Crazy Cannibal

[Jyn]

You apparently need some very important difference pointed out to you. Fine, I'll hold your hand

Originally posted by Snrrub
Studies, or for that matter, any clinic evidence whatsoever that supports your claim that mental illnesses that can lead to violence are impossible to cure or manage with treatment.

I said that schizophrenia (specifically to the degree this guy suffers from it) cannot be cured by therapy alone, and requires medication. This is due to chemical and developmental imbalances that, get this, cannot be altered simply by talking about it. If you are not able to understand why this is the case without needing a study, then you have no business trying to discuss science. What you're doing is simply hoping and counting on my not posting a study so that it looks like you get "points". Nice try. Do it without a crutch.

Originally posted by Snrrub

(emphasis mine)
Oh really?
You made this generalization implying that people with mental illnesses that are prone to violence cannot be cured. Either you can support that with evidence, or you pulled it out of your ass. At this point it's obvious that it's the latter.

Dude, do I have to spell everything out for you? Currently, there is no *cure* for schizophrenia. It would involve changes at the genetic level that simply don't exist right now (nor in the near future based on the limits of available funding for such research, but that's another topic), but I know you know that. So, why are you trying to make this case? Why do you need evidence of something you already know for truth? Oh, right, points.

Originally posted by Snrrub

And the doctors who have authority over his release take into account his progress while making their decisions, i.e. still crazy = still committed.
the latter.

Did you miss the earlier comments from Malacasta and myself on how this is currently a huge problem? Lack of proper funding and poor decisions are releasing many people who shouldn't have been released. If you really, really want me to, I'm sure I could find all sorts of studies and stories on this, since this is actually an appropriate topic to request studies for.

Originally posted by Snrrub

By your logic, any schizophrenic who doesn't reliably take medication should be "summarily executed" pre-emptively for fear they might commit a terrible and violent act.

By my logic, any schizophrenic who doesn't reliably take medication and has a history of killing, mutilating, and eating people should be summarily executed, yes. In the interest of preventing future acts committed by the same person. If a particular schizophrenic has never done so before, then there is no prior evidence that he/she will do so in the future, is there? Again, this is a case by case basis. It depends on individual people. Not all schizophrenics are going to go out and kill people just because this particular schizophrenic did so. Again, studies aren't going to help you when dealing with individuals in these types of situations.

Originally posted by Snrrub

You mean just like how people put their lives in danger when getting on a plain because of their faith in the skills of the pilot? Or likewise with surgeons during surgery? Our lives depend on the skills of professionals all the time.

Yet another instance where I have to point out what should be an obvious difference to you. In every example you just gave, you're putting faith in a person's assessment of their own abilities. You do the same with psychiatrists to a degree, but the patient is an X factor. This particular X factor trumps any professional opinion the doctor is going to have. Why is this? It's because people are unpredictable, no matter what kind of pattern of behavior they show for any length of time. Psychiatry has been able to come up with a lot of generalized information about people and mental illness, and it helps when dealing with generalized issues. These cases, however, are individualized issues.

As I said, human behavior is unpredictable. You cannot count on a person who lived a pattern of complete non-violence for 30 years of their life to not commit murder in the 31st year. However, you have no reason to imprison or kill that person up until that point. On the flip side, you may have someone who has committed murder within that first 30 years. Even if you are able to 100% guarantee (Which you can't do. Do you also need proof on why something can't be 100% guaranteed?) that this person will never repeat his/her crimes, they are not, nor should they be, excused for their past. Now, that last statement is a matter of opinion that can vary from person to person, but, for all intents and purposes, it is how our society and its laws work (at least in the US).

Originally posted by Snrrub

Yes I would get on the bus with him if he got the green light from every renowned doctor in the world.

...and hope he had taken his meds at least somewhat recently.

Originally posted by Snrrub

Those doctors know more about psychiatry than I do, and I realize that. Apparently you don't.

I'm not claiming to know more about psychiatry than psychiatrists. I am claiming to know and understand more about psychiatry than you. I hope you're not a psychiatrist, because that would just be sad.

