Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Convicted child murderer Allan Schoenborn has been granted “some community access” in the form of escorted day leaves


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
124 replies to this topic

Poll: Should he ever be let outside of a secure facility

Let him out secured and/or release eventually?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 07 April 2011 - 10:56 AM


And people wonder why there's doubt that people convicted in murder will actually stay behind bars. All you need to do is convince the phycologists and freedom is just steps away!

Good job "justice" system....:rolleyes:


Convicted child murderer Allan Schoenborn has been granted “some community access” in the form of escorted day leaves by the B.C. Review Board.

Schoenborn, 42, had pleaded at his Review Board hearing Tuesday to “get out in the community, go down to the mall for coffee.”

The board said this morning that Schoenborn now will get “escorted leaves.”

Review board chair Bernd Walter said in an interview that Schoenborn isn’t likely to be seen at the mall but he could go swimming or exercise at a neighbourhood fitness place, with escorts present.

“He will have no unneccessary access to the community and no overnight leaves but he could be given escorted day leaves, for example to a recreation centre or for fitness purposes,” said Walter.

It is exactly three years ago today on April 6, 2008 that Schoenborn methodically killed each of his three children in turn, slashing Kaitlynne, 10 and smothering his two boys Max, 8, and Cordon, 5.

Schoenborn was convicted of first-degree murder on Feb. 22, 2010 but the judge agreed with the defence that he was “not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder.” The Crown did not support that finding.

That means Schoeonborn will never go to jail. He is living in the low-security Hawthorne House at the Forensic Psychiatric Institute in Port Coquitlam. By law, his mental status must be reviewed each year.

On Tuesday, Schoenborn was tranquilized and spoke in a flat, even voice, except for two outbursts in reference to his previously undisclosed use of cocaine by injection, a fact that didn’t come out at trial.

“They never asked me,” burst out Schoenborn in a hostile voice.

Schoenborn, who was much more explosive at trial and at his first mental status review hearing a year ago, responded to scripted questions Tuesday.

Forensic Psychiatric Institute director Dr. Johann Brink said Tuesday that Schoenborn is compliant with medications, although he recently asked if he could get out of the mental hospital more quickly if he quit taking meds.

He also asked staff recently, said Brink, “if he were to assault a patient in the hospital and was convicted and sent to jail, would that prove he was not mentally ill?”

Schoenborn also told staff that because he killed his children three years ago, he doesn’t pose a risk to society because he has no more children.

“I’ve been locked up for those three years and I think it’s time to turn from that now and seek community access,” Schoenborn told the hearing.

Walter said that panel members “certainly understand the magnitude and complexity of this case.

“There is a lot of anger in this man, just under the surface but right now he is under medication and we are seeing the effects of that,” said Walter.

Crown counsel Lyle Hillaby urged the panel not to be fooled by Schoenborn, who said yesterday he was “cooled out” by the strong anti-psychotic drug Halperodol.

“This an emotionally and physically violent man who killed his own children to lash out at his wife,” Hillaby said outside the hearing.

Hillaby read a heart-rending victim impact statement by Schoenborn’s ex-wife Darcie Clarke, who said she feels “utterly bereft” without her children and “very unsafe” if Schoenborn gets any kind of community access.

But both Hillaby and Walter said that Brink and psychiatric hospital staff are highly-competent at “risk-management” and they will support the hospital’s recommendation to keep Schoenborn in custody, with escorted day leaves this year.

Schoenborn, who must submit to regular drug and alcohol testing, is free to roam the hospital grounds.

After he murdered his three children and bizarrely posed their bodies for his ex-wife to find, Schoenborn tried half-heartedly to kill himself and then took off for the bush. Found by a Kamloops tracker after 10 days, his first question was whether his ex-wife had killed herself yet.

Schoenborn plans to change his name to Aaron Klein in a bid to hide his notorious past.

He is studying woodworking and hopes to apply for jobs in construction.

