Follow-Up To Bus Rider Beheading Story

[Big Phil]

Umm, we lock them up in institutions until a trained mental health professional can convince a judge (it's my understanding that a judge has the ultimate say in whether they are released or not) they are no longer a danger to society?

At which point they should begin serving their punishment for the crime committed, not simply released. Whether they knew right from wrong, or were "crazy" or not, they still committed the crime; they still are responsible for the crime; they still need to be punished for the crime.

Seems that there's a problem with intent. If you don't know right from wrong, how can you form intent to commit a crime?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse? If I didn't know murder was wrong, perhaps because I come from a society where murder is legal, I still can't use that bullshit as a defense. So why is insanity allowed? Muslims try to use culture as a defense sometimes (in my country, it is legal to throw acid in a woman's face, or burn a widows, or beat my wife when she refuses to do what I say), and courts consistently strike down their arguments, and yet insanity is legal.

[Phantasee]

Damn, Ryan, you are one stupid cock. Of course he's dangerous, both to himself and others. That's why he's being put into a mental institution, under guard, lock and key, until he's cured. Because, you know, once he is cured, that means that he won't be a danger to society anymore, because he won't be insane and liable to do this again. I mean, this isn't even Law 101 shit. We put them into institutions until trained professionals can determine that they're no longer suffering from whatever made them dangerous in the first place. What the fuck is wrong with that?

I'm not sure what issues you and Phantasee have with Ryan Thunder, but do you really need to bring your drama into this thread?

I don't know what legal statutes you're talking about, but if the new standard for crime and punishment is "until they are no longer a danger to society," then most criminals should be locked up for life, sane or not. Petty thieves only get a few months to a few years in prison, but repeat offenders are definitely a danger to society; using your logic, they should be receiving life sentences until "licensed professionals" decide they won't steal anymore.

And with regard to your "what the fuck is wrong with that" question; trained professionals could determine the guy to be cured and no longer a threat to society in six months. Is it really just to have a murderer "cured" and on the streets in six months, just because he was declared insane, while sane murderers spend decades in prison?

Do you understand how difficult it is to be declared 'not criminally responsible due to mental illness' in Canada? Do you understand what that even means?

Two components to a crime: Actus Rea and Mens Rea. The act, everyone knows here. The Mental of the crime, that's what you have to prove as well. The fact in this case is the guy is schizophrenic, and could not have formed the intent to kill the guy.

The 'legal statutes' are in the Canadian Criminal Code.

And about the 6 months: That is very very very unlikely. But if it is what happens: then he's been cured, but he's still under a parole of sorts, having to regularly meet up with a shrink. And he's going to be watched for the rest of his life. Is it right to punish people because they have cancer? Until people change their perspective on mental illness, we'll have to deal with retards who think 'mental illness' is something made up by the pyschologists and psychiatrists to keep themselves working.

Am I talking to Tom Cruise, here?

[Phantasee]

Seems that there's a problem with intent. If you don't know right from wrong, how can you form intent to commit a crime?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse? If I didn't know murder was wrong, perhaps because I come from a society where murder is legal, I still can't use that bullshit as a defense. So why is insanity allowed? Muslims try to use culture as a defense sometimes (in my country, it is legal to throw acid in a woman's face, or burn a widows, or beat my wife when she refuses to do what I say), and courts consistently strike down their arguments, and yet insanity is legal.

Holy shit you're a retard. Intent isn't 'ignorance of the law', dumbass. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. Before you start teaching us about criminal justice, why don't you learn a bit about it yourself? Or do you not understand the Mens Rea component of a crime?

Insanity is not the defence here. Please, do not assume what you have seen in the movies and TV is what is going on here. Mental illness is not a cultural thing, you fucking dumbass.

[Kanastrous]

Seems that there's a problem with intent. If you don't know right from wrong, how can you form intent to commit a crime?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse? If I didn't know murder was wrong, perhaps because I come from a society where murder is legal, I still can't use that bullshit as a defense. So why is insanity allowed? Muslims try to use culture as a defense sometimes (in my country, it is legal to throw acid in a woman's face, or burn a widows, or beat my wife when she refuses to do what I say), and courts consistently strike down their arguments, and yet insanity is legal.

