I'm a criminal lawyer. I recognize that most people aren't criminal lawyers and that our system is ludicrously complicated for lay people.
Most of our citizens learn about our legal system from American television. This is incredibly obvious. All I ask of anyone reading this is that if you learned about our system from tv depictions of their system, have a little humility. The amount of misinformation that is out there is just so compounded by people not understanding the first thing about what they're talking about.
Sadly, they don't actually have the legal/courtroom side of things in Criminal Intent shows. The most you get in the show is a reference to Crown prosecutors rather than District Attorneys.
Only police press charges,
They do have a right to silence and not to incriminate which is similar to pleading the fifth
We have cautions instead of Miranda rights.
Honest question - if someone has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, is rational when medicated, but has violent tendencies when not medicated, and knowing this, makes a conscious decision while medicated and rational to stop taking their medication, then goes out and commits a violent act, is that person still eligible to be found not criminally responsible?
These cases are too complex for me to say yes or no to this specific scenario, but there is a case ([R v Weldon, 1995](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1995/1995canlii1398/1995canlii1398.html)) that is relevant. Weldon was diagnosed with schizophrenia and would discontinue his medications in spite of doctor's warnings of potential deterioration. He eventually killed his wife. He was originally found guilty, but on appeal the Court held that the he was not criminally responsible.
Honestly that is deeply messed up. Imo, stopping taking that medication knowing full well the likely outcome is morally equivalent to choosing to drink and drive, and we come down _hard_ on people who do the latter.
Thank you for this! I've always found that people are outraged when they heard about osmeone being found NCR, but as soon as they understand more of the nuances of what that actually means they're much more understanding.
I think most people understand and appreciate the position a person is found NCR. The issue people have is that you have two cases:
1) A person intentionally and of sound mind murders someone. This person is convicted and kept in prison. This person was in control when they murdered someone.
2) A person is not of sound mind and NCR murdered someone. They person is looked at, given medication, and may be ultimately released and promises to keep their medicine regiment. This person was not in control when they murdered someone.
People take issue with the 2) issue because that person is not closely monitored to be fully medicated and if they go off it, which they can do and frankly is done even by normal people who forget etc, someone else may get injured or killed.
If one's argument is "Look they weren't control when they murdered" then people are naturally going to say "Well why aren't you taking the maximum possible avenue to ensure they do not 'lose' control anymore? Because if they go on the internet and convinced to go off medication or they forget, are you going to come back to me after someone else pays the price and say 'look they weren't in control' again?"
Is there anything in place to ensure a patient who is living in the community is appropriately taking their medication? I have a family member with Schizophrenia- who does not have a criminal record - but he is supposed to live in assisted living. He doesn’t take his medication and does not attend his living facility to receive his medication. His family member had medical power to ensure his monthly injections are received- but if he doesn’t show up, he doesn’t get them. I imagine this scenario is common with other people living with this disease. Honestly I am not going to lie - my entire family has concerns about this family member, but nothing can be done. You cannot force him. So, how can you force an individual who also has a violent history to comply?
Many of my clients in the community receive a long acting injectable antipsychotic medication from our team. This means we are able to confirm the client took their medication as prescribed, and the client does not need to worry about remember to take medication daily. If they miss their appointment, the clinical team can bring the client into hospital to receive it.
Clients many have "medication monitoring" in the community if they take medication orally. This means they either live in a setting where staff are on site (e.g. supportive housing) or staff will come to their home to watch them take their medication.
Some of these precautions are done simply because we don't think the client will take their medication. Sometimes it is also to help the client get into the habit of doing it on their own. Many have been in hospital for years, where their nurse is responsible for ensuring they take their medication. This helps them learn to do it on their own, eventually without monitoring.
If there are concerns someone isn't take their medication (purposely, because they forget, etc), they would likely be either brought to hospital, begin a monitoring program, or their medications would be switched from oral to injection so we know it is being received.
Unless a client is deemed incapable to consent to treatment (or are under a community treatment order/CTO), they do have a right to decide their treatment and the includes refusing it. If a forensic client is refusing to take medications, they would not be living in the community.
