Vince Li, Greyhound Attacker Who Beheaded Passenger,May Ask For Full Freedom

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, Down by the River said:

You keep referring to facts and reality yet you haven't presented a single piece of evidence to support your argument. 

 

Do you have any evidence that risk assessment is not helpful?

Are you that oblivious? Shall I post them lefty? I assumed you were smart enough to not look so silly... Kos knows the blunders shall I post them? Are you not up to speed with Canada?

[Down by the River]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

Are you that oblivious? Shall I post them lefty? I assumed you were smart enough to not look so silly... Kos knows the blunders shall I post them? Are you not up to speed with Canada?

I'm not a lefty, but go ahead and post where it shows risk assessment is not helpful, that prison reduces recidivism, etc.

 

Prison is absolutely helpful. Plenty of people need to be in jail to protect the public. Needlessly putting those not at risk to the public is a waste of tax payer money and a waste of resources. 

[Down by the River]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Sad, yes you're sad. I have many "tools" to respond with you but it appears you are hopeless. I'm sure the victims love you.. Pathetic.

Regardless of the fact that this is borderline illiterate, I look forward to seeing all the empirical evidence you have to support your argument. I look forward to learning from this evidence that you have.

[Ryan Strome]

4 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

Regardless of the fact that this is borderline illiterate, I look forward to seeing all the empirical evidence you have to support your argument. I look forward to learning from this evidence that you have.

You=pointless.

 

 

[Down by the River]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

You=pointless.

 

 

Point 1: Risk assessment is as accurate as many medical procedures

Point 2. Putting people in jail when they are a low-medium risk actually (a) increases the likelihood of offending and (b) increases harm to victims.

Point 3. There are certain people that absolutely need to be put behind bars for a long period of time and risk assessment helps with this.

 

Your turn.

[kingofsurrey]

7 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

Point 1: Risk assessment is as accurate as many medical procedures

Point 2. Putting people in jail when they are a low-medium risk actually (a) increases the likelihood of offending and (b) increases harm to victims.

Point 3. There are certain people that absolutely need to be put behind bars for a long period of time and risk assessment helps with this.

 

Your turn.

Homerun.  Well done.  

[Warhippy]

19 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

Regardless of the fact that this is borderline illiterate, I look forward to seeing all the empirical evidence you have to support your argument. I look forward to learning from this evidence that you have.

 

15 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

You=pointless.

 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Down by the River said:

Point 1: Risk assessment is as accurate as many medical procedures

Point 2. Putting people in jail when they are a low-medium risk actually (a) increases the likelihood of offending and (b) increases harm to victims.

Point 3. There are certain people that absolutely need to be put behind bars for a long period of time and risk assessment helps with this.

 

Your turn.

 

[Ryan Strome]

16 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

Homerun.  Well done.  

I will post a few articles tomorrow, we are heading out now. But it is funny your hypocrisy and lack of concern for victims. I think you know what I mean. I sure wish you showed the same compassion for other families as you want for yours.

 

As for hippy as said in the other thread, from day to day he changes. Hard to take him serious.

 

You need to keep up the LOL cause other families pains will never be as great as yours right? See you in the morning..

[Warhippy]

4 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

I will post a few articles tomorrow, we are heading out now. But it is funny your hypocrisy and lack of concern for victims. I think you know what I mean. I sure wish you showed the same compassion for other families as you want for yours.

 

As for hippy as said in the other thread, from day to day he changes. Hard to take him serious.

 

You need to keep up the LOL cause other families pains will never be as great as yours right? See you in the morning..

I'm with you on this and with others.

 

I don't want to waste a dime of taxpayers money on a ticking bomb.  In my personal opinion in a world this populated 2 shells and a hole are viable 

 

But cannot help but feel sorry for a guy who literally cannot control his actions.  The hell that must go on in his head is frightening 

 

He does not deserve to see the light of day.  No "evidence" will ever sway me otherwise.  If the experts truly believe he is safe he belongs in their homes around their kids.  If we made THAT a factor if reintroduction to society I have a feeling that many of these people with these mental instabilities would not be deemed safe

[TheHitman]

I'm having trouble comprehending what I just read. He beheaded a man and could be a free man soon? That poor mother. 

[Grapefruits]

Look everyone. The professionals have spoken.  As long as he sticks to a very strict regiment of drugs he will be fine.

 

 

[Down by the River]

26 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I'm with you on this and with others.