© Copyright © The Province

Read more: http://www.theprovin...l#ixzz1IrQZr98e



#2 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,636 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 07 April 2011 - 11:04 AM

Am I insane if I want to see this guy suffer?
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#3 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 07 April 2011 - 11:08 AM

Am I insane if I want to see this guy suffer?


Nah...just means you're normal.

I hope that he's not released or granted any access to the community. This guy isn't done serving his debt to society as far as i'm concerned.

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#4 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 07 April 2011 - 11:09 AM

So he publicizes the name he intends to change to in order to hide his past?
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#5 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 07 April 2011 - 11:13 AM

A huge, giant, YOU'VE GOT TO BE BLOODY KIDDING ME!!

I am dumbfounded and quite speechless at the utter *insert incredible four-letter word of incredulousness here* at this decision.....

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#6 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,636 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 07 April 2011 - 11:14 AM

So he publicizes the name he intends to change to in order to hide his past?


All part of his ploy to prove he is still insane.
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#7 لني

لني

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,310 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 08

Posted 07 April 2011 - 11:17 AM

All part of his ploy to prove he is still insane.

Pretty much what I was wondering!
Sent from my iPhone Canucks App

It is not my intent to get in circular arguments with anybody. The reason i have avoided saying anything specific is because i know you or someone else will attempt to find an alternate explanation to my points which i intern will have to defend. I see no point in getting involved with the circular argument that is already well under way in this thread. I simply intended to voice my opinion on the subject. In the end either you accept the possibility of corruption and conspiracy or you don't.

Also i find your comments to be very childish. Does taking what i say out of context, paraphrasing and misquoting it make you feel good about yourself? Grow up.


Logic at its finest.

#8 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,164 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 07 April 2011 - 11:19 AM

Frankly besides the obvious compassion I feel for his ex and the three deceased children...I mostly feel pity for him. Though I don't think he should be wandering around in public. Guards or otherwise.
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#9 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 07 April 2011 - 11:27 AM

Wow someone actually was in favour of doing what the mental health staff advised (escorted leave!).

This is why I get upset over the parole hearings for any killer. Not only does it leave a chance killers will be walking the street again, it forces families to go through the whole thing again as they once again have the trauma in their lives relived.

Absolutely disgusting.

#10 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 07 April 2011 - 11:28 AM

So he publicizes the name he intends to change to in order to hide his past?



Goes to show he is capable of reason.

That just makes him a more effective danger to the public.

#11 almo89

almo89

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,320 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 07 April 2011 - 11:36 AM

Didn't he saying something like he won't hurt any children anymore cause he doesn't anymore. These kinds of people do not deserve to be out in public. Yeah he's escorted, but what if he somehow escapes?

#12 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 07 April 2011 - 12:08 PM

Allan Schoenborn is not in fact a "convicted child murderer". To be convicted of crime there must be both the actus reus (the criminal act) and you must also have the mens rea (criminal intent) to be convicted of a crime.

If you do not have the requisite and specific mens rea to commit the crime of murder then you cannot be convicted of murder. Allan Schoenborn was found by the court to be "not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder" (NCRMD in legal jargon) and committed to an indeterminate sentence in forensic psychiatric unit. It is an updated version the old verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. In this case he was found to have committed the act but he was not convicted of the crime.

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

(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.

(3) The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue.


As the judge wrote at the time of sentencing:

[19]The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Schoenborn did commit first degree murder when he killed each of his three children.

[20] The only question is whether or not s. 16 of the Code applies and whether or not Mr. Schoenborn should be found criminally responsible.

Section 16 – Mental Disorder Defence or NCRMD

[21] The present Code refers to a mental disorder. In the past the Code used the word “insanity”. In discussing the Code as it stood in 1990 before the amendments, Mr. Justice Lamer, speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, said in R. v. Chaulk, 62 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (SCC):

[21]…some basic assumptions of our criminal law model: that the accused is a rational autonomous being who is capable of appreciating the nature and quality of an act and of knowing right from wrong. … With the state of insanity, these basic assumptions are brought into question because the accused is suffering from some disease of the mind or from some delusions which cause him or her to have a frame of reference which is significantly different than that which most people share. This mental condition means that the accused is largely incapable of criminal intent and should not, therefore, generally be subject to criminal liability in the same way that sane people are.