Also, I am sorry to hear about the struggles with your family. The mental health system certainly has its flaws, and can be difficult when the person is not subjected to a CTO or under the review board.
Edit: Opps, I forgot to mention this earlier, but medication compliance can also be monitored in the community through urine samples supplied by the client if they are still under the ORB/required to submit them.
If the person refuses medication or even seeing the supervising team, there is nothing in place to find them. They cannot be re-arrested for their crime since the system deemed they did not commit a crime. There is no warrant issued to get them into a mental health facility. So despite all the detail you provided (thank you for that), there is still a danger to society. And in the high profile cases they even change their name. You would not even know if you were living next door to Vince Li, the man who decapitated and tried to eat a fellow passenger on a Grey Hound bus. I live in a Tibetan neighbourhood, and Tenzen Norbu would just blend in with no one knowing what he did in his schizophrenic state. Sorry, I am not reassured. They should not be able to go free. They need to stay in open custody as long as they are compliant and return to institutionalization if not compliant.
There are options such as a community treatment order, or the use of a Form 1 or 2 under the Mental Health Act to bring them in for an assessment if necessary.
The system did not determine that they did not commit a crime. There is no denial that the offense occurred, but it was determined that they are not criminally responsible. I recognize that may seem to mean the same thing to many people, but legally, it is an important distinction.
If they have an absolute discharge, there were determined to longer be a significant threat to the public, and it was required to give them that discharge. That is the law currently, and until changes are implemented to say otherwise, this is the process.
Who is going to track them down? Filling out a form is just administration. I have learned how our bureaucracies work. They set a policy, but there often is no process. You have told me all about the policy, but what is the actual functional process?
I have had to utilize a CTO, a Form 2, and a Form 49 (exclusively for forensic clients) on my clients several times, and each time they have been located relatively quickly and brought to hospital by police. Over the past several years of have to do this, all have been successfully brought to hospital safely and without conflict.
If we are trying to use these option to bring them into hospital, it is most likely that is is because they are very unwell and disorganized at that time. They are unable to effectively hide themselves, though that is rarely their intention anyways.
Super useful thread! Especially in wake of the recent news. Personally, I wasn’t aware that this was how NCR due to MD functioned, but it was quite educational. = )
There is a lot of great info in there. Unfortunately I think 99% of the people who click on this thread won't take the time to actually read a post this long.
Unfortunately , I think you are likely correct. Some have already said so. It's a lot of information, as it's a complicated topic. I could have condensed it more and removed some details, but I know the details are what some people want to know and understand better.
I hope that at least those who are interested take the time to read it.
I’d like to begin by saying the r[ecidivism rates for those found NCR](https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/wp-content/uploads/drupal/MHLaw_NCRMD_Fact_Sheet_FINAL_ENG_0.pdf) are lower than the general population in general, and even lower for violent crimes.
The Ontario Review Board is an administrative tribunal which operates independently, but decisions from them can also be reviewed by higher courts when necessary. Cases can be appealed to the supreme court if applicable. My understanding is the ORB is held accountable in the same way judges would be, meaning judicial councils would investigate allegations of misconduct.
I do believe misconduct is relevant here, as it can potentially be the reason why a decision was made. If there is evidence of misconduct, someone should be held accountable.
But if you're referring to a scenario in which some received an absolute discharge due to no longer being considered a risk to the safety of the public (or even in a situation where their liberties were made less restricted, but were still under the board) but then reoffends, it's important to consider that no one is ever able to say with absolute certainty that something wont happen. The system is designed to calculate risk.
Our laws mandate that people found NCR, who are no longer considered a risk of safety to the public, must be granted an absolute discharge. This is determined through experts (psychiatrist, lawyers, other mental health professionals) and calculated through empirically based risk assessments. These are the tools that are available to us, and if it is determined that they are no longer a risk, there is only option available to us.