 

I don't want to waste a dime of taxpayers money on a ticking bomb.  In my personal opinion in a world this populated 2 shells and a hole are viable 

 

But cannot help but feel sorry for a guy who literally cannot control his actions.  The hell that must go on in his head is frightening 

 

He does not deserve to see the light of day.  No "evidence" will ever sway me otherwise.  If the experts truly believe he is safe he belongs in their homes around their kids.  If we made THAT a factor if reintroduction to society I have a feeling that many of these people with these mental instabilities would not be deemed safe

There are reasons beyond worrying about violence/harm to your children that might make people not want to have a person come live in their home. 

 

That said, I think it is also important to distinguish between those involved in risk assessment and those that consider themselves 'advocates' for the offender/offender rights. Those people can be especially dangerous in terms of not considering consequences to victims/safety. 

 

But I think you'd agree that we cannot send every single offender to prison. If you agree with this, I think you'd also agree that we need people to help make decisions about which offenders should be sent to jail and which should serve some kind of community sentence/probation/etc. 

[kingofsurrey]

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

I will post a few articles tomorrow, we are heading out now. But it is funny your hypocrisy and lack of concern for victims. I think you know what I mean. I sure wish you showed the same compassion for other families as you want for yours.

 

As for hippy as said in the other thread, from day to day he changes. Hard to take him serious.

 

You need to keep up the LOL cause other families pains will never be as great as yours right? See you in the morning..

You seem to be mistaken.

 

I am not arguing for his release or for his further detention.   Won't this guy still have conditions upon his release...... ?

I would think he would have conditions for the rest of his life.......

 

I am only stating my belief that the system in Canada has professionals employed to look at each inmate mental state and determine the best course of action.a

 

Interesting read on  Canadians rate of  Recidivism

 

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/forum/e053/e053h-eng.shtml

[Master 112]

14 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

To a certain extent. I've read interviews with staff that have worked with him, and when pressed with the question "Do you think Li could have another psychotic episode?", their response wasn't one of absolute certainty. More so a "most likely, if he continues to take his medication" type answer.

If you ask your doctor, they would not tell you that there is no chance of you personally suffering a psychotic episode in your lifetime. They're not mediums and could not provide the certainty you want for any patient, whether that patient is a healthy individual with no prior history of mental illness or someone who has previously experienced psychosis.

[KelownaCanucksFan]

11 hours ago, Grapefruits said:

Look everyone. The professionals have spoken.  As long as he sticks to a very strict regiment of drugs he will be fine.

 

 

And the last time he went off his drugs how'd that work out for the victim, don't worry he's fine too, he was freaking beheaded and eaten. This guys should not be allowed out without direct supervision, he is a danger to the community and should be treated as such. If they do release him and he killls again then every doctor and therapist that said he is ok to be released should be held criminally responsible and do jail time.

[Gurn]

"And the last time he went off his drugs how'd that work out for the victim"

 

Do you have link to a story saying he had previously been on medication for his  illness?

[Down by the River]

On 2/6/2017 at 7:32 PM, Warhippy said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ended not with a bang, but with a whimper. 

[PhillipBlunt]

It seems that while the doctors involved in Li's treatment feel good about his capabilities, they refuse to offer ironclad assurances that Li won't relapse. How can this be considered good enough?

 

 

"Mark Henick, national director of the Canadian Mental Health Association, said Baker should be granted the discharge if that's what the mental health experts working closely with him believe should be done.

"You can never be 100 per cent certain in these kinds of cases," Henick said.

 

"But I suspect that having worked with … his health-care team over the last several years — in a much more intensive way than had he gone to prison, and certainly in a much more intensive way prior to this ever happening — I would be willing to bet he has benefited from this treatment, that he's seen how much it has improved his life and that he would continue."

 

This verbiage, to me, doesn't justify releasing someone who could be a ticking time bomb.

[Down by the River]

2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

McLean's mother, Carol de Delley, has been outspoken against the move, saying there would be no way to ensure Baker continued to take his medication.

She reiterated that after the hearing Monday.

"What if he chooses to stop his medication again? In a nutshell, I don't believe that should be his choice to make anymore," she said outside court.

"A secure facility where he can continue to receive treatment for the rest of his natural life is where he belongs. Has everyone forgotten what he did to Timothy?"

 

Do not understand why it is so hard to have safeguards in place that require him to take medication. 

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, Down by the River said:

Do not understand why it is so hard to have safeguards in place that require him to take medication. 

I've since completely redone my last post as it was a flurry of fonts and formatting. To your point though, once Li is granted a full discharge, according to the courts, it becomes his sole responsibility to manage his medication/treatment. If safeguards need to be put in place that require him to take his medication, is a full discharge the right choice? In my mind, not at all.