[22]Mr. Justice Lamer referred to it as an exemption from the criminal liability. Madam Justice McLachlin in a later decision referred to it as an exemption from criminal responsibility (R. v. Oommen, 91 C.C.C. (3d) 8).

[23] Section 16 recognizes that in some cases a person charged with a crime may suffer from a mental disorder that is so severe that we cannot hold them criminally responsible for what they have done however serious the nature or consequences of their crime.
...
[238] The question, however, is whether Mr. Schoenborn’s mental disorder so obstructed his thought process as to render him incapable of knowing that his acts would, under all the circumstances, be considered wrong by the ordinary moral standards of reasonable men and women? Whether his mental state was so disordered that he was unable to rationally consider whether his actions were right or wrong in the way a normal person would? Did he have the capacity to know that his acts were something he ought not to do in the eyes of ordinary reasonable people? Section 16 may apply even though a person knows in the general sense that they should not commit a crime. They may still believe, because of the mental disorder, that their actions are right according to the ordinary morals of society in the particular circumstances.

[239] The psychiatric evidence is that a paranoid delusional person who is psychotic at the time they are acting may appear to be acting in a deliberate way, but still be operating under their delusions.

[240] Dr. O’Shaughnessy for the defence and Dr. Lohrasbe for the Crown were very clear in their opinions. They are both of the opinion that if Mr. Schoenborn was psychotic at the time he killed his children then because of his psychosis he would not be able to rationally consider whether his actions were right or wrong. I take from this that he may try to reason the matter out, but because of his break with reality, disordered thinking and delusional beliefs, he would not be able to make a rational choice between right and wrong.
...

VERDICT

[247] Therefore, I find that Mr. Schoenborn did commit the first degree murder of each of his children as described in the Indictment, but is not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.



In the result under the Criminal Code he was not convicted but given an indeterminate sentence in a secure forensic psychiatric ward with annual reviews of his mental status due to NCRMD.

I know the reporter Suzanne Fournier fairly well (she has interviewed me on a number of occasions regarding legal matters) and she is usually much more careful in her writing than to get such a basic fact wrong. She is either having a bad day or has chosen to write sensationalist prose.

Neal Hall of the Vancouver Sun got the facts right and as he notes it is not certain that Schoenborn will in fact be granted the escorted day pass as this is only a recommendation. The final decision will be made the director of the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, who must assess Schoenborn's mental state and decide if he is ready for short escorted absences from the hospital.

A father who killed his three children in 2008 has been granted restricted, escorted access to the community, the B.C. Review Board concluded in a decision released today.

The decision comes a year after Allan Dwayne Schoenborn, now 42, was found by a judge not criminally responsible for killing his three children in Merritt.

At a hearing Tuesday, Schoenborn requested through his lawyer that he be allowed to occasionally go to Starbucks for a coffee or to go swimming with a group of patients from the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital in Port Coquitlam, where he resides in custody after being found not criminally responsible for the murder of his children because of a mental disorder.

But it doesn't mean Schoenborn will be granted access to the community immediately.

That decision now rests with the director of the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, who must assess Schoenborn's mental state and decide if he is ready for short escorted absences from the hospital.

"What we've approved is the director's request for discretion to consider escorted leave," B.C. Review Board chair Bernd Walter said today.

The B.C. Review Board, in its annual review of Schoenborn to assess his threat to the community, decided to grant Schoenborn's application under strict conditions:

- That he should have escorted access to the community at the discretion of the director of the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, having regard to his mental condition and the risk he poses to himself or others;

- That he not acquire, possess or use any firearm, explosive or offensive weapon;

- That he abstain from using alcohol or any drugs except as approved by a medical practitioner;

- That the director may monitor the accused's compliance by using urinalysis testing on demand;

- That Schoenborn have no contact with his former wife, Darcie Clarke.