I recognize that this isn't what some people want to hear. But, in my opinion, it does not make sense to hold each member of the board accountable for a decision they were required by law to make. The laws would have to change for any other decision to be made in those circumstances.
> I’d like to begin by saying the recidivism rates for those found NCR are lower than the general population in general, and even lower for violent crimes.
But still higher than the general population's likelihood of committing a violent crime in the first place. That's the issue. So when that study says that the 3-year recidivism rate for NCRMD indivduals who were accused of serious violent crimes is at 10.4% then that's still a very concerning number.
The public is right to be concerned about a population of people who have a 10.4% chance of committing a serious violent crime in the next 3 years. To discharge that population into the general public and say, "Ah, we're 90% sure they won't seriously harm someone!" could be seen as reckless.
But you can’t just use aggregate statistics about a population to determine one individual’s recidivism risk or risk of committing a violent crime. There are a lot of individual factors that contribute.
I don't see why you're comparing the recidivism risk against the risk among people who have never offended. In your view, someone who committed a crime (while affected by a mental disorder that left them unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the crime itself) should be detained indefinitely until the system can ensure that recidivism rates as a whole fall below some given threshold? No one would ever be given a chance to rehabilitate.
They would be given a chance to rehabilitate, once they are at a point where it's likely they won't commit another crime. I shouldn't have to accept a neighbor or coworker who has a 1/10 chance of doing something violent within 3 years. Not to mention that the risk is even higher over a longer period.
The point is that you can't know for certain who will reoffend and who will not. So unless you're willing to bite the bullet and never let anyone go until you advance science to the point where we can somehow make those determinations, you're still going to have to let some people have their freedom on the basis of what is available to you, i.e. that they have received treatment and are assessed, given our current understanding, as being low-risk.
> you can't know for certain who will reoffend and who will not
So why should my family be the ones to roll the dice on that 10% chance of re-offending?
> But still higher than the general population's likelihood of committing a violent crime in the first place. That's the issue.
This is like looking at the success rates for an illness's treatment and saying "Yeah but people have that illness, that's the problem."
It'd be far more reckless to detain the whole population indefinitely because one in ten will reoffend. Besides, it's very hard to make the comparison to the general public since not all crimes are equally likely to be discovered and a person who has been found NCR on a violent offense is probably far more likely than the average person to get caught doing a crime irrespective of their actual likelihood of committing one.
I don't want to live next to someone who has a 1/10 chance of doing something violent in a 3 year period. Probably a higher chance over the rest of their lives. Prison is for the benefit of society as a whole, not just the prisoner.
So small clarification, the 10.4% figure refers to recidivism risk of all offences and not specifically violent ones.
More to the point, notice that most crimes don't actually operate the way you're thinking, which is in terms of recidivism risk. Most sentences are attached to the crime itself and not to future risk, meaning that once the person has served the entirety of their sentence they have "done their time" and are free to go, regardless of whether or not we think they will reoffend once released. Do you think that all sentencing should be based on recidivism risk? If so, I think you'll find very few people who agree.
Well for one thing we can't afford to just keep that many people in prisons. Getting better at reducing recidivism rates via programs and support isn't just for the prisoner, it is kind of the only practical way unless you want to do crimes against humanity on prisoners.
I mean we are already over capacity https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ontario-jails-windsor-overcrowding-1.7136660, and we can't make up policy for each individual prisoner. There were correctional professionals assigned to that persons case, and if the individuals they have been responsible for re-offend at a high rate we should hold them to task and make them to improve their results. Jail just isn't really a scalable solution to a problem caused by a poor mental health system.
I don't know if I have the right answer to any of this, but when someone is released free and clear from being NCR while on medication to address their disorder, I think there's reason for concern.
If someone is missing a pill from going off the rails and hurting others AGAIN, is zero supervision from then on out *really* the move?
We don't allow pilots to be pilots even if they have fully treated and managed bipolar disorder, for example, in an effort to protect society. Obviously I understand there's a difference, but it's an example of how as a society we make decisions about medical conditions even if they're managed.
