• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

"Criminally Responsible"

muumajii23

Well-Known Member
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/03/05/mb-li-verdict.html

Vince Li has been found not criminally responsible for the unprovoked killing and beheading of fellow passenger Timothy McLean on a Greyhound bus last summer.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench Judge John Scurfield said Thursday that Li, 40, could not be found guilty of murder and is not criminally responsible for the crime because he was mentally ill at the time of the killing.

"These grotesque acts are appalling... but are suggestive of a mental disorder," the judge said.

"He did not appreciate the act he committed was wrong."

Li had pleaded not guilty to a charge of second-degree murder. Psychiatric evidence at his trial suggested he is a schizophrenic who suffered a major psychotic episode last July 30 when he fatally stabbed McLean, 22, ate some of the body parts, and cut off McLean's head.

For five hours after the killing, Li wandered around on the bus, defiling the body while an RCMP tactical team waited to subdue him.

Rather than go to prison, Li will be kept in a secure psychiatric facility, most likely in Selkirk, Man.

McLean, a carnival worker, was returning home to Winnipeg on the bus from Edmonton. Listening to his iPod while sitting in the back row of Greyhound bus 1170, he gave Li a friendly greeting as the stranger sat down beside him.

Then, around 8:30 p.m. CT, when the bus was near Portage La Prairie, Man., Li pulled a buck knife from his side and began stabbing McLean — for no apparent reason, witnesses said. After passengers fled the bus, by then on the side of the Trans-Canada Highway, Li was barricaded inside the vehicle.

During the stabbing, Li was heard to say, "get emergency." During the five-hour standoff, he walked around the bus carrying the severed head in one hand, the knife in the other. At one point, he threw McLean's head into the bus's stairwell.

When police finally subdued him, Li repeatedly said he was sorry but could not say what he was sorry for, officers said. He told police he had changed his name to Vince Day. And he said, "I'm guilty, please kill me."

Psychiatrists testified Li was schizophrenic and suffering a major psychotic episode at the time of the killing.

Li heard voices from God telling him that McLean was an evil threat that needed to be eliminated, the psychiatrists said. Even after the killing, Li believed McLean might come back to life and threaten him. The psychiatrists testified Li fit the criteria for someone who was not criminally responsible for their actions due to mental illness.

That means he will be sent to a provincial psychiatric facility rather than to prison. He comes under the jurisdiction of Manitoba's provincial review board, which will decide whether he poses a risk to the public. The review board has the power to keep Li locked up indefinitely or, if he is no longer considered a risk, discharge him.

In his written ruling, the judge said those who are profoundly ill do not have the mental capacity to intentionally commit a crime. "It is clear that since the 19th century the law has distinguished between those persons who commit criminal acts because of a mental disorder and sane persons," Scurfield said.

McLean's family had been lobbying for a change in the Criminal Code to prevent mentally ill killers from eventually being returned to the community. His mother, Carol de Delley, said after the ruling that she would do everything in her power to ensure Li is never released from secure custody.

"I think it's ridiculous that we've not only had to endure this procedure but we get to endure it every year again for the rest of Mr. Li's natural life," de Delley said, describing Li as dangerous. She urged Canadians to lobby politicians for changes to the Criminal Code.

"Bear in mind, this isn't going to be saving any of us, we've already had our loss," she said. "It's to save everybody else. And that's been put on us now. And we sure as hell didn't volunteer for that job, but it is ours now."

Li's lawyer, Gordon Bates, said after the ruling that his client has felt remorse and understands what has occurred. He said Li had no message for the McLean family on Thursday but that he has in the past expressed a wish to make amends and is looking forward to treatment of his illness.

If you don't feel like reading...

Somebody on a Greyhound bus in Canada brutally stabbed and beheaded someone else. Now, their trail finished, and he is being said as "not being criminally responisble for his actions". He will now be placed in a mental institute.

So, the question...

If someone is mentally ill, are they criminally responsible for what they did? If so, what should their punishment be? ie. same as everyone else or reduced or heightened, or whatever...
 
I believe if a crime was committed by a person, no matter the circumstance, with the intention of committing a crime or preforming the act of a crime punishable by law as it states, they are guilty. They aren't safe. This is only the condition factor, not certain things such as self defense etc. etc.
 
"This just in Osama Bin Laden has been deemed mentally ill and as such will not be charged for the planning and killing of thousands of americans instead he will be sent to a mental facility"

give me a break you may have been mentally ill but you still killed a guy

i believe mentally ill shouldnt be an excuse
 
Mental illness is often used as a cover to avoid imprisonment, the laws should be changed so that only severely mentally crippled people would be forgiven, ie. people who can't communicate and commited a crime, unaware of its implications, but the current laws have a far too wide a range of mental illnesses to be efficcient
 

DGCatAniSiri

Charmingly Cynical
I'm always annoyed that it's phrased 'NOT guilty on grounds of insanity.' Not in your right mind or not, it's still a crime and you're still guilty of it; I'd prefer it be 'guilty, but insanity applies' or something like that. Particularly given that, as Tokin said, people use it as a way to escape the punishment of their actions - they weren't actually insane, but the lawyers - who are there not to find the truth but to get their client off, even if they're guilty - find it will get them a lesser sentence and perhaps get their client off from jail time.