In 2008, while visiting the home of his estranged wife while she was out, Schoenborn stabbed to death his daughter Kaitlynne, 10, and smothered his sons Max, 8, and Cordon, 5.

The mother came home to find the children dead and cryptic messages written on the wall in what appeared to be blood (but later found to be soy sauce).

The killer then hid out in the hills around Merritt for days until he was found by a trapper and arrested.

Schoenborn was charged with three counts of first-degree murder. The Crown theory at trial was that he killed his children as revenge against his ex-wife.

Days before the murders, Schoenborn appeared at his children's school in a disheveled state and uttered threats. He was arrested but released on bail.

After a lengthy trial, the judge found Schoenborn not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder (NCRMD), which used to be called an insanity verdict.

A forensic psychiatrist testified that Schoenborn was delusional and possibly schizophrenic.

Since the verdict, Schoenborn has been in secure custody at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, which houses people who are not mentally fit to stand trial and those found not criminally responsible for their crimes.

On April 6, 2010, the review board found that while Schoenborn had improved, he was still suffering from delusional thoughts, he had had a striking sense of entitlement and a "profound lack of insight into his illness."

The board also found that Schoenborn is "obsessed by or fixated on" his ex-wife, so he still posed a "significant threat."

Tuesday's disposition, signed by review board chair Bernd Walter, will be reviewed in 12 months.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Child+killer+Schoenborn+granted+chance+escorted+access+community/4569624/story.html#ixzz1IrbwS98M
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#13 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 07 April 2011 - 12:10 PM

Wow someone actually was in favour of doing what the mental health staff advised (escorted leave!).

This is why I get upset over the parole hearings for any killer. Not only does it leave a chance killers will be walking the street again, it forces families to go through the whole thing again as they once again have the trauma in their lives relived.

Absolutely disgusting.

This is nothing like a parole hearing.
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#14 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,195 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 07 April 2011 - 12:46 PM

Maybe he should be "escorted" to some dark alley in Harlem...

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

 

waiting.for.cdc.jpg


#15 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 07 April 2011 - 01:23 PM

Allan Schoenborn is not in fact a "convicted child murderer". To be convicted of crime there must be both the actus reus (the criminal act) and you must also have the mens rea (criminal intent) to be convicted of a crime.

If you do not have the requisite and specific mens rea to commit the crime of murder then you cannot be convicted of murder. Allan Schoenborn was found by the court to be "not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder" (NCRMD in legal jargon) and committed to an indeterminate sentence in forensic psychiatric unit. It is an updated version the old verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. In this case he was found to have committed the act but he was not convicted of the crime.

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

(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.

(3) The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue.


As the judge wrote at the time of sentencing:

[19]The Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Schoenborn did commit first degree murder when he killed each of his three children.

[20] The only question is whether or not s. 16 of the Code applies and whether or not Mr. Schoenborn should be found criminally responsible.

Section 16 – Mental Disorder Defence or NCRMD

[21] The present Code refers to a mental disorder. In the past the Code used the word "insanity". In discussing the Code as it stood in 1990 before the amendments, Mr. Justice Lamer, speaking for the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada, said in R. v. Chaulk, 62 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (SCC):

[21]…some basic assumptions of our criminal law model: that the accused is a rational autonomous being who is capable of appreciating the nature and quality of an act and of knowing right from wrong. … With the state of insanity, these basic assumptions are brought into question because the accused is suffering from some disease of the mind or from some delusions which cause him or her to have a frame of reference which is significantly different than that which most people share. This mental condition means that the accused is largely incapable of criminal intent and should not, therefore, generally be subject to criminal liability in the same way that sane people are.

[22]Mr. Justice Lamer referred to it as an exemption from the criminal liability. Madam Justice McLachlin in a later decision referred to it as an exemption from criminal responsibility (R. v. Oommen, 91 C.C.C. (3d) 8).

