to mention how easy it is to escape from an asylum as opposed to a prison. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On December 13 2012 22:16 Kickboxer wrote: Chances are this guy will have another mental "slip" and he will hurt more people. What do you think makes you more qualified on this than any of the medical professionals involved in his case? Without a recommendation from them I doubt any jury would let him go free. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
I guess that puts a dent in their credibility? Locking people up for protesting or dealing pot and letting psychotic murderers go because they "aren't responsible" seems like a fabulously broken system, but I guess that's just me. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
But since I'm not a mental health professional I really can't say one way or the other. In general I trust the Canadian legal system, and recognize that the media has an obsession with generating outrage whenever someone isn't hung from the rafters when they kill someone. Don't let it bother you, OP, if only because it's none of your damn business. | ||
|
Mementoss
Canada2595 Posts
More on topic, this is ridiculous. He is not safe to be on the streets, you can not judge if something liek this will or will not happen again. To the guy before me, it could be his "damn business" if hes released somewhere in proximity of the OP's location. If the man murders again it could be his friends or family. | ||
|
Kevin_Sorbo
Canada3217 Posts
he drank some windshield washer to try and suicide/cloud his judgement. 18 months later hes free. Imho that cardiologist knew that windshield washer couldnt/wouldnt kill him and he displayed some great acting skills trough the whole process. fuck that system. Im ashamed. | ||
|
bonifaceviii
Canada2890 Posts
On December 13 2012 23:59 Mementoss wrote: To the guy before me, it could be his "damn business" if hes released somewhere in proximity of the OP's location. If the man murders again it could be his friends or family. The world would be a much simpler place if we could conclude anybody who killed anyone under any circumstances is a monster who has the capacity to randomly murder members of the populace will and no one is safe around them ever. In the real world things aren't that simple, especially with regard to infanticide, mental illness and domestic crimes of passion. Do I think Guy Turcotte was mentally ill? No, but my opinion doesn't matter. The schizophrenic guy from Manitoba who beheaded the carney on the bus is having escorted day trips into Selkirk because the hospital said he was well enough to. Guy Turcotte is getting completely released because the hospital said he is well enough to. I don't want the government to change laws based on media hysteria or manipulative agitprop documentaries like Dear Zachary. There are long term consequences to short-term outrage. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On December 13 2012 21:26 Deleuze wrote: He was not institutionalized for murder, he was institutionalized for being mentally ill. The 18 months were not 'for' any crime, but for treatment. Yes, it's very sad that this occurred, sadly most tragic events do not have the closure that we expect or want because they are far more complex that how we generally wish to admit them being. It's very easy to say you did this, you should get punished without acknowledging a whole host of issues and contentions ranging from responsibility to eye-witness accounts. I'm sorry to hear that this person was so mentally ill that it led to the murder of his children. Edit: I would expect that has has been deemed reasonably safe otherwise he would not have been released from hospital care. And in this instance, both the 'well-being of the individual' and the 'collective safety of the community' were covered by the judgement of the jury: the individual was institutionalized for the safety of the community and released when he no longer posed a threat (and I'm sure he's not just wandering about, he'll be receiving on-going pastoral care). Your response sounds suspiciously like a knee jerk reaction. The issue here is the possibility he wasn't actually experiencing severe mental illness. He was a practicing doctor (cardiologist) of all things. His testimony to the court revolved solely around the fact he was distraught over the breakup with the mother of the children. And that he murdered his children to protect them from the supposed pain of the breakup. In such that he stabbed them 46 times. He tells the court that because he has trouble remember things, and possible conscious blackouts, he might be mentally unstable. And with all the experts they brought in, they convinced the jury of the fact. This has set the precedence that anyone could argue temporary insanity at the time of a murder and be let off the hook. So that's why I ask, is that how justice works? No, I believe its a complete abuse of the system. There are people who suffer from ptsd for their entire life and no amount of psychiatric help has helped them, and yet this person has been deemed mentally fit after only a year and half. How can you brutally murder your own children in this manner and if it were truly 'accidental', not suffer from a similar form of ptsd? There are so many things about this man's case and his sentence that just boggles the mind and why I have written this blog. | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On December 14 2012 01:45 a176 wrote: The issue here is the possibility he wasn't actually experiencing severe mental illness. He was a practicing doctor (cardiologist) of all things. His testimony to the court revolved solely around the fact he was distraught over the breakup with the mother of the children. And that he murdered his children to protect them from the supposed pain of the breakup. In such that he stabbed them 46 times. He tells the court that because he has trouble remember things, and possible conscious blackouts, he might be mentally unstable. And with all the experts they brought in, they convinced the jury of the fact. This has set the precedence that anyone could argue temporary insanity at the time of a murder and be let off the hook. So that's why I ask, is that how justice works? No, I believe its a complete abuse of the system. There are people who suffer from ptsd for their entire life and no amount of psychiatric help has helped them, and yet this person has been deemed mentally fit after only a year and half. How can you brutally murder your own children in this manner and if it were truly 'accidental', not suffer from a similar form of ptsd? There are so many things about this man's case and his sentence that just