Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Convicted animal killer to be released in months


Grapefruits

Recommended Posts

Love all the judgement in this thread. None of you have ever talked to her or met her. She will be evaluated by counsellors and psychiatrists. They are the experts who decide who is and is not a risk to others. I think you should all be very grateful we live in a society where the state can't lock you up and throw away the key everytime a mob of people suspects you might commit a crime. Yes the occassional nut-bar slips through, but the consequences of giving the state too much power would be much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you even listening to yourself? She has demonstrated that she is a danger to society, a diagnosed sexual-sadist and psychopath with an extremely high possibility to re-offend and to kill someone. So you think it's perfectly alright that some innocent party should possibly pay the price for her being out in society? Ooops, so sorry, we were wrong, we thought having her on parole and conditions to her parole would be enough. The price of someone being murdered because of that sort of stupidity is just way too high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is under supervision deemed appropriate by those who know her situation far better than you or I. And I do have some first hand knowledge of how the BC mental heath system works. You use absolutely stupid words like guarantee which says a lot about you narrow minded approach. If ya want a guarantee go buy a tv at Walmart.

Ya might as well just electrocute her now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do you not even read your own quotes?

"Nevertheless, to know all is not to forgive all, and certainly not to permit all. Bourque is a threat to everyone around her. Permanent institutionalization at Her Majesty’s pleasure would seem the obvious, socially responsible course to take."

That's not my quote.

And, to HBR and taxi....you don't "start" with someone who has been assessed and determined to be severely troubled - likely beyond repair. You start with a kid stealng candy in a corner store. This person will be walking the streets despite being deemed dangerous. She's had, in her possessions, tools that support her vision of killing. It's not about being judgemental - it's about being safe. She has acted on that urge. Her own mother is now asking that she be kept away.

You air on the side of public safety and yes, if it means keeping one person contained until further assessments have been made in light of the initial ones that suggest she is likely going to continue on her path of destruction, you do it.

HBR, you keep throwing out red herring dramatics that are meant to blow smoke at our responses to you....no one has said electrocute her. So don't sway from our actual wording to suit your own agenda/ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as it has in the past with the "deinstitutionalization" movement that put hundreds of people with mental disorders out on the streets to pretty much fend for themselves. Take a look around the downtown east side, the evidence of their failure is right there to see.

Their philisophy to put people back into society has a terrible track record already, it's time for them to start fixing their mistakes.

Keeping high-risk offenders off the street would be a great start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love all the judgement in this thread. None of you have ever talked to her or met her. She will be evaluated by counsellors and psychiatrists. They are the experts who decide who is and is not a risk to others. I think you should all be very grateful we live in a society where the state can't lock you up and throw away the key everytime a mob of people suspects you might commit a crime. Yes the occassional nut-bar slips through, but the consequences of giving the state too much power would be much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lot's of difficult situations with poor outcomes for sure. I've seen the system firsthand for decades an can attest to it. You still need to trust the system rather than incarcerate anyone that "scares" you. This woman is scary indeed but she is in better hands now than what she ever has been before. Knee- jerk reactions to have her deemed a potential serial killer and thrown into jail again is not the answer and smarter people than us here on CDC feel that way. She needs some sort of normality in order to improve and she won't get that in a "psycho" ward at Riverview. There are never any guarantees in life but somehow we think we are smarter than those in charge. We are not.

And yes you did quote an article that says she should be permanently institutionalized.

"quote"

I just don't understand how, in this day and age, we are so seriously deprived of good mental health care. There is no excuse for people not to be institutionalized if they pose a serious risk to others as well as themselves.

Here's some more insight into it:

Quote

Kayla Bourque is a 22-year-old BC resident who enjoys inflicting suffering on others. She tortured to death her family dog and pet cat, for which she is doing an absurdly short stretch in jail. She has fantasized about killing homeless people, and was found on her arrest to have a “murder kit” in her possession—syringes, a knife, a mask, and restraining straps.

Judge Malcolm MacLean called Kayla Bourque a “psychopathic and narcissistic” “sexual sadist” who’s obsessed with gore and violence and has shown no guilt or remorse.