[23] Section 16 recognizes that in some cases a person charged with a crime may suffer from a mental disorder that is so severe that we cannot hold them criminally responsible for what they have done however serious the nature or consequences of their crime.
...
[238] The question, however, is whether Mr. Schoenborn's mental disorder so obstructed his thought process as to render him incapable of knowing that his acts would, under all the circumstances, be considered wrong by the ordinary moral standards of reasonable men and women? Whether his mental state was so disordered that he was unable to rationally consider whether his actions were right or wrong in the way a normal person would? Did he have the capacity to know that his acts were something he ought not to do in the eyes of ordinary reasonable people? Section 16 may apply even though a person knows in the general sense that they should not commit a crime. They may still believe, because of the mental disorder, that their actions are right according to the ordinary morals of society in the particular circumstances.

[239] The psychiatric evidence is that a paranoid delusional person who is psychotic at the time they are acting may appear to be acting in a deliberate way, but still be operating under their delusions.

[240] Dr. O'Shaughnessy for the defence and Dr. Lohrasbe for the Crown were very clear in their opinions. They are both of the opinion that if Mr. Schoenborn was psychotic at the time he killed his children then because of his psychosis he would not be able to rationally consider whether his actions were right or wrong. I take from this that he may try to reason the matter out, but because of his break with reality, disordered thinking and delusional beliefs, he would not be able to make a rational choice between right and wrong.
...

VERDICT

[247] Therefore, I find that Mr. Schoenborn did commit the first degree murder of each of his children as described in the Indictment, but is not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.


In the result under the Criminal Code he was not convicted but given an indeterminate sentence in a secure forensic psychiatric ward with annual reviews of his mental status due to NCRMD.

I know the reporter Suzanne Fournier fairly well (she has interviewed me on a number of occasions regarding legal matters) and she is usually much more careful in her writing than to get such a basic fact wrong. She is either having a bad day or has chosen to write sensationalist prose.

Neal Hall of the Vancouver Sun got the facts right and as he notes it is not certain that Schoenborn will in fact be granted the escorted day pass as this is only a recommendation. The final decision will be made the director of the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, who must assess Schoenborn's mental state and decide if he is ready for short escorted absences from the hospital.

A father who killed his three children in 2008 has been granted restricted, escorted access to the community, the B.C. Review Board concluded in a decision released today.

The decision comes a year after Allan Dwayne Schoenborn, now 42, was found by a judge not criminally responsible for killing his three children in Merritt.

At a hearing Tuesday, Schoenborn requested through his lawyer that he be allowed to occasionally go to Starbucks for a coffee or to go swimming with a group of patients from the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital in Port Coquitlam, where he resides in custody after being found not criminally responsible for the murder of his children because of a mental disorder.

But it doesn't mean Schoenborn will be granted access to the community immediately.

That decision now rests with the director of the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, who must assess Schoenborn's mental state and decide if he is ready for short escorted absences from the hospital.

"What we've approved is the director's request for discretion to consider escorted leave," B.C. Review Board chair Bernd Walter said today.

The B.C. Review Board, in its annual review of Schoenborn to assess his threat to the community, decided to grant Schoenborn's application under strict conditions:

- That he should have escorted access to the community at the discretion of the director of the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, having regard to his mental condition and the risk he poses to himself or others;

- That he not acquire, possess or use any firearm, explosive or offensive weapon;

- That he abstain from using alcohol or any drugs except as approved by a medical practitioner;

- That the director may monitor the accused's compliance by using urinalysis testing on demand;

- That Schoenborn have no contact with his former wife, Darcie Clarke.

In 2008, while visiting the home of his estranged wife while she was out, Schoenborn stabbed to death his daughter Kaitlynne, 10, and smothered his sons Max, 8, and Cordon, 5.

The mother came home to find the children dead and cryptic messages written on the wall in what appeared to be blood (but later found to be soy sauce).

The killer then hid out in the hills around Merritt for days until he was found by a trapper and arrested.