Not ignorance of the law, but deranged perceptions of what's going on at the time you commit the crime.

For example, if you are so detached from reality as to be convinced that your fellow passenger is a demon who is about to kill you, and that your only hope of survival is to kill him first and then cut up the body so the parts won't spontaneously re-assemble and come after you, then you were not capable of realizing that what you did was murder (and a violation of the law) while you were doing it. At the time you weren't aware of committing the crime of murder; you were aware of acting in self-defense.

This isn't about unknowingly violating a law; this is about being so deranged as to not even realize that your actions break any laws whether you are aware of them or not.

[Flagg]

Umm, we lock them up in institutions until a trained mental health professional can convince a judge (it's my understanding that a judge has the ultimate say in whether they are released or not) they are no longer a danger to society?

At which point they should begin serving their punishment for the crime committed, not simply released. Whether they knew right from wrong, or were "crazy" or not, they still committed the crime; they still are responsible for the crime; they still need to be punished for the crime.

Seems that there's a problem with intent. If you don't know right from wrong, how can you form intent to commit a crime?

You can't. That's why we have the "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect" option. This is just a case of people who don't understand mental illness wanting their pound of flesh whether it's deserved or not.

[Kanastrous]

^ that was a rhetorical question but thanks, yes.

[The Romulan Republic]

As long as the guy remains safely locked up, I don't greatly care that they attached a different lable to his crime.

[Ryan Thunder]

Being committed to a mental institution for violent crimes can, in effect, be a life sentence. One should bear that in mind.

I guess.

Is it right to punish people because they have cancer?

No. But then, people who have cancer aren't liable to go apeshit and cannibalize people, either.

[Flagg]

Being committed to a mental institution for violent crimes can, in effect, be a life sentence. One should bear that in mind.

I guess.

Is it right to punish people because they have cancer?

No. But then, people who have cancer aren't liable to go apeshit and cannibalize people, either.

Way to miss the point dickshit. Mental disease is no less an ailment than cancer is the entire point he was making. Until people start viewing mental illness as a serious disease rather than either an excuse to get out of responsibility or some kind of character flaw then we'll have asshats like you around spreading their ignorance.

[Themightytom]

I'm not sure what issues you and Phantasee have with Ryan Thunder, but do you really need to bring your drama into this thread?

I was deeply shocked that anyone ELSE would have leaped to the defense of mental illness recovery, thanks for providing insight, i was starting to consider the field accepted and well understood.

I don't know what legal statutes you're talking about, but if the new standard for crime and punishment is "until they are no longer a danger to society," then most criminals should be locked up for life, sane or not. Petty thieves only get a few months to a few years in prison, but repeat offenders are definitely a danger to society; using your logic, they should be receiving life sentences until "licensed professionals" decide they won't steal anymore.

The legal system makes no sense. it is slowly evolving into a rehabilitation system, but it was originally created more as a punitive blunt instrument. Someone does something wrong, you lock them away according to a formula. Crime= punnishment.

Cases like this illustrate a HUGE difference between people who are mentally competent and people who are so messed up they don't know up from down right from wrong.

of course one flaw is the HORRIBLE statistics regarding mental illness recovery, I don't know the numbers off hand but I know that its a topic of daily discussion in the field, there is a strong movement to deliberately shift the focus from mental Illness maintanence to mental illness recovery because no one is getting better. its pretty dangerous for us to shift the burden of care for dangerous people from the containment model (Prisons) to the recovery model (Prisons) if we can't verify that they even work.

but its more humane and its protected by the constitution so...

And with regard to your "what the fuck is wrong with that" question; trained professionals could determine the guy to be cured and no longer a threat to society in six months. Is it really just to have a murderer "cured" and on the streets in six months, just because he was declared insane, while sane murderers spend decades in prison?

its especially dangerous not to have it in his criminal record. he moves to a new state and they wouldn't even see it coming.

Way to miss the point dickshit. Mental disease is no less an ailment than cancer is the entire point he was making. Until people start viewing mental illness as a serious disease rather than either an excuse to get out of responsibility or some kind of character flaw then we'll have asshats like you around spreading their ignorance.