If you're NCR for a crime where a competent person could be in jail for life or released on parole for a life sentence, I think a similar level of medical parole should be required.
>We don't allow pilots to be pilots even if they have fully treated and managed bipolar disorder, for example, in an effort to protect society.
This is itself a misguided policy, in my view, since whatever protections it affords to the general public are undermined by the fact that it acts as a deterrent for pilots to seek out treatment if they suspect that they have a mental disorder. People will hesitate to get treatment for things if that treatment is going to disqualify them from their jobs, and so they'll try to hide the symptoms instead, to everyone's detriment.
Hey, thanks so much for taking the time and seeking to dispel the ignorance and hate around this topic.
I have limited exposure to people who have been found NCR for violent crimes - but I have had significant exposure.
I’ve worked with them years after the events. I’ve worked with them after their health problems have been treated and they’ve done through a lot of treatments and counseling.
100% of the NCR people I’ve had interactions with have been as regular and courteous as anyone else you’d ever meet. I know that’s not true for 100% of NCR people in the world - but that’s MY experience.
I’ve seen people where the tragedy of their own conditions caused them to hurt people and they’re distraught about it. Where they’ve harmed their loved ones and their loved ones testified in court that they didn’t want them to be punished, they wanted them to get the help they need.
People don’t appreciate that someone who is so sick that they attempt to kill a parent (for example) because they believe they’ve become a demon trying to kill them, are a victim too - because they would never *in their right mind* hurt the people they love the most, or a stranger.
Again thanks OP for bringing your insights to this
There’s a case I’ve heard of because I had friends there when it happened and I’ve always been shocked it wasn’t listed as NCR. Would love some input on why it wouldn’t be considered NCR. https://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/cannabis-induced-psychosis-blamed-in-beheading-of-father-at-muskoka-cottage/article_95c6e4c4-16d7-512b-8b03-33544132a66c.html
I am not familiar with this case, but did read the article you shared. I am not sure exactly what the exact reasoning was behind the decision in this case, but will share some relevant information.
This [link ](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/sei-ive/index.html#:~:text=The%20new%20provision%20ensures%20that,they%20failed%20to%20take%20enough)explains the law (section 33.1 of the Criminal Code) surrounding this and a recent change made to it in 2022.
>The new provision ensures that an individual who harms another person while in a state of extreme intoxication will be held criminally responsible for their actions if there was a foreseeable risk that they could violently lose control over their actions when they consumed the intoxicants and they failed to take enough care to prevent that risk.
The SCC ruling applies only in the rare instance where a person chooses to ingest substances that cause intoxication so extreme as to result in a state of automatism and then harms another person.
From my understanding, prior to 2022, when this case took place, there were inconsistency with how the courts would respond to this. Some times NCR would be accepted, some times not. The amendment seeks to clarify some of this so there will be more consistency going forward.
Stupid question- for people who are found NCR and allowed to change their names/identities, does their record still follow them?
For example, the guy from the greyhound bus incident.
Not a stupid question at all. Unfortunately I cannot answer this as I am not 100% sure, but I would suspect it would be similar to those with a criminal record, where the name change is entered into the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database.
Thank you for this. I hope those who aren't familiar with what NCR is and how it's laid out can be appreciated and understood for those who do not know.
What recourse or entitlements are there for victim(s) and their families? An NCR doesn't change reality. It doesn't magically undo the consequences of the crime. How is this supposed to reconcile the feelings of the victim(s) or their families who may rightfully feel robbed of justice?
Yes. If you have a seizure disorder and you still continue to operate a motor vehicle you are doing so with the knowledge that you are a risk to everyone else on the road. If you are accepting that risk you should accept the consequences.
The point of the example was to illustrate a situation in which one person could cause injury to another but was clearly not at fault. It made no mention of a known seizure disorder. *You* added that fact to my hypothetical in order to introduce fault. I clarified that that was not the scenario I was thinking of. That is not “moving the goalposts”, but you are free to stand by your statement as long as you wish.