Schoenborn was charged with three counts of first-degree murder. The Crown theory at trial was that he killed his children as revenge against his ex-wife.

Days before the murders, Schoenborn appeared at his children's school in a disheveled state and uttered threats. He was arrested but released on bail.

After a lengthy trial, the judge found Schoenborn not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder (NCRMD), which used to be called an insanity verdict.

A forensic psychiatrist testified that Schoenborn was delusional and possibly schizophrenic.

Since the verdict, Schoenborn has been in secure custody at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, which houses people who are not mentally fit to stand trial and those found not criminally responsible for their crimes.

On April 6, 2010, the review board found that while Schoenborn had improved, he was still suffering from delusional thoughts, he had had a striking sense of entitlement and a "profound lack of insight into his illness."

The board also found that Schoenborn is "obsessed by or fixated on" his ex-wife, so he still posed a "significant threat."

Tuesday's disposition, signed by review board chair Bernd Walter, will be reviewed in 12 months.

http://www.vancouver...l#ixzz1IrbwS98M


I don't doubt that they are following the law or that the procedures are being followed.

Perhaps you can see how some people think that what's wrong are the laws the judge is following?

The policy of rehabbing is fine and dandy but do we really need to worry about rehabbing child killers?

#16 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 07 April 2011 - 01:31 PM

I don't doubt that they are following the law or that the procedures are being followed.

Perhaps you can see how some people think that what's wrong are the laws the judge is following?

The policy of rehabbing is fine and dandy but do we really need to worry about rehabbing child killers?

This case has nothing to do with rehabilitation.
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#17 Truculence

Truculence

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,311 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 04

Posted 07 April 2011 - 01:40 PM

Maybe he should be "escorted" to some dark alley in Harlem...

What religion are you supposed to be again?

s_l_s.gif

 

burroes.gif


#18 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 07 April 2011 - 01:46 PM

This is nothing like a parole hearing.


It's a lot like one - they are determining whether someone held in custody should be let out into the public.

The legalities are irrelevant. The facts are this. They are contemplating allowing a man that killed his children and then posed them for his wife to discover, then fled to the woods to avoid capture, and was wondering if the wife committed suicide as the first response when found, to be given the opportunity to be in public only three years after the killing. This chance to be reviewed for potential release will happen yearly so even if he is not released this year he might next. And so on.

That is disgusting.

I don't disagree that this is the law of the land. That this happens shows that the law is flat out wrong.

Edited by ronthecivil, 07 April 2011 - 01:49 PM.


#19 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,195 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 07 April 2011 - 01:47 PM

What religion are you supposed to be again?


The "eye for an eye" one ;)

Seriously though, this guy needs to be locked up until his sentence is complete.

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

 

waiting.for.cdc.jpg


#20 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 07 April 2011 - 01:48 PM

This case has nothing to do with rehabilitation.



Replace "rehabilitiation" with "treat the mental illness" then. I don't care. People that kill their children as a way to get back at their wife are beyond repair.

#21 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 07 April 2011 - 01:59 PM

Replace "rehabilitiation" with "treat the mental illness" then. I don't care. People that kill their children as a way to get back at their wife are beyond repair.

If you do that then you are dealing with totally different issues and proceedings.

Parole hearings and yearly assessments for persons held in forensic psychiatric custody as result of a finding of not criminally responsible by way of mental disorder are in no way, shape or form similar.

The judge ruled that Schoenborn did not commit the murders to get back at his wife based upon the psychiatric assessments from both the Crown and defence. That was a theory advanced by the Crown that was rejected by the judge.
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#22 almo89

almo89

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,320 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 07 April 2011 - 01:59 PM

Replace "rehabilitiation" with "treat the mental illness" then. I don't care. People that kill their children as a way to get back at their wife are beyond repair.


Agreed. Whether or not the judge found him criminally responsible or not, he still killed his 3 kids. That alone should be enough to keep him locked up and not out in public. Since he has mental issues, he should be watched carefully and not out in a community centre where he can potentially go nuts and commit another crime. Just my 2 cents

Edited by almo89, 07 April 2011 - 02:02 PM.


