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

[Wetcoaster]

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.

[almo89]

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.

[Wetcoaster]

The "eye for an eye" one

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

[Wetcoaster]

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.

[ronthecivil]

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.

[ronthecivil]

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

[taxi]

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?

[Wetcoaster]

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?

[ronthecivil]

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.

[ronthecivil]

That is a decision for the review panel.

[Carpe Diem]

I would say its a failure of the justice system if he comes out and kill someone...

[Wetcoaster]

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.

[taxi]

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

[ronthecivil]

That's for his doctors to decide. The courts have decided he is sick and not guilty.

The courts have decided he was not capable of making the decision to kill his children. It's no different than if you were holding a knife in your hand and I pushed you into someone resulting in their death. Would that make you a murderer? Here, the man's mental illness is what pushed him.

You have done nothing to debate this man's mental illness other than to reiterate the fact he physically committed the crime. Is there something you know about the mental state of this man at the time his children were killed that the judge and his doctors do not know?

As a matter of fact...no it's not. We live in a constitutional democracy. That means the constitution engrains certain inabliable rights in our constitution. It takes a lot more than a politician or a majority vote to change our constitution.

What medical school did you go to? You seem to know what this guy can handle better than his doctors.

[Weber's Playoff Beard]

"Treat the mental illness"?

Uncurable. Rot in jail. Justice system stop pitying the criminals.

[Wetcoaster]

There's an error in your analogy. I have no problem admitting that he might not have known what he was doing (though I seriously doubt it) and sure the whole "you pushed me into someone else" analogy. The problem though is that in this case we have no way of knowing with certainty that the man doing the pushing inside his head is truely gone.

It's possible they are wrong about any or all of the mental issues. Even if that chance is low, is it really prudent to release a person with a record of killing others into the public?

Look at the record of this same mental health community over the last 20 years who advocating letting the people in institutions be intergrated into the public (where a large number ended up just as alientated and preyed upon on the DTES). Clearly they are capable of making mistakes. If they err in situations like this the danger to the public can be deadly.

I don't need to have gone to med school to know that doctors can make mistakes. They are human!

[Wetcoaster]

"Treat the mental illness"?

Uncurable. Rot in jail. Justice system stop pitying the criminals.

[ronthecivil]

You seem want a 100% ironclad guarantee - simply not possible nor realistic. Winko recognizes that risk assessment is not a precise science. As stated by the Court:

This is not to suggest that the determination of whether an NCR offender poses a significant threat to the safety of the public is a simple matter. Dangerousness has been described as a 'protean concept'… It concerns probabilities, not facts…

That said I am unaware of any case in Canada where a murderer who has been found to have had a mental disorder (or was declared not guilty by reason of insanity under earlier laws) sufficient to negate criminal responsibility who has been released and has killed again.

In fact I am unaware of any case in Canada since abolition of capital punishment where a convicted murderer has been released on parole and has killed again.

[Heretic]

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

[taxi]

There's an error in your analogy. I have no problem admitting that he might not have known what he was doing (though I seriously doubt it) and sure the whole "you pushed me into someone else" analogy. The problem though is that in this case we have no way of knowing with certainty that the man doing the pushing inside his head is truely gone.

It's possible they are wrong about any or all of the mental issues. Even if that chance is low, is it really prudent to release a person with a record of killing others into the public?

Look at the record of this same mental health community over the last 20 years who advocating letting the people in institutions be intergrated into the public (where a large number ended up just as alientated and preyed upon on the DTES). Clearly they are capable of making mistakes. If they err in situations like this the danger to the public can be deadly.

I don't need to have gone to med school to know that doctors can make mistakes. They are human!