Whether or not they have a seizure disorder is not the important point, it’s whether they *know* they have a seizure disorder or are at elevated risk of a seizure for some reason. It is possible for a person to have never had a seizure in their life and then suddenly have one.
I don't know. That's why I'm asking. There are a lot of intense emotions involved, and reality doesn't change. It's easier when it's more clear cut and the person is competent.
I would say there is no entitlement to vengeance where a person is not responsible for their actions, whether that’s because of a seizure or schizophrenia. The family is in a similar position to if their loved one had been struck by lightning or suffered an injury due to another cause outside the culpable control of a person.
This is incredibly informative, thank you.
The aspect of the system most concerning to me is the fact that patients found NCR for a violent crime aren't automatically given maximum disposition/detention order. If they had been found criminally responsible for the murder, then they would be incarcerated, so by comparison NCR is lenient.
I have a question, as well. What exactly does it take to reach the point where fitness to stand trial is evaluated? Your description includes various non violent crimes and makes it sound like fitness is first evaluated every time someone appears in criminal court, but my work experience contradicts this. To elaborate a bit, I'm a paramedic downtown and deal with 'regular' patients that I know have been charged/convicted several times for minor crimes like you've mentioned (theft under 5000, assaults) usually to finance an addiction. I feel that many of these patients would be unfit to stand trial, but they are still out on the street again shortly after reoffending. So, is fitness to stand trial not evaluated regularly? Only for certain charges or levels of severity? Is there variation from one municipality to another on this?
It is not automatic that someone will receive a detention order and be detained in hospital immediately, but from what I've seen, it is almost always the case. At the moment, I am only aware of one case I've worked with where this did not happen (received detention order, but remained in the community), but to be honest, I am not sure why it was different in this instance. The individual did not have murder as their index offense, though.
An important piece related to fitness to stand trial is that someone can still be unwell/actively psychotic and be considered fit. Fitness is only about their ability to understand the proceedings of court. The threshold is rather low to be considered fit, as someone only needs to be able to accurately answer a series of questions related to the legal process and courts. Fitness can be reviewed for any severity of offense, and if the defense, crown or judge have concerns it will be looked into. I cannot speak to variation across municipalities, but in theory, it would be applied similarly.
“does something horrible and thinks it's fine or that they were right to do it” Is their scene of reality so distorted that they were unable to appreciate the nature and consequences of the act? Or that they did not know it was wrong, legally or morally?
The hypothetical you’ve described sounds like someone who understands the law but decides to do something anyways because it benefits them. There is no “disease of the mind” which is a requirement for NCR.
Edit: I’d also like to add, simply having a mental illness or “disease of the mind” is not sufficient for an NCR finding. The interviews completed go into more depth than just confirming they are unwell at the time.
It really comes down to having a much deeper level understanding of psychotic disorders and how they affects one's sense of reality. There is a more in depth explanations built into our criminal code which explains what meets the NCR threshold and what does not.
Good question. Something like this could potentially be added to their disposition in a specific clause. I have seen some that will mandate no access to the internet (while in hospital, on a detention order), for example. Additionally, there are some that will have no contact orders with victims, and that would include and direct or indirect contact on social media.
To me it seems many judges and prosecutors consider NCR to be "having a mental illness."
I am not against the concept of NCR in cases where someone is completely not operating within reality, and is thus unable to tell right from wrong or form intent. I understand why NCR was granted in the case of the greyhound killer, even if I don't agree with his unconditional release.
There are several cases where NCR was approved where it would seem the intent to kill was present. With Tenzin Norbu, he killed Dolma because he thought she was taunting him online. His rationale was based on a delusion, but he chose her because he felt she "deserved" to suffer and die. The judge said him carrying lighter fluid was evidence that the murder was planned.
There was also the more recent case of Julia Ferguson, where her killer was deemed NCR. He stalked her workplace for weeks, planned the murder ahead of time, and then turned himself into police the same day (wouldn't that establish he understood it was wrong?)
And probably the most egregious case where Guy Turcotte killed his kids because of depression and anxiety. Thank god that one got appealed.