Do you think "illness" and "Disease" can be used interchangibly? The concept of calling and treating a mental illness as an illness is to promote the concept of recovery, not to absolve from responsibility, or did you think recovery would be possible for that guy iff people don't bother to explore what he did and why.

[Phantasee]

And with regard to your "what the fuck is wrong with that" question; trained professionals could determine the guy to be cured and no longer a threat to society in six months. Is it really just to have a murderer "cured" and on the streets in six months, just because he was declared insane, while sane murderers spend decades in prison?

its especially dangerous not to have it in his criminal record. he moves to a new state and they wouldn't even see it coming.

In Canada, we have a Criminal Code for the whole country, it does not vary province by province. All law enforcement in the country would know if he moved anywhere. We have the RCMP to look after it, as well, it's nice to have a national police force for this sort of thing.

[Big Phil]

Seems that there's a problem with intent. If you don't know right from wrong, how can you form intent to commit a crime?

Ignorance of the law is no excuse? If I didn't know murder was wrong, perhaps because I come from a society where murder is legal, I still can't use that bullshit as a defense. So why is insanity allowed? Muslims try to use culture as a defense sometimes (in my country, it is legal to throw acid in a woman's face, or burn a widows, or beat my wife when she refuses to do what I say), and courts consistently strike down their arguments, and yet insanity is legal.

Holy shit you're a retard. Intent isn't 'ignorance of the law', dumbass. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. Before you start teaching us about criminal justice, why don't you learn a bit about it yourself? Or do you not understand the Mens Rea component of a crime?

Insanity is not the defence here. Please, do not assume what you have seen in the movies and TV is what is going on here. Mental illness is not a cultural thing, you fucking dumbass.

Phantasee, you're awfully angry today; are you constipated? Should I mail you some Ex-Lax to help you poop? Maybe then you'll calm down a little bit and we can have a rational discussion.

And your cancer analogy... wow, talk about a descent into madness

For example, if you are so detached from reality as to be convinced that your fellow passenger is a demon who is about to kill you, and that your only hope of survival is to kill him first and then cut up the body so the parts won't spontaneously re-assemble and come after you, then you were not capable of realizing that what you did was murder (and a violation of the law) while you were doing it. At the time you weren't aware of committing the crime of murder; you were aware of acting in self-defense.

This isn't about unknowingly violating a law; this is about being so deranged as to not even realize that your actions break any laws whether you are aware of them or not.

I get the difference; I just don't agree with the whole concept of judging someone's state of mind, particularly as it relates to mental illness. I don't see any valid reason why someone shouldn't be tried for the crime they commit, regardless of their mental competency. The punishment should certainly be different (i.e., crazy people should go to a mental institution, not prison, until and if they are cured), but I have a philosophical problem with judging crimes differently based on who committed them.

[Phantasee]

Phantasee, you're awfully angry today; are you constipated? Should I mail you some Ex-Lax to help you poop? Maybe then you'll calm down a little bit and we can have a rational discussion.

And your cancer analogy... wow, talk about a descent into madness

I understand my analogy wasn't very good, but that doesn' excuse you from ignoring any of my other points. Prove to me that you understand both the actus rea and mens rea of a crime, and then we'll see about having a discussion of any sort. Because so far, you don't seem to show any comprehension of mens rea.

[Big Phil]

Phantasee, you're awfully angry today; are you constipated? Should I mail you some Ex-Lax to help you poop? Maybe then you'll calm down a little bit and we can have a rational discussion.

And your cancer analogy... wow, talk about a descent into madness

I understand my analogy wasn't very good, but that doesn' excuse you from ignoring any of my other points. Prove to me that you understand both the actus rea and mens rea of a crime, and then we'll see about having a discussion of any sort. Because so far, you don't seem to show any comprehension of mens rea.

I understand the difference between intent and the crime itself; I just disagree with considering someone's state of mind when determining whether they committed a crime or not. The crime was committed - a guy was murdered - mental state should be considered when determining a punishment, not when determining whether a crime was committed or not.

[Kanastrous]

Phantasee, you're awfully angry today; are you constipated? Should I mail you some Ex-Lax to help you poop? Maybe then you'll calm down a little bit and we can have a rational discussion.

And your cancer analogy... wow, talk about a descent into madness

I understand my analogy wasn't very good, but that doesn' excuse you from ignoring any of my other points. Prove to me that you understand both the actus rea and mens rea of a crime, and then we'll see about having a discussion of any sort. Because so far, you don't seem to show any comprehension of mens rea.

I understand the difference between intent and the crime itself; I just disagree with considering someone's state of mind when determining whether they committed a crime or not. The crime was committed - a guy was murdered - mental state should be considered when determining a punishment, not when determining whether a crime was committed or not.

What's the difference between murder and manslaughter? The perpetrator's mental state. Mental state goes to determining whether or not a crime was committed (more specifically what if any crime was committed), all the time.

[Aaron]

I get the difference; I just don't agree with the whole concept of judging someone's state of mind, particularly as it relates to mental illness. I don't see any valid reason why someone shouldn't be tried for the crime they commit, regardless of their mental competency. The punishment should certainly be different (i.e., crazy people should go to a mental institution, not prison, until and if they are cured), but I have a philosophical problem with judging crimes differently based on who committed them.

Just a side note here, this guy won't be going to a regular institution here if it turns out that he is beyond curing. He'll be going to a prison for the criminally insane, like Colony Farm in British Columbia and he'll never get out.

[Big Phil]

What's the difference between murder and manslaughter? The perpetrator's mental state. Mental state goes to determining whether or not a crime was committed (more specifically what if any crime was committed), all the time.

Mental state goes to determining WHICH crime was committed, in most cases, not whether a crime was committed AT ALL. Furthermore, manslaughter is usually applied in cases where death was not the intent (i.e., it was accidental or due to negligence), whereas murder is applied where there was intent to kill. I don't know of a case where a crazy person was charged with manslaughter instead of murder due to their mental state.

[Phantasee]

Some highlights from my Criminology: A Canadian Perspective text, 6e, Rick Linden:

The Actus Reus Elements of a Crime
In general, it is possible to divide the actus reus into three separate components:

(i) conduct (a voluntary act or omission constituting the central feature of the crime);
(ii) the surrounding or "material" circumstances; and
(iii) the consequences of the voluntary conduct.

We can all agree that the man attacked the victim, did so without his permission, and ended up killing him, fulfilling the three elements of actus reus.

The Mens Rea Elements of a Crime
Basically, mens rea refers to all the mental elements (other than voluntariness) that the Crown must prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) in order to obtain a conviction of a criminal offence. Mens rea is rather like a chameleon insofar as it changes its nature from one offence to another. Obviously, the mens rea for murder is very different from that required for theft. Furthermore, mens rea is not one mental state but rather a combination of mental states; indeed, it is necessary to analyze the mens rea required in relation to each of the three elements of the actus reus of any particular crime -- that is, conduct, circumstances, and consequences.
The requirement that the prosecution prove mens rea reflects basic values that Canadians hold in relation to civil liberties. In essence, the mens rea requirement ensures that only those defendants who are morally blameworthy are convicted of "true crimes" under the Criminal Code.

There are two very distinct types of mens rea requirements in Canadian criminal law: (i) subjective and (ii) objective.
Subjective mens rea is based on the notion that accused persons may not be convicted of a criminal offence unless (a) they deliberately intended to bring about the consequences prohibited by the law; (b) subjectively realized that their conduct might bring about such prohibited consequences but recklessly continued with that conduct in spite of their knowledge of the risks involved; or (c) were willfully blind in that they deliberately closed their minds to the obvious criminality of their actions.
Subjective mens rea, therefore, constitutes a requirement that the accused deliberately chose to do something wrong.
Objective mens rea is predicated on the principle that accused persons should be convicted of certain offences, not because they intended to bring about the prohibited consequences or acted recklessly, but rather because reasonable people, in the same situation, would have appreciated that their conduct created a risk of causing harm and would have taken action to avoid doing so.

So by the objective standard, what the man did was a 'marked departure from the standard of care expected of the reasonable person acting prudently.'

My question here is: is it honest to describe the man as a reasonable person?

As for the NCRMD defence:

Mental Disorder as a Defence to a Criminal Charge
In the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the case of Winko (1999), Justice McLachlin said:

In every society, there are those who commit criminal acts because of mental illness. The criminal law must find a way to deal with these people fairly, while protecting the public against further harms. The task is not an easy one.

In Canada, this difficult task is undertaken through the application by the courts of the special defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD). The current test that must be used in deciding whether an accused should be found NCRMD is articulated in section 16(1) of the Criminal Code:

No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that renders the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

There's some more written about the details of the above, but I'm going to skip to the section on what happens after:

Accused persons who are found NCRMD are not acquitted in the technical sense of that word. Indeed, section 672.1 of the Criminal Code states that a verdict of NCRMD constitutes a finding that "the accused committed an act or omission that formed the basis of the ofence with which the accused is charged but is not criminally responsible for on account of mental disorder." NCR accused may be granted (i) an absolute discharge; (ii) a conditional discharge; (iii) an order holding them in custody in a psychiatric facility. Section 672.54(a) of the Criminal Code provides that, unless a court or review board determines that an NCR accused person constitutes a "significant threat to the safety of the public," then it must order an absolute discharge.

So the man will not be free to go home or do whatever he likes. There are 'significant restrictions on his liberties', as the textbook puts it. This means he's basically in a hospital bed instead of a prison cell. He's monitored 24 hours a day, just like a prisoner. He has to undergo treatment, which is more than a prisoner gets, really. And after he is 'released', he's got restrictions on him still, akin to the restrictions we place on paroled criminals. He's going to be treated like a dangerous offender, in that every where he goes, the RCMP will know he's passing through or moving in. They'll warn the public if they deem it necessary.

This isn't a get-out-of-jail free card, and it's not 'criminally insane', either. There's a reason it's not called that in the law.

EDIT: Bolded part of civil liberties in first section. Sanchez, that's why you have to consider the mental state of the individual. You can't ignore that just because you don't like it.

[Themightytom]

yeah Canada is Waaaaaay ahead of the US in some areas but to be fare you don't have republicans to deal with

[fuzzymillipede]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse? If I didn't know murder was wrong, perhaps because I come from a society where murder is legal, I still can't use that bullshit as a defense. So why is insanity allowed? Muslims try to use culture as a defense sometimes (in my country, it is legal to throw acid in a woman's face, or burn a widows, or beat my wife when she refuses to do what I say), and courts consistently strike down their arguments, and yet insanity is legal.

How would someone be tried if they were given drugs against their will, and subsequently killed someone while in a drug-induced, out-of-control state? What if a person went insane due to a brain tumor, committed a crime because of it, but was later cured when the tumor was removed? Should either of these people be held responsible for their actions? I think not.

Mental illnesses are a similar thing, they are something broken in the brain. Any behavior induced by an illness should not be considered an extension of one's will, if they return to a typical, healthy state of mind. A person should not be punished for actions that were not under his control, assuming that the altered state that caused the bad behavior was due to no fault of his own. This is why a drunk driver is held responsible for his actions, but not a formerly mentally ill person.

[Mayabird]

Is this actually a big semantics debate? Would everybody be happy if "not" was deleted from the verdict and it read "guilty by reason of insanity" with the end result being the same, a padded room with armed guards at the door?

[Kanastrous]

I think in the US at least some states do phrase it as guilty by reason of insanity.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I agree that this man can't be held criminally liable for what he has done because the appropriate mental state does not exist. However, he should never be let out. Period.

[Tanasinn]

I doubt he will be. Schizophrenia isn't really 'curable.'

[Broomstick]

A Canadian judge ruled Thursday that a man accused of beheading and cannibalizing a fellow Greyhound bus passenger is not criminally responsible due to mental illness.

Which should be irrelevant, because he still did it...

In the US committing someone to a psychiatric institution for murder due to mental illness has no designated endpoint - people can and have been kept locked up for life after such verdicts. In some respects it's actually more certain than "merely" sentencing them to life. In the end it doesn't wind up making much difference in regards to keeping the person off the streets.

I have no idea how this shakes out in Canada, though