 Beheaded man's mom backs Criminal Code changesLaw & Order | 206603 hits | Feb 08 11:52 pm | Posted by: martin14 Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Beyond that, the law doesn't really change anything except potentially extend the review period, but it still relies on the same expert opinion of shrinks who already conduct the reviews.
"Unescorted passes" are total nonsense. The only way someone should be able to leave an institution unescorted is on the day they are released.
Calls for change (from victims and victims rights advocates) tend to happen when double and triple child killers are exiting institutions after 18 to 24 months.
"Unescorted passes" are total nonsense. The only way someone should be able to leave an institution unescorted is on the day they are released.
So you agree that this bill isn't really about the mentally ill offender's likelyhood to reoffend, it's realy about trying to get a pound of flesh from him?
Calls for change (from victims and victims rights advocates) tend to happen when double and triple child killers are exiting institutions after 18 to 24 months.
"Unescorted passes" are total nonsense. The only way someone should be able to leave an institution unescorted is on the day they are released.
So you agree that this bill isn't really about the mentally ill offender's likelyhood to reoffend, it's realy about trying to get a pound of flesh from him?
Having the offender declared NCR completely denies justice to the victims, their murderer/abuser/etc will never spend a single day in prison for their actions. They lose their freedom of movement while undergoing their treatment, but given the danger they pose to others, that is nowhere near unreasonable.
No one is getting a of flesh, nevermind a pound.
Calls for change (from victims and victims rights advocates) tend to happen when double and triple child killers are exiting institutions after 18 to 24 months.
"Unescorted passes" are total nonsense. The only way someone should be able to leave an institution unescorted is on the day they are released.
So you agree that this bill isn't really about the mentally ill offender's likelyhood to reoffend, it's realy about trying to get a pound of flesh from him?
Having the offender declared NCR completely denies justice to the victims, their murderer/abuser/etc will never spend a single day in prison for their actions. They lose their freedom of movement while undergoing their treatment, but given the danger they pose to others, that is nowhere near unreasonable.
No one is getting a of flesh, nevermind a pound.
Rather torn here.....at least from the justice pound of flesh side here. Fact is, someone found NCR has been found such because he person is suffering from a significant hardware/software failure that has thrown them off the rails and caused them...I repeat....caused them to do some horrific crime. There is no pre-meditation, no intricate evil plans, not even passion. It's simply that something broke. The only difference between a significant mental illness like schizophrenia and say cancer is that the schizo may hurt someone. It's the mental illness that is the driver now...not the person.
As far as I'm concerned it should be more about public safety and not about a pound of flesh. If the public is safe with their release, then move forward. If not, or if safety is reliant upon the person faithfully taking meds, then not so fast.
Rather torn here.....at least from the justice pound of flesh side here. Fact is, someone found NCR has been found such because he person is suffering from a significant hardware/software failure that has thrown them off the rails and caused them...I repeat....caused them to do some horrific crime. There is no pre-meditation, no intricate evil plans, not even passion. It's simply that something broke. The only difference between a significant mental illness like schizophrenia and say cancer is that the schizo may hurt someone. It's the mental illness that is the driver now...not the person.
As far as I'm concerned it should be more about public safety and not about a pound of flesh. If the public is safe with their release, then move forward. If not, or if safety is reliant upon the person faithfully taking meds, then not so fast.
I agree. I think the issue is that mentally ill people, as far as I'm concerendd, cannot be rehabilitated because we have no cure and precious little treatment for them. And most of all, I very much distrust the abilities of psychologists or psychiatrists to pass jugdment as to wether or not these people are fit to be released. They just don't know.
If not, or if safety is reliant upon the person faithfully taking meds, then not so fast.
Vince already showed a previous episode of not taking his meds before he
killed Tim, that should be enough for him not to get out without
a companion.. forever.
Vince nay not have known right from wrong, but failing to take his meds means culpability, IMO, the same way that a drunk driver is culpable even he's too wasted to understand right from wrong. There's knowledge of foresight and recklessness.
I'm sympathetic to the mentally ill and I think this bill is little more than lip service to the misinformed masses who wrongly believe that dangerous people are being let back out on the streets. But in Vince Li's case, he should have been convicted. He knew his condition and knew he needed to be medicated and that means he's guilty.
misinformed masses who wrongly believe that dangerous people are being let back out on the streets.
They are. The doc in Montreal who killed his kids, out in no time. Shoenberg in BC who killed his kids, unescorted passes in no time until it turned out that his wife lived in the neighborhood. If he's safe to go out, why is he not safe around his wife?
