Sleeping Man Beheaded on Greyhound Bus

[DaemonSeid]

Have we not learned from this?

[CutiePie2000]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

I'm still stunned that no one tried to stop him.

One guy did want to try (Garnet Caton), but when he tried to recruit a 2nd guy as backup, the 2nd guy bolted.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home
"Mr. Caton, who served five years in the Canadian Forces and was closest to the attacker, paused before leaving, torn momentarily between concern for his own safety and the thought of abandoning the bleeding victim. He turned to another man nearby and asked for his help.

"I said, 'Give me a hand and let's get this guy.' And the other guy took off," he said.

And there isn't really a lot of room to manoever around/defend yourself/escape in the narrow aisle of a bus.

[madmax]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4439183.ece


The original story left out some details. He also disemboweled the victim. The guy is a nut and they should fry him.

DamonSaid will probably organize a Free OJ type protest.

[LucyKKG]

Originally Posted by madmax

He also disemboweled the victim.

Whaaaaaaaaaat???

[PeppyGPhiB]

He tore the guy apart. They found his nose, ears and tongue in the mad man's pocket, and the rest of him was all over the bus. I can't imagine what his family must feel. I, too, am surprised that a group of people didn't try to stop him...I can understand one guy being afraid to, what with the knife weilding psycho, but a few of them could have probably unarmed him.

I believe that this guy was mentally ill, but I think he should be hospitalized for life. If someone is THIS crazy, I don't think they're ever going to be reliably well ever again.

[CutiePie2000]

The "trial" (if you want to call if that) is already over, which is why this thread was bumped (go back a page) and he was found criminally not responsible for reason of insanity.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/st...i-verdict.html

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

The "trial" (if you want to call if that) is already over, which is why this thread was bumped (go back a page) and he was found criminally not responsible for reason of insanity.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/st...i-verdict.html

It's interesting that the defense attorney states that he felt remorse after the verdict had been handed down. Coming at this from a US perspective, the fact that he could appreciate remorse would seem to weigh against an insanity defense.

Is there a big outcry against the Canadian justice system after this ruling?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

The "trial" (if you want to call if that) is already over, which is why this thread was bumped (go back a page) and he was found criminally not responsible for reason of insanity.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/st...i-verdict.html

Do you have a problem with insanity as a defense in general, in just this case, or . . . other, I guess?

I guess this seems like a pretty solid use of the plea, and unless you're a big-time capital punishment proponent (or social Darwinist), I'm not sure what else should have happened here that didn't.

[CutiePie2000]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Is there a big outcry against the Canadian justice system after this ruling?

Not that I have heard. I don't think it made much of a "ripple" in terms of news coverage.

Some people commented on news websites and that's about it.

These are the things that bother me a bit (from source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0305/20090305/)
"With the NCR declaration, Li will not have a criminal record."
"His case must also be reviewed on an annual basis by a mental health review board." (so, he could be released to the public one day, as long as he stays on his meds....which is positively a frightening spectre)

and I feel terribly for the family of the victim, who basically have to revisit this case every year for the rest of their (or his) life:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/Redirect/?ClipId=146869

My thoughts are, I don't care if he is in jail or in a hospital, just as long as he is never ever released into the public.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by CutiePie2000

Not that I have heard. I don't think it made much of a "ripple" in terms of news coverage.

Some people commented on news websites and that's about it.

These are the things that bother me a bit (from source: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...0305/20090305/)
"With the NCR declaration, Li will not have a criminal record."
"His case must also be reviewed on an annual basis by a mental health review board." (so, he could be released to the public one day, as long as he stays on his meds....which is positively a frightening spectre)

and I feel terribly for the family of the victim, who basically have to revisit this case every year for the rest of their (or his) life:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/Redirect/?ClipId=146869

My thoughts are, I don't care if he is in jail or in a hospital, just as long as he is never ever released into the public.

I don't know much about the Candian criminal justice system, but does an insanity defense leave to longterm confinement in a treatment facility?

[starang21]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

It's interesting that the defense attorney states that he felt remorse after the verdict had been handed down. Coming at this from a US perspective, the fact that he could appreciate remorse would seem to weigh against an insanity defense.

Is there a big outcry against the Canadian justice system after this ruling?

could it be misconstrued that he was insane at the time or does timeframe matter in these instances?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by starang21

could it be misconstrued that he was insane at the time or does timeframe matter in these instances?

Again, I'm not a criminal law expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt...but my understanding is that in the United States, temporary insanity can't be offered as an affirmative defense. It can only be offered as a mitigating factor to take into account when handing down a sentence.

It may be a different story in Canada.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Again, I'm not a criminal law expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt...but my understanding is that in the United States, temporary insanity can't be offered as an affirmative defense. It can only be offered as a mitigating factor to take into account when handing down a sentence.

It may be a different story in Canada.

We don't call it "temporary insanity." That's a lay term which looks a lot like a legal defense, but it doesn't exist. A plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect goes right to the mens rea aspect of the crime (a crime consists of two things, an act (actus reus) and a 'bad' mental state of either intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently doing the bad thing (mens rea).

Most U.S. jurisdictions have rules which go something like this (cut/pasted from wikipedia):

. . . [A] person may be "insane" if "...at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, arising from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong."

According to that same article, the defense is very rare -- used only in less than 1% of the murder cases and successful only about 26% of the time.

Also, your 'reward,' should this defense work is to be locked in psyciatric prison facility until you are rehabilitated or until you are dead. My guess is that more often than not, it is the later that comes true more often than the former.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

We don't call it "temporary insanity." That's a lay term which looks a lot like a legal defense, but it doesn't exist. A plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect goes right to the mens rea aspect of the crime (a crime consists of two things, an act (actus reus) and a 'bad' mental state of either intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently doing the bad thing (mens rea).

Most U.S. jurisdictions have rules which go something like this (cut/pasted from wikipedia):



According to that same article, the defense is very rare -- used only in less than 1% of the murder cases and successful only about 26% of the time.

Also, your 'reward,' should this defense work is to be locked in psyciatric prison facility until you are rehabilitated or until you are dead. My guess is that more often than not, it is the later that comes true more often than the former.

Thanks...again most of my knowledge (both in law school and at work) has to do with civil defense, so you could fit my knowledge of criminal law on the head of a pin. The low use of the defense makes sense though, based on what I've heard in conversations with criminal defense attorneys.

[CutiePie2000]

They're going to be reviewing this guy once a year every year, is what it came down to.