Changing it from not guily on grounds of insanity to guilty but insane or something would mean that the guilty party would be held responsible and would have to be punished for their crime, which I think is far more truth to the spirit of justice than the law currently allows.
 

sanjay120

?(???)?
"This just in Osama Bin Laden has been deemed mentally ill and as such will not be charged for the planning and killing of thousands of americans instead he will be sent to a mental facility"

why are you so against this idea?

it keeps him out of the public and puts him in a place where people know how to deal with him.

he's still being punished, mental hospitals are pretty much prisons with shrinks.
 

The_Panda

恭喜發財
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.
"An action does not make one guilty unless the mind is also guilty".

When you don't have criminal responsibility, the mind is NOT guilty and hence you cannot convict that person guilty of a crime. The prosecution has to prove that there is both actus reus and mens rea, i.e., guilty action, guilty mind: and in cases of mental illness there is more than enough reasonable doubt about the second. Ergo, that person simply cannot be charged. I find it repulsive that someone should have to suffer because of an action they had no mental control over, and a complete insult to the whole concept of justice. You may as well give infants the same punishment as adults. Those who commit crimes, no matter how heinous, are still human beings and their needs require attention. For the mentally ill, they can't be held accountable for their actions, and they also have a need for medication and assistance. Putting them in gaol is as much a crime against society and the individual as the actions they committed.

Oh and the insanity defence really only works unless you can prove that your client has a severe mental illness, usually schizophrenia. "Feeling depressed" is no criterion for mental illness, let alone mental illness that results in a loss of criminal responsibility. The insanity defence is extremely hard to fake successfully, as a large degree of psychiatric assessment is required, and most people who "get off on it" are actually quite severely ill.

And also if anyone is going to seriously argue that the insanity defence should be abolished, could they tell me what their perception and ideas about mental illness, more specifically schizophrenia, are? In the vast majority of cases people have absolutely no understanding whatsoever of basic psychiatry.
 

Poliwag2

ship it holla
^Agreed. However...

If the defendant is determined not to be responsible, then who is?

If nobody is responsible, then how can justice be achieved?
 

Sapphiredragon929

A r t i f i c e.
Unless they are so metnally ill they are worshipping me, they sholdn't be excused. My mom is mentally ill, and she doesn't go down the street burning people with giant magnifying glasses.
 

Poliwag2

ship it holla
Does someone/something have to be responsible? Honestly?

I would argue yes, it is certainly preferable. In an ideal situation, somebody should be responsible for every action that affects society. That is the only way to mitigate externalities not experienced by the perpetrator.

This draws parallels with how imperfect property rights hinder the efficiency of the free market.
 

PERSONA

colour spectrum
I would argue yes, it is certainly preferable. In an ideal situation, somebody should be responsible for every action that affects society. That is the only way to mitigate externalities not experienced by the perpetrator.

This draws parallels with how imperfect property rights hinder the efficiency of the free market.

So, you're saying scapegoating makes people feel better therefore responsibility is a valid concept?
 

Poliwag2

ship it holla
So, you're saying scapegoating makes people feel better therefore responsibility is a valid concept?

It is not scapegoating if you are responsible for their actions; their error is your error.

As a result of a crime, there is a loss to society. Someone needs to pay for that loss to create a disincentive for others in future. I consider this idea valid.
 

PERSONA

colour spectrum
It is not scapegoating if you are responsible for their actions; their error is your error.

As a result of a crime, there is a loss to society. Someone needs to pay for that loss to create a disincentive for others in future. I consider this idea valid.

So, we've established that without responsibility society would crumble into chaos, and we're figuring that society is a good thing since it helps people in general to survive. That's fair and sound, I think.
 

muumajii23

Well-Known Member
I feel some people aren't fully understanding what is meant by being deemed mentally ill. You can't just claim being mentally ill and then get off scot free. You are tested, evaluated, and given a new sentence.

Personally, I agree with the sentence. This guy heard "god" telling him to kill the guy because he was a demon, and then to cut off his head because he was a demon and he wouldn't die (Somewhere alomg those lines). That deserves an insanity plea. Someone who is right in the mind won't just be sitting there and then go all nutters like that...

Doesn't happen like that. :/
 

JakeSteel

Has Not Changed.
"This just in Osama Bin Laden has been deemed mentally ill and as such will not be charged for the planning and killing of thousands of americans instead he will be sent to a mental facility"

give me a break you may have been mentally ill but you still killed a guy

i believe mentally ill shouldnt be an excuse

Yes.

ADOLF HITLER WASN'T REALLY A BAD GUY, GUYS! HE WAS JUST MENTALLY ILL!!!
 

SBaby

Dungeon Master
Well, it depends. Sometimes mental institutions can be worse than any form of capital punishment. Ever read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?
 

Stockholm

The Executive Player
"For centuries the death penalty, often accompanied by barbarous refinements, has been trying to hold crime in check; yet crime persists. Why? Because the instincts that are warring in man are not, as the law claims, constant forces in a state of equilibrium" ---Albert Camus

Would you ever kill a man? not out of self-defense, of the defense of others, but simply outright kill somebody? probably not... why is this? because you are sane. Anyone that kills is obviously on some level, crazy... this is proven in the overall lack of murderous intentions found of the 'sane' population. Laws apply to people that abide by them, it doesn't make any sense at all to enforce laws upon people who are obviously lacking intellectual integrity, being they are not the target of the laws themselves. this whole idea may upset you, but logically, only the most desperate people kill, how can we ever punish people in such a contorted reality? I support the modern intention of prisons, rehabilitation centers...
 
Last edited:
Top