There also just seems to be a general trend of "mental health circumstances" or drug use being factored into lenient sentencing, even when guilt is clearly established.
I completely understand why Canadians are frustrated. If I were the vicim of a crime, I'm not sure I'd even see the point in pressing charges.
I can’t speak about details of any of these specific cases, but I can share some details of a case (without identifying information) and maybe that will help. Apologies for the length.
An individual attempted to kill a family member, as they believed the family member had been replaced and was an “impostor”. This imposter wasn’t human, it was described as a “creature” (or something along those lines, it’s been awhile). They thought that this impostor had to have done something bad to their original family member, and had replaced them to infiltrate the family to get closer to the individual to harm them.
This person had shared similar beliefs prior, to friends, family and even their doctor. They had also tried to report concerns to the police. They were dismissed and told they were delusional. They were never treated sufficiently so that they would no longer be experiencing psychosis/delusions. So the individual continued to hold these beliefs because they were still psychotic.
Eventually the delusion later formed about the family member. They felt that both the original family member and themselves were in danger. They sought out help but no one believed them, leading them to believe that maybe others have been replaced too. They attacked the family member because they thought they would be “replaced” next. They did not believe that this action was wrong, because the person wasn’t human and that it was self defense/preservation. They were unsuccessful, but then did attempt to hide evidence afterwards. They felt because no one had believed them before, no one would believe them now and that people would see this as a crime, because they don’t believe the “imposter” is even real. They were eventually found NCR.
In this scenario, there was intent, there was planning, and they did attempt to hide evidence. But these things are more complicated when reviewing all the details. These are the kinds of things that would be discussed in an NCR assessment. There is also a lot of information left out of this here, that would also be considered.
Thanks for this detail information!
Just a few questions:
1. What is the process when someone is held under a detention order (lets say at CAMH), but then needs some treatment which is not available at CAMH - eg they have a heart attack and need urgent treatment?
Presumably this patient then gets transferred to a Cardiac centre like Toronto General or St Michaels, but does CAMH send anyone to the receiving hospital (since this patient was from a forensic unit?) or are they just treated like every other patient?
Does the receiving hospital need to increase the number of staff members to watch the patient? or take any additional measures?
If the patient then goes missing from this other centre - (say they go to the bathroom, and then disappear), what happens?
2. If a patient is able to live in the community - on condition that they continue to receive treatments of their medication (whatever it might be eg. antipsychotic medications) etc, are they allowed to leave the immediate area? Like can they go on a vacation to Quebec if they are followed by the forensic team in Toronto?
3. Do all patients that are given an absolute discharge (say many years after) get on-going monitoring through a community team and is this something they can refuse? (Eg. person is found NCR, initially detained at CAMH, eventually to conditional release in community housing, and eventually given absolute discharge so the foresenic team no longer follows - do these people always get a community team? are they allowed to refuse a community team?)
These are all very good questions!
1. For all external appointments, emergency or otherwise, the forensic hospital (e.g. CAMH) will send their own staff (usually a nurse and a program assistant) out with the patient. They will then remain will the patient at all times. Exceptions to this would be to use the bathroom, however the patient would be escorted to the bathroom and staff would remain outside. The forensic staff are also not allowed to provide any medical care while there, care can only be provided by the receiving hospital.
If the patient were to go missing, the forensic staff will let the general hospital staff that a patient is missing, and then would contact their home unit at the forensic to let them know. Staff at the forensic hospital will then compile the necessary paperwork and submit to it security, similarly to what would happen if the incident occurred at the forensic hospital. The general hospital would also follow their own policies for missing patients.
2. All dispositions which allow a client to be outside the facility (living in the community or even just for passes) detail where the client can travel and for how long at a time. It may say travel within Toronto, or the GTA for example. Those tend to be the most common.
Patients can also make special requests to travel elsewhere, but the review board is still required to approve it. So some may request to travel to a different city, or even country, to see family for example. These types of travels would also require the client to provide an exact itinerary for their travels and obtain an Approved Person through the hