I've come across this before, but didn't know much about it.  The example used shocked me though.  This is a great example of where diagnosis and treatment made a huge difference from what has been publicized.  I'm not his doctor (or even a doctor) but from what's been shown it was a pretty black and white case.  Someone has schizophrenia, there's a huge cultural stigma so no treatment is sough, horrible death occurs because of it.  Person gets treatment and there's a huge change.  I would trust Li's doctor if it was determined he was no longer a threat to anyone.

If they wanted support you would think they would have picked a better grey area.  Someone who has harmed multiple people at different times after being diagnosed and treated.

There is no doubt that such incidents are horrific tragedies - usually the result of being in a psychotic state.  Traumatic for all those affected - perpetrator, victims families, witnesses, and sometimes even the juries who hear the cases in court.

To be released from a secure psychiatric hospital where such a sentence is served is not a simple process - nor is it a decision taken lightly by the review boards who hear all these cases.  It is a multi-person board, not the person's doctor who makes any recommendations regarding release.  

I stand with the Liberals in opposition to the proposed bill.  I certainly hope it does not pass. 

I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was a simple process to be released. I don't know all the details, I assumed a doctor would be involved.

Before I was confused on this issue, not knowing the details.  It's not like we're voting tomorrow.  This page was such an odd choice though.  It was posted by the Conservatives and cleared up my confusion - it's not something I can support!

How I detest this government which panders to our basest emotions and fears and rejects more than a hundred years of jurisprudence and research by those who have to deal with these cases on a daily basis.

Vince Li didn't even know what he had done. In legal terms he didn't appreciate the nature and quality of his act.  He was incapable of even forming the intention to do a wrong.  He was incapable of appreciating what a wrong might be. He was mentally ill.  He was hallucinating.  He was basing his actions on phantasms that only he could see.  

To punish such a person would be evil and unjust.  To do so would be as unjust as punishing a baby for spitting out their Pablum or a toddler for investigating the Royal Doulton figurine on the end table.  When we choose to punish someone like Vince Li who ought to be "cured" we manufacture a wrong where none previously existed.  We ought to have known better.  We would appreciate that there were alternatives while Vince Li did not. Unlike Vince Li we would be doing a wrong that we know or ought to know is unjust and wrong. 

I don't want to live in an "eye for an eye" society.  I don't want to live in a society where public resources are used to give private emotional satisfaction to small groups of people. "Closure" is just an innocuous synonym for "vengeance" where people are asking for prison terms in situations where an accused is so incapacitated as to be unable to form a criminal intention. 

Vince Li would not have chosen to do what he did had he been a position to exert his free will.  There is no need to imprison him because he does not need to be deterred from making a criminal choice in favour of murder.  He never made such a choice in the first place.  He does not need to be imprisoned to protect society because that objective has already been gained by the much more humane and constructive (and timely and inexpensive) means of drug and other therapies administered by medical doctors and psychiatric care workers. Punishment is just not a valid use of the criminal law and public money.  Similarly, the use of public money to grant private benefits such as "closure" is equally objectionable.

The Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act is bad law and bad public policy.

I know judge Carruthers who retired from the committee that reviews these cases for Ontario. I can't remember which Ontario case had recently been in the news but the topic of "fair to the family" was a big one.

Of course we do know that "fair to the victim/family" is not part of the judicial system. He was very clear and sympathetic to the public face of these crimes but also very clear that the mental condition of the person at the time of the crime superseded all.

He also didn't agree with the popular media stance that anyone could pretend to be incapacitated simply to avoid jail. Too Hollywood

he did convince me.

At the same time, I understand the desire for vengeance. It seems to be hard wired in us. But nothing about the justice system should be about vengeance

The issue for me is that people can't be forced to take medication. When they feel better and stop taking them, generally because they feel cured but also because they hate the dullness and the side effects, they become a danger to themselves and others.

I don't think there is much recourse with this other than therapy and monitoring, by professionals and family. Yet with some mental health issues in a couple of nieces I can see first hand just how difficult it is for the family.

Part of me wishes that there was some sort of minimal incarceration but that is just that vengeance gene.

It has also been reported in the papers that often, people are incarcerated in mental health hospitals for much longer than they would ever have gotten as a jail term. Vince Li isn't one of these and it is a very tragic case. But he was determined to be mentally ill

Lastpointe, when some is not criminally responsible, I find the idea of justice to be odd.  It's like wanting justice because someone died in a tornado.

Vinca Li is also a victim here.

I think he's a ticking timebomb that he will go off again. There is no cure and even medications aren't a guarantee that he will be "cured".  He will remain unpredictable in an extreme way IMO.

This is where the whole concept of restorative justice (as opposed to retributive justice) offers solutions. Admittedly, restorative justice has been most successfully practised (as far as I know) in small communities where the links of interdependence are clearly seen and experienced. In such communities, punishing an "offender" does nothing for the community and is very likely to weaken it by papering over a problem than all are a part of. 

But retributive justice, punitive justice, has also been shown time and time again to fail badly and, most especially, as a deterrent.

Just look at the Canadian Senate and fate of the guy standing next to Bob Ford in the "missing"/"non existent" video image. More critically, lool a the patterns of offending and relate them to wider social parameters. British doctors recently urged the treatment of poverty as a clinical condition. Poverty transfers the costs of dealing with poverty (a solution) into a haemorrhaging of National Health resources. Poverty has also been fairly reliably identified  as a root cause behind a range of crimes. 

A lot of these issues are within our power to "fix".

Waterfall, what makes you think that?

There are cases of repeat offenders that were "cured".

His own mother says he's unpredictable. I do not see him as a victim but someone that has an extreme form of schizophrenia. A mental illness. He probably also needs to be protected from himself at times. We don't really know what would trigger this guy, only a doctors opinion that feels it's a one time incident.

Ask yourself, would you want this guy as your neighbour? For myself, I would be afraid for anyone living near him.

I see him as a victim as no one bother to seek out a diagnosis or treatment for him until he completely lost control.  He feels horrible for what he did, when he wasn't in control.

If his treatment got him to the point where he was released, yes, I would be fine with having him as a neighbour.  When someone has a more extreme mental illness, I don't think they should be given complete freedom, they should have to check in with a doctor from time to time, stay on their meds, etc.  I would much rather have someone who committed a crime, was found to not be criminally responsible, was treated and released than someone who has a severe mental illness and nothing is being done for it.

Feeling as you do, do you think the current system needs to be reformed in the manner the Conservatives think?

I think every case should be treated on an individual basis.

That non-answer could be given to absolutely anything.

Having lived with a "dangerously mentally ill person", I speak from that place.

I have come to understand that "mentally ill" is a diagnosis, like diabetes. It is ever present, whether one is medicated or not. It is present on bad days and it is present on good days. Even when one cannot see it or signs of it, it is there.

I have come to learn that "dangerous" is not always present. There are people who are not dangerous who are mentally ill. In fact, most people who are mentally ill are not dangerous. They work beside us, live beside us and we have no clue of their diagnosis.

It is hard for us to release people who have killed or raped once their sentence is complete. We are in the unknown, we do not know what the future holds.

We may feel very comfortable predicting the future about "some people" and who those people are may be rapists, batterers... the mentally ill.

Guess what? We do not know if we ourselves might be dangerous.

Anyone typing here or reading here could become dangerous. Mental illness crosses all boundaries.  We can hope and pray that folks seek help, that help is available, that family has some option...

Yet, as much as we worry we are not proactive.

We know that often part of being mentally ill is not being able to know you are.

Families have their hands are tied as a loved one is lost in their illness.

Mental health care is not seen as being as important as other types of health care.

Someone is more likely to get a sleep study than a mental health evaluation.

I could go on and on.

Is it hard to trust? Hell yes! I say that from experience. Yet, I know my mom is not the same person on medication as she was prior to it. The scars, damage, harm... was done. Yet, the risk she once posed is not there. Could it be? Yes. She could quit taking her meds.

In my world, the world that is aware of mentla illness, I accept that it could be there for anyone. Again, anyone can be mentally ill. I have to say that I am for more comfortable around the diagnosed than the undiagnosed.

Does everyone take their meds? No. Yet, one cannot judge everyone based on the actions of a few. One certainly cannot enact laws based on stereotypes.

Sometimes, "here take these" is not the answer or the only answer. We wish it was, but not many diseases work that way.

I can sleep in a house with a woman who once terrorized me and traumatized me.

I would feel comfortable with Vince Li as my neighbour. Heck, we live on streets where mentally ill people live, right now. ALL of us.

As a Christian, I am taught Vince Li IS my neighbour, always was and always should be.

Hi chemgal,

Did the newfeed indicate that this is directly from the Conservative Party or the Federal Government.

I only ask because this doesn't look like it is simply a discussion about reform to an act of Parliament is looks like campaign copy (why else would they be slurring Trudeau?).

The Department of Justice has a brief on what they are attempting with the reform to the act.  You can read more here:

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2013/doc_32899.html

If the reform passes it would simply add another tier to the current three tier designation that is part of the assessment process that takes place after any NCR is rendered.  Most of the rest of the discussion reeks of populist ignorance pertaining to Mental Health issues and processes already in place which evaluate whether or not the person deemed NCR is a threat.

So lets discuss that angle because there is a great deal of ignorance around Mental Health issues.

I have shared here that I have a son who was diagnosed with a Bi-Polar Disorder at the age of 14.  Since then he has been recieving medication and taking it diligently.  Seeing as he is 6'3" and weighs 240lbs that is a good thing.

I can say, with great certainty that there was a night and day difference in my son as he entered 2005 and as he left it.  While undiagnosed and untreated he was always a threat for violence and we endured a great deal of it.  When diagnosed and treated he was no more a threat for violence than the typical 13/14 year old.

Was he capable of murder?  He threatened with knives it is doubtful that he could fully appreciate what was going on at the time.  He was under a fairly constant delusion that I was trying to kill him and everybody who was a member of the Church was part of that conspiracy.

During those dark years in NL our son was put through 5 or 6 different drug trials.  We stopped one because while on it he was convinced that his mother was not his actual mother but an alien in disguise.

Left untreated my Son would have either killed himself or somebody else.  Of that I am quite certain.

So, in some of the cases where NCR was returned (which is, all things considered such a rare decision--it just gets a lot of publicity) individuals are off medications and whatever specific diagnosis they are afflicted with is uncontrolled.

How does that happen?

Easily.  Finding a doctor to constantly monitor these medications can be difficult.  Our family doctor would not take my son as a patient until he had a Psychiatrist in the community.  Until then it meant regular trips to London to meet with his doctor, it also means regular bloodwork to reach an effective therapeutic dose and ongoing monitoring of diet and the like.

Fortunately for my son he also has an Autism Spectrum Disorder and he takes things like health and hygiene (save for hairbrushing) rather seriously (almost compulsively so).

Not everyone approaches their health with the same degree of urgency.

Ever get a prescription for anti-biotics and discontinue the regimen when you feel well enough?  Try that same strategy with anti-psychotics and see what happens.

I'm all for enhancing victim involvement but only if part of the victim services offered is an understanding of any diagnosis given to the individual found NCR.  Victims cannot be helped if we keep them ignorant of everything that is going on save for their own grief.

I see nothing in the suggested reforms that will address that issue.

Grace and peace to you.

John

It's used in the health field.

What I mean is that it avoids disclosing just what things should be considered on those case by case bases, and how.  One could ask "which political dissidents should we imprison in Canada?" and the answer comes, "that should be decided on a case by case basis".  Well, okay...but please elaborate, right?  This is why I called your answer a non-answer.  It reveals nothing at all about your position.  Then again, maybe that was your goal.

Thanks for the link RevJohn.  I meant to include the link where I copied the text from in the OP, looks like I missed doing that:

http://www.conservative.ca/?page_id=3134

So yes, it's from the Conservative Party.

RevJohn and SG, thanks for sharing your perspectives along with your personal stories.

Waterfall, I agree that these situations should be examined on a case by case basis.  From what I see, that's already currently being done.  Do you support this particular reform act?

Someone such as Vincent Li, who has already proved he is capable of extreme violence should not ever be allowed to live in the community because he might stop taking his medication and become violent again.  

If the various boards and governments insist on relieasing Li then the general public will become so outraged that eventualy the NCR verdict will no longer be used and the mentally ill will end up in regular jails.  

Many already do, Mely.

Mely, rather than focusing on one particular case, I would like to hear your opinion on the Not Criminally Responsible Reform bill.

Honestly, I haven't read Bill C-54 and can't seem to get a copy online. All I've read are pros and cons in newspaper articles and little snippets here and there.

The little I've read,seems to call for a blanket statement for some mental illnesses. This might lead to not taking anyones situation on an individual basis and developing a standard for medical treatment as if one size fits all, which I probably wouldnt agree with because every condition presents itself differently in individuals. From what I gather the medical community that deal with such situations were not consulted and that is worrisome.

If anything we probably need to have more psychiatric hospitals or specialized units within hospitals for the care of the mentally ill and are more readily accessible.

More research for better medications would seem appropriate also. This article was enlightening for me.

http://the-wife-of-a-schizophrenic.blogspot.ca/2009/02/why-do-people-sto...

"Might be violent" and "already was violent" are not sound arguments if one asks me.

The reality is that any one of us "might be violent". Not a one of us has an immunity to mental illness or some sheild that makes us incaple of inflicting harm.

As much as we like to say "not me, couldn't happen to me" the reality is that it could.

Anyone could become mentally ill.

Even if we think we are immune to mental illness there are drugs that have as a side effect violence. We will say "it is the drugs they take, the mentally ill". Yet, psychotropic medication is used for various things, like epilepsy. Our chemical composition is the same, whether we think we are different or not. We have to also think we will never become an addict or that the doctor will never prescribe us a medication that has violence as a side effect. That we will never devlop epilepsy, never have a traumatic brain injury....

So, one might lean to "already violent". Do we lock up and throw away the key for everyone who has been violent? Forever? Do we advocate against such things as release from prison or parole? 

What line do we draw around locking up and throwing away the key on the "already violent"? How violent? A bullet, a stab, rape.... ? Are we now advocating life imprisonmennt for assault?

Is it a bar fight, fist fight, domestic dispute, a slap....?

How many of us would be free?

I certainly would not be and I am not alone, even if others refuse to admit it.

I could choose to see how different Vince Li is from others, or I can choose to see him as human, just like the rest of us.

I know my choice.

People do react differently to different drugs. I've often had to get prescriptions changed for others until the "right fit" is found.

I agree that the mentally ill shouldn't be stigmatized, but if I'm honest with myself, I would be afraid of Vince Li. being out on the streets eventually without supervision. This hasn't happened yet, but could. It may be my ignorance and lack of medical knowledge in this area or the press sensationilzing some cases, such as the doctor who murdered his three children and then being released, I don't know. I'm also aware of some professionals that simply like to have a "cured" under their belt with minimal follow up.

As for violence, yes it could happen to anyone, but statistically percentage wise it is low in the general population for extreme violence.

SG, you have first hand experience as do others on this board, I will try and learn from you and others.

Hi waterfall,

Probably?  I would say it is definite that we need to have more psychiatric hospitals and specialized units within hospitals.

The real problem with that response is that it is compassionate and loving and that is not an element of the tough on crime contingent.

There is money to build jails.  There is no money to build hospitals.

There is money to pay prison guards.  There is no money to pay staff in psychiatric hospitals.

Beyond that, metally ill people are scary and should be hidden away from society because they make some people very uncomfortable.

We might never know that the person sitting next to us, or shudder, right behind us on the next bus ride is afflicted with a mental illness.  So long as they are taking their meds.  We might even strike up a polite conversation with them and think they were one of the nicest people on the bus.

As soon as we find out that they are one of them we'll think differently.  We'll find a reason to end the conversation and maybe even get off the bus early just to get away.

The real reason for the concern is that we know, okay we don't know, we just believe and that is the same thing as knowing, that all of these people are just trying to shirk responsibility for their criminal behaviour.

And we are really frightened because we know, okay we don'tknow this either, we just believe it  and because we believe it we think we know what we are talking about, that the only thing that happens to people who are put in psychiatric hospitals is that they sit around watching TV all day scheming about ways to prove they are better so that they will immediately be released out into the society so they can start their killing spree right where they left off.

Mental Health issues are a mental block to most of society, they are easier to run from or deny than they are to deal with.

The big word for the reforms to this legislation.  Fraud.  It does nothing to address the real issues because the concerns raised are not "real" issues.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Agreed on more supports and places for treatment!

I also appreciate your honesty.  Our feelings are our feelings.

I had lunch with a man who was subsequently declared not criminally responsible for murdering two men with a roofing axe. This man had been diagnosed with schizophrenia after his illness had progressed many years. He was in his 30's when he was diagnosed I believe. When I met him he was taking his meds and was a contributing member of society. When he committed his crime. He was psychotic and likely taking recreational drugs. I think of his situation when I think of some of the attempts to create "safer streets". Had he been diagnosed younger and given proper minimal supports this tragedy would have been avoided. His family tried and tried to get him help when he was unable to do so himself. Unfortunately, neither the will nor the resources were there.

Research has shown that early diagnosis and intervention improves outcome significantly. I'm hoping revjohn's son is one such example. I personally would rather see our money put into better mental health and addictions services instead of legal/corrections services. Our money would go further and would be better used. I'd rather see what Mike describes, a restorative justice system rather than a retributive justice system. It is far more humane.

Northwind - I agree.

Hi Northwind,

At present my son is the most thoughtful gift-giver in our family.  Which is quite impressive due to the ASD component.  We moved back to ON from NL for a number of reasons.  First and foremost was the glaring fact that all psychiatry in NL belonged to a school of thought which did not believe early onset Bi-polar disorder was possible.  The second was that in each of the first three years the final treatment for individuals with severe mental illness was the exercise of lethal force by the local police.

Tough on crime advocates appreciate lethal force and it is cheaper to by ammunition and send the officer responsible for a few therapy sessions than it is to treat the deceased before they get that way.

That would be the most productive and preventative use of tax dollars.  It would do nothing to reduce the fear that drives the tough on crime agenda.

If any government was committed to victim justice it would be bending over backwards to prevent any from becoming victim not waiting to use them for their own purposes.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I agree we desperately need more psychiatric hospitals . It was a terrible mistake to close most of them down in the last 40 years are so. Many of the people ended up living on the street and sleeping in back alleys. The hospitals could have been reformed instead of closed down. But it was the fashion to shut them down.

It wasn't fashion to shut them down. It was based on what seemed to be a good idea at the time. De-institutionalization was a good thing in theory. The problem was that they did not put the money saved from closing institutions into suitable community resources. If they had created a network of community resources to replace the institutions, we'd have had a different and better outcome from closing them down.

North wind,
Isn't fashion always what seems to be a good idea at the time?

Not always. Fashion implies there was no thought behind it. There was plenty of good thought behind deinstitutionalization. Unfortunately, they stopped thinking when they implemented it.