boggles the mind and why I have written this blog. Yes of course, everything I said rests upon the assumption that the Canadian criminal justice system is fit and has not been manipulated. I interpreted the OP as being at issue with the fact that someone who committed the described acts due to mental illness was then released from hospitalization after 18 months, not that there may be a fault with the criminal justice process in identifying mental illness. Especially considering that most posts have been concerned he will murder again. In other words, I felt the issue was "mentally ill person released from hospital after 18 months" rather than “was this man really mentally ill or did he manipulate the system.” In the latter case, I would still be disinclined to make a judgement without evidence of a kind beyond ‘he said she said’ hearsay, which is pretty much all the linked article consists of. The following statement for example: "A trial depends on five things: who you are and how much money you have, what experts you hire to testify, lawyers, judge and Crown," she [Isabelle Gaston] said. The issue she is contending with is that in his defence a psychiatrist was brought in as an expert witness. To suggest that there are crooked psychiatrists out there willing to say whatever they are told for cash is ridiculous, the role of an expert witness is to give their expert opinion on a subject, this in itself ratified by their position in their respective professional community (am fully aware cases where expert witnesses have been brought into question (cases of shaken baby syndrome in the UK is something that comes to mind) – but this is not where Gaston is taking her issue). Tragic case, good effort on the blog - I appreciate you not putting this in General! | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On December 13 2012 18:18 Callynn wrote: I live in a country with one of the most mild justice systems where you can actually consider taking someone's life because you hate him. If they catch you and say your nuts, you can serve 3 years in a comfortable prison with tv. If they don't catch you, free revenge. I don't ever want the option to consider to be present at all. In my opinion, when someone is proven guilty of murder, with the exception of self-defense, they should just get the death penalty. what? I think I'm missing something here | ||
|
imre
France9263 Posts
On December 13 2012 23:59 Mementoss wrote: If you want Canadian/American Injustice watch this documentary http://www.dearzachary.com/ More on topic, this is ridiculous. He is not safe to be on the streets, you can not judge if something liek this will or will not happen again. To the guy before me, it could be his "damn business" if hes released somewhere in proximity of the OP's location. If the man murders again it could be his friends or family. i love all those TL users who know better than the doctors who were with this guy during 18months what's up with him. It's sad to see so many ppl seeking revenge instead of justice, and is it my bias or most of them are from NA? On December 14 2012 00:09 Kevin_Sorbo wrote: he did kill his kidz to get revenge on his ex-wife. he drank some windshield washer to try and suicide/cloud his judgement. 18 months later hes free. Imho that cardiologist knew that windshield washer couldnt/wouldnt kill him and he displayed some great acting skills trough the whole process. fuck that system. Im ashamed. This is pure defamation and you're the kind of guy who should be trialed and convinced. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
1. To convict someone of a crime in Canada (and in most countries) the prosecution has two prove both a physical act and the mental element (the "guilty mind" or the "mens rea"). In case of murder the mental element that the prosecution has to prove is the intention to kill. If the prosecution fails to prove the intent to kill, it has not proved murder. 2. The prosecution needs to prove both these elements "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is a very high standard. The corollary is that if the defence raises a reasonable doubt about the intention to kill, the accused will not be convicted. 3. Most murder trials are heard by juries. A jury is made up of 12 basically random people. For a jury to reach a verdict, all 12 of them must agree. 4. Getting a jury to find someone not guilty due to insanity (or "mental defect" as it's called in Canadian law) is hard to do. Normal common sense suggests that someone who stabs two little kids to death must have intended to kill them. Any normal person would be very reluctant to say that such a person is not criminally responsible. However, if the juror has a reasonable doubt about the mental element, then they are obliged to find the person not guilty. 5. If a person is found not guilty by reason of insanity, then they are sent to a secure psychiatric hospital to be treated by experts. They stay in the hospital until an independent panel decides to let them go. Often they stay for the rest of their lives. Other times they get out pretty fast. 6. In Quebec the panel is called the "Mental Health Assessment Commission". The commission is like a quasi-court which hears arguments from both sides about whether a person confined to the psychiatric hospital should be released. The commission is composed of experts in the field. If the prisoner is released they are often given conditions that they have to follow to keep from being sent back. 7. It's important to remember that the reason the person is able to get out like this is that they were not convicted of a crime. If they were they would be in the prison system dealing with a completely different process. The person in this case was found not guilty. Obviously when you look at these principles there is a lot of room for injustices to happen. It's very possible that a person was found not guilty who actually was guilty because they raised a reasonable doubt. When you pick 12 random people you usually get a group that has a lot of common sense and life experience -- but it's very possible to just get a bunch of suckers who will reach a decision that makes no sense. It's very possible that the commission screws up and releases someone who shouldn't be released. They know what they're doing but any system run by human beings will make some mistakes. And so on. Was it an injustice in this case? I don't think we can decide that by reading about it in the newspaper. But I do think that we have a pretty good justice system in Canada. When you look at the 7 principles I listed above I don't see any one that I would want to change. Edit: clarity | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
