Sorry, but I agree with GAF on this. Mental Illness is no excuse for beheading someone. "Criminal Insanity" should have him locked in an institution, not going back to the public. What if he goes off meds again?
I think being concerned about his support system once he is on his own and the worry he won't take his medications are reasonable stances for obvious reasons but the logic for letting him out is sound in my mind given the program he was in.
"The review board is required to apply the standard in the Criminal Code, which says that if the tribunal finds that he is not a significant threat to the public, they have to give him absolute discharge."
Grant said the criminal justice system doesn't apply its usual "punishment-based model" to offenders who are not criminally responsible. Instead, the model is based on treatment with the goal of allowing offenders to eventually function in society.
The fact Canada even has a system like this to begin with is a huge boon. He wasn't found criminally responsible due to his untreated schizophrenia, so he was placed in a rehabilitation program which eventually could lead to being discharged
if he was found to not be a significant threat to the public. After 7 years, that has happened. Is this case extreme and unusually? Absolutely. But according to the program he was a part of, which I happen to think is for the greater good, he is out. I'm not saying Canada or this program is perfect because they're not. I'm sure their system has issues but I sure as hell admire their approach and general philosophy.
More than a few in the GAF thread seem more perturbed he wasn't "properly" punished or locked up forever. Our social safety nets are so poor or nonexistent in the US that most extreme cases of mental illness fall straight to our criminal justice system and the jails/prisons to deal with with no option for rehabilitation. And since we have this general belief that only "bad guys" are in prison (
), we use this circular logic that prisoners obviously deserve to be there and assume they earned whatever horrible things they get so fuck'em anyway.
And as was said, some GAFers are so oblivious they even assume they know more than trained professionals. Do you think the doctors who worked with and monitored him since 2009 took this lightly? Do you think the board that decided he wasn't a threat understood the weight of this decision to let him free? Do you think they realized how the public would perceive the decision?
NeoGAF.com: "lol medical professionals" "lol mental illness"
I don't agree but it's of course debatable. I wouldn't feel at ease around that man either. As usual the key point here is Gaf double standard as I recall the board fancy itself as progressive on these issues (and on the cause of crimes in general).
Besides wherever you stand, you know such a decision was vetted through a number of experts. Not foolproof by any means but always hilarious to see some armchair geek give his no doubt solid medical opinion based on a couple of articles.
this
What I want you to answer is: If he goes off meds and kills someone again, who's responsibility/fault is that? That's where I am on it. I'm not opposed to releasing him to the public. I'm opposed because of the potential risk of him doing a murder/beheading again due to failing to take his meds.
We can't expect a zero percent recidivism rate. The fact is, some people are going to get out and reoffend to various degrees. Again, this is a high profile and extreme case but if he was to have an episode and hurt someone, you don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
I believe the program he was a part of is undeniably a noble one and something worth maintaining despite a certain percentage of participants eventually failing and committing another crime.
Edit:
spoiler (click to show/hide)
I wasn't expect this careposting LOL DIDN'T READ garbage to be at the top of the page.