…”She was intelligent and articulate and preoccupied with inflicting harm and pain on others,” said MacLean.

He said Bourque showed no empathy and psychiatric reports showed she was a sexual sadist with “multiple sexual deviations.”

She suffers from a number of personality disorders, including psychopathology and narcissism, and “felt no guilt, shame or remorse.”

He said she will likely require supervision for the rest of her life and she “presents a moderate level of treatability,” but her rehabilitation has less likelihood of success if voluntary.

“She’s at a moderate to high risk to harm others,” particularly children, the elderly and the disabled, said MacLean.

Under the BC Mental Health Act, a “person with a mental disorder” can be involuntarily confined in a psychiatric institution. Here’s the definition:

“person with a mental disorder” means a person who has a disorder of the mind that requires treatment and seriously impairs the person’s ability

(a) to react appropriately to the person’s environment, or

(
B)
to associate with others;

But, incredibly, the psychiatrists on the case will apparently not certify her as such. She will be walking the streets in a mere few weeks, looking for prey.

Bourque was a Romanian orphan for the first crucial eight months of her life in 1990. Conditions in those state orphanages were appalling, and the healthy and rapid infant development that arises from bonding was likely stunted. It is perhaps not all that surprising that Bourque cannot form normal relationships. She is a deformed and dangerous person, but she was likely made that way.

Nevertheless, to know all is not to forgive all, and certainly not to permit all. Bourque is a threat to everyone around her. Permanent institutionalization at Her Majesty’s pleasure would seem the obvious, socially responsible course to take.

The DSM-IV, the psychiatrist’s working manual, is a vast compendium of alleged “disorders” that in theory, at least, permits the psychiatrization of almost anyone who doesn’t fit a narrow definition of “normal.” It offers cover for the institutionalization of people who talk back to authority and for the incarceration of drama queens. But somehow, in this instance, it has failed to function.

So here is the bottom line. After all the hand-wringing is over, a psychopath will soon be terrorizing society. Yet there is nothing to be done, we are told, except to impose onerous parole conditions on an apparently bright and inventive young woman, and follow her around at great expense for the rest of her life.

This is, to use a technical term, madness.

http://drdawgsblawg....sychiatry.shtml

end quote

and

Quote

"She is already considered to be of risk to others, that's been determined (that the likelihood that she'll continue on this path is strong). She has no remorse and sounds to be very disconnected - there are obviously deep psychological issues here that need addressing before you move to square two, letting her wander around in public. She has tortured and killed living creatures and was found with weapons and plans for further action. If it was just a fantasy, fine....but she's put her plan into action, at least in the beginning stages. That's a red flag, not to be taken lightly.

We're not saying "forever", we're saying in these initial stages. For crying out loud, she's just been recently identified with these serious issues/disorders and initial assessments are in the works...during the period of "figuring out" - yes, keep her safely out of the public and formulate a plan. Start chipping away to see if there's any hope of rehabilitation and then determine what's best. But to simply impose strict regulations on her and risk that she doesn't abide by them - that's not really doing anyone any good, including her. "

end quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you haven't. You just think you have. Psychopathy is not recognized in the DSM, and as such cannot be used in the cases you seem to think exist.

EDIT: Moreover, instruments to assess for psychopathy were not really used in the late '70s, so you are again either exaggerating or are just misinformed.

EDIT2:

I get a suspicion that some may be confusing someone who is 'psychotic' with someone who is a psychopath. To be sure, these are two incredibly different diagnoses, and not just on a semantic level. Pinel, who first began to recognize psychopathy (before Cleckley coined the term we are familiar with) referred to psychopathy as manie sans delire (mania without delirium).

Essentially, this definition is suggesting that individuals with psychopathy are not delirious (i.e. not psychotic). They are not crazy, they are not schizoid. They would not meet the criteria for 'not criminally responsible due to mental disorder' (NCRMD) on account of the fact that they very well know exactly what they are doing, they just do not care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...