[Jidoe]

Jyn, I'm sorry to say this, but I think your arguments are avoiding all the good points Snrrub has made, missing them altogether and pressing on points that are practically irrelevant for this argument and worse of all, lowering yourself to personal insults - that is indeed a good way to kill this thread.

As for the questions you raised: This guy is obviously insane to the highest degree and court is likely to agree that he is not eligible to stand a trial. What happens afterwards? This guy will probably spend his entire life in a mental institution because even if he takes his medication, I find it hard to believe he will be able to live as a normal person and in addition, I assume no psychiatrist is going to take that chance with releasing him.

[Jyn]

I replied to every point he made, good or bad, in a quote-by-quote format. If you feel I missed something, I'd appreciate it being pointed out and I will address it.

There is also nothing in my post that is actually a personal insult with exception of the very last statement (which would only be highly insulting if he was, in fact, a psychiatrist), which was a response to what I perceived as an insult on his part. If we start going back and forth with more insults from this point on, the mods can go ahead and shut it down.

(If it's already reached a point that the mods feel it needs to be closed, then I apologize.)

Originally posted by Jidoe
This guy will probably spend his entire life in a mental institution because even if he takes his medication, I find it hard to believe he will be able to live as a normal person and in addition, I assume no psychiatrist is going to take that chance with releasing him.

I think (and hope) that you are right about him never being released, as that is the best we can hope for at this point.

[Jyn]

Snrrub, rereading my earlier post and thinking on it, the overall tone of the post is definitely unnecessarily aggressive. I apologize for that.

[Snrrub]

Originally posted by Jyn
By my logic, any schizophrenic who doesn't reliably take medication and has a history of killing, mutilating, and eating people should be summarily executed, yes. In the interest of preventing future acts committed by the same person. If a particular schizophrenic has never done so before, then there is no prior evidence that he/she will do so in the future, is there?

(some emphasis mine)

So, you're proposing that we use the prior history of the insane to predict their potential danger to society in the future.

Originally posted by Jyn
people are unpredictable, no matter what kind of pattern of behavior they show for any length of time.
...
As I said, human behavior is unpredictable. You cannot count on a person who lived a pattern of complete non-violence for 30 years of their life to not commit murder in the 31st year.

Your two statements seem to be entirely contradictory.

Originally posted by Jyn
they are not, nor should they be, excused for their past.

So you think that people should be held criminally liable even if they are truly insane. The insane have a diminished capacity for rational thought. If you think that's not an excuse, then for consistency, you should also approve of adult criminal penalties being applied to children of any age for their actions. If a toddler burns a house down while playing with matches, should they be charged with arson and be locked up? They certainly shouldn't ever be excused for their past, right?

Originally posted by Jyn
it is how our society and its laws work (at least in the US).

In western society, including the US, criminal liability is related to sanity.

Originally posted by Jyn
I'm not claiming to know more about psychiatry than psychiatrists.

Yes you are. See below.

Originally posted by Jyn
A few years go by, he'll miraculously improve, and they'll let him out.

You clearly think that the medical professionals in question will release a subject who hasn't legitimately improved in their condition. You also clearly think that they are wrong and you are right regarding the possibility of a subject with a mental condition recovering and living a peaceful, productive life afterwards.

[Jozep]

So the man who did this crime was found to be not criminally responsible for his actions. Psychiatrists for both the defense and the prosecution agreed that he was having a major psychotic episode and was not capable of understanding that what he was doing was wrong. As such, he will not go to prison, but will be relegated to a secure mental health facility. While it is *possible* that he could be released into the community if doctors felt his condition was under control and there was little to no likelihood that he represented a danger to others, I think it is important to keep in mind that doesn't mean he automatically *will* be released back into society.

The family of the victim in this case is pushing for a change in the law - essentially they are are asking that anyone who commits a violent crime not be allowed to avoid prison just because they are sick. Advocates for those suffering from mental health issues obviously oppose this idea, it is bound to be quite a debate.

Lastly, suggesting that the man should be executed for his crimes, or even that the police should have shot him dead, is moot, because in Canada we don't have the death penalty any more. Police do not have the authority to summarily execute someone, even if he asks them to, as was the case here.

It is a sad story, I don't think it is a victory for anyone.