#23 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 07 April 2011 - 02:01 PM

The "eye for an eye" one ;)

Seriously though, this guy needs to be locked up until his sentence is complete.

Since he was not convicted there is no sentence to complete.
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#24 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 07 April 2011 - 02:03 PM

It's a lot like one - they are determining whether someone held in custody should be let out into the public.

The legalities are irrelevant. The facts are this. They are contemplating allowing a man that killed his children and then posed them for his wife to discover, then fled to the woods to avoid capture, and was wondering if the wife committed suicide as the first response when found, to be given the opportunity to be in public only three years after the killing. This chance to be reviewed for potential release will happen yearly so even if he is not released this year he might next. And so on.

That is disgusting.

I don't disagree that this is the law of the land. That this happens shows that the law is flat out wrong.

It is nothing like a parole hearing. Totally different regimes and differing considerations.
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#25 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 07 April 2011 - 02:04 PM

If you do that then you are dealing with totally different issues and proceedings.

Parole hearings and yearly assessments for persons held in forensic psychiatric custody as result of a finding of not criminally responsible by way of mental disorder are in no way, shape or form similar.

The judge ruled that Schoenborn did not commit the murders to get back at his wife based upon the psychiatric assessments from both the Crown and defence. That was a theory advanced by the Crown that was rejected by the judge.


What if they erred? That's taking a hell of a risk with the public.

If you were his ex wife and he was free under a different name how safe would you feel?

#26 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 07 April 2011 - 02:06 PM

Since he was not convicted there is no sentence to complete.



It is a matter of record though that he killed his children. Even if there is no sentance is it really prudent to let him out in the public?

#27 taxi

taxi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,882 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06

Posted 07 April 2011 - 02:34 PM

It is a matter of record though that he killed his children. Even if there is no sentance is it really prudent to let him out in the public?


That's for his doctors to decide. The man will be escorted, it's not as though he's allowed to run amuck on his own. He also killed his own children. There's nothing to show that he is a danger to the public in general.

If you don't like the idea of the mentally insane not being held accountable for their actions then move to a country where they are. You'll be able to execute all the mentally retarded and insane people you want.

It's a fundamental principle of any liberal democracy that people only be convicted of crimes they can be held mentally accountable for. Stop trying to disguise your desire for revenge behind public safety issues.

Edited by blankall, 07 April 2011 - 02:35 PM.


#28 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 07 April 2011 - 02:43 PM

It is a matter of record though that he killed his children. Even if there is no sentance is it really prudent to let him out in the public?

That is a decision for the review panel.
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#29 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 07 April 2011 - 03:02 PM

That's for his doctors to decide. The man will be escorted, it's not as though he's allowed to run amuck on his own. He also killed his own children. There's nothing to show that he is a danger to the public in general.

If you don't like the idea of the mentally insane not being held accountable for their actions then move to a country where they are. You'll be able to execute all the mentally retarded and insane people you want.

It's a fundamental principle of any liberal democracy that people only be convicted of crimes they can be held mentally accountable for. Stop trying to disguise your desire for revenge behind public safety issues.



He will be escorted for now. Who knows what the yearly assesment five years will decide...

And I don't want him executed. Heck, he doesn't even need to be in the general population. Just not in public anymore.

And no I don't need to move to a country that uses common sense in these situations I can lobby for killers to not be allowed to walk the streets as much as I want. It's part of our democracy. Part of the reason we have elections for example is so we can put people in office that reflect our views.

You physcology of my motives is just as prone for error as those that are evaluating this guy.

#30 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,536 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 07 April 2011 - 03:04 PM

That is a decision for the review panel.



A yearly review of when to let people that have killed others to roam the streets (mentally ill at the time or not) is more of a service to the killer than to the victims.

By the way how would you fell if you were his ex wife and he was released eventually? Just curious.




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.