It's part of the illness to not take your meds as Vince did - he was still mentally ill when he made that decision. Putting him in jail would be nuts, but he should be kept in hospital for a long time. Really what needs to be done is that these people are on parole for the rest of their lives, have to prove they are taking their meds and be frequently assessed as to state of mind. Any slip up and back in they go for a spell.
And, of course none of that does much. I don't think there are too many murderers deemed NCR who murder again, instead it's some new crazy person who does it, and we have no way of preventing it. But tightening up who we let out and when seems like a good idea to me. I'm sorry you're ill and that made you kill, but we have to keep you from harming again. It's not about punishment, it's about keeping society a bit safer. Actually I feel the same way about prison (it's not about punishment) and don't make such a huge distinction between NCR and guilty. Most people in prison are damaged, I posted a piece on how poverty affects brain development, many of them have FASD, etc etc. They don't need to be punished (as you have said, being locked up is punishment enough) but they do need to be segregated from society.
misinformed masses who wrongly believe that people are being let back out on the streets.
They are. The doc in Montreal who killed his kids, out in no time.
Are they? You think he's dangerous? I prefer to trust the experts. If the shrinks say he's not a danger, he likely isn't. Have you an example of a case where they've gotten it wrong?
Shoenberg in BC who killed his kids, unescorted passes in no time until it turned out that his wife lived in the neighborhood. If he's safe to go out, why is he not safe around his wife?
I'm not familiar with that case. One or two cases does not an epidemic make. Same with the misconception that murderers get out of prison with light sentences. It's infuriating to many, but it's also completely untrue.
I agree. I think the issue is that mentally ill people, as far as I'm concerendd, cannot be rehabilitated because we have no cure and precious little treatment for them. And most of all, I very much distrust the abilities of psychologists or psychiatrists to pass jugdment as to wether or not these people are fit to be released. They just don't know.
Chris Summerville, CEO of Schizophrenia Society of Canada:
Note that the first point is that only 3% of people with mental illness have any confilict with law, major or minor offence. And only 0.001% of that 3% are found NCR. Of that .001% of 3% who are found NCR of a crime, only 3% of those people reoffend. We're dealing with really small numbers here.
And I mostly agree.
Having the offender declared NCR completely denies justice to the victims, their murderer/abuser/etc will never spend a single day in prison for their actions
When an old granny driving home from church accidentally hits the gas instead of the brake and kills someone, are the victims and family denied justice unless we strap granny to an electic chair or throw her in a dark hole? To me, it's not much different from someone who is mentally ill. It's tragic but it's not intended for anyone involved. Granny may lose her license in the interest of public safety, or she may just have to re-take a drivers exam yearly, adjust her meds, etc as the circumstances dictate, but few would say granny has to suffer in order for "justice" to be served.
Justice isn't about eye-for-an-eye. Revenge doesn't bring back the dead or erase memories from the traumatized. I know if some crazy person were to harm my family, inflicting harm on the crazy person wouldn't make me feel any better about it.
One thing I predict from this new change is that pyschiatrists, who may have not had enough time to treat and assess the progress of someone found NCR by time of trial, will simply not declare the person to be high risk. All that will come from that is that the NCR will have to be reassessed every year as per the existing process instead of every 3 years under the new Harper bill. I mean, where does the '3 year' requirement of this new bill come from anyway? Is it just some arbitrary number politicians pulled out of their asses?
IMO, when a person who is institutionalized for NCR is deemed to have made significant and long-term progress, and is ready for re-integration with society, a re-integration program should start immediately, not after another 3 years have gone by, which could cause a 'backslide'. Eventually, part of that gradual re-integration before a full release may reasonably include unsupervised day passes,so that the patient can gradually readjust to society. This is better for all us than if they just kept the patient locked down til release day and then just opened the door and yelled "Get the fuck out!"
Ian Hunter, Special to National Post | Nov 27, 2012 12:01 AM ET
In the name of “victims’ rights,” Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is now applying its tough-on-crime agenda against the most vulnerable constituency within the justice system: the mentally ill.
The government proposes Criminal Code amendments to tighten restrictions on defendants who are found not criminally responsible for their actions by reason of mental illness. The Code currently requires that NCR (not criminally responsible) individuals be detained in a maximum-, medium- or minimum-security forensic hospital, and that each case be reviewed annually by a provincial review board. The review Bbard is comprised of five members, usually chaired by a judge, and including psychiatrists, psychologists, lawyers and public members. The Board can decide upon the level of security each NCR accused requires; it can grant privileges — including living in the community; it may discharge the person, conditionally or absolutely. The current wording of the Criminal Code requires the board to grant the “least onerous, least restrictive” disposition that is consistent with four stated principles, one of which is “the need to protect the public from dangerous persons.”
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson wants to make public safety the paramount consideration in all cases, and he proposes that the fate of the accused be reviewed every three years instead of annually. Last Thursday, Mr. Nicholson said: “We are listening to victims, as well as provinces and territories, who are telling us that the safety of the public should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving mentally disordered accused persons.”
Put that way, who can object?
What Mr. Nicholson did not say is that this is precisely how the Review Board currently operates; in fact, in R. v. Conway (2010) the Supreme Court held that a Review Board cannot grant an absolute discharge to anyone who remains a significant threat to the public. Therefore, while the government’s proposed amendment may be politically popular with the 90% of Canadians who, according to one poll, believe that anyone once declared NCR should never be released from supervision, in practice it is just window-dressing.
Academic studies have shown that the recidivism rate for NCR accused is very low, somewhere in the 3-7% range. By comparison, the recidivism rate for parolees is at least double that, while the recidivism rate for those who complete a prison term is more than fives times greater. So, if public protection is the objective, the government blunderbuss is aimed at the wrong target.
Of course, most Canadians know little about review boards and how they operate. In their composition, and in the evidence they hear, expertise is brought to bear on the difficult issue of risk assessment. Are review boards infallible? Of course not, but they have access to the best actuarial and clinical risk assessment data, and they happen to know a good deal more about protecting the public than, with respect, does the minister of justice.
The board generally sits in panels of five. While hearings are more informal and inquisitorial than a criminal trial, the parties (including the office of the attorney-general, who is there to represent the public interest) each have the right to call evidence and to cross-examine witnesses. Victims are notified in advance of each annual review and they have the right to attend and participate, or to file a victim impact statement, and such a statement must be considered by the board.
Some victims complain that this means being “re-victimized” annually. But to the extent that is so, this — like testifying in a criminal trial — is a regrettable byproduct of doing justice.
The immediate impact of a move from annual review to hearings only every three years would be to induce stasis into the forensic system. The system is already strained to the breaking point by inadequate forensic beds. Freeze the movement of an accused for a three-year period and it would automatically mean even more mentally-ill people languishing untreated in jails — something the courts have already been critical of.
Also, to grant the review board authority over someone’s liberty — someone who, don’t forget, has not been convicted of any crime — for a period of three years, is almost certainly contrary to Section 7 (“life, liberty and security of the person”) and Section 9 (“arbitrary detention”) of the Charter of Rights. If the federal government proceeds with such an ill-considered amendment, it will set itself up for a Charter challenge that it will lose.
In sum, Mr. Nicholson’s proposed amendments may be politically expedient, but they will do nothing to increase public safety, nor do they address the thorny problem of how to deal with mentally ill offenders in the criminal justice system.
National Post
Ian Hunter is professor emeritus in the Faculty of Law at Western University. His latest book is That Time of Year (Justin Press).
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... efendants/
Vince Lee seems more like the truly crazy one. No reason for the killing, just the voices in his head. Still, I don't particularly want him roaming the streets just because a panel of shrinks says he's heallluuud. As Zip points out, with Schizophrenia at least, there's no such thing, just management of the disease. I really have no problem letting these people out if they are under close supervision to ensure they are taking their meds and not going off the rails.
In Vancouver we just had two cases where somebody released from the psych ward, which they sought out voluntarily, committed violence a few days later. One severely beat 4 old ladies, the other stabbed 7 people. While the psych ward couldn't keep them against their will, and they weren't as thoroughly vetted as people being released from a forensic unit, it still shows how ineffective psychiatry is in predicting behavior.
Again, to me the ideal solution is to let them out if they are deemed to be high functioning, but to supervise them closely for life to make sure they stay that way. That costs money of course, ie higher taxes, but I think it's money well spent.
Rather torn here.....at least from the justice pound of flesh side here. Fact is, someone found NCR has been found such because he person is suffering from a significant hardware/software failure that has thrown them off the rails and caused them...I repeat....caused them to do some horrific crime. There is no pre-meditation, no intricate evil plans, not even passion.
That's the most dangerous type of person there is. At least with a bank robber there's a chance to rehabilitate since they have the capability to see reason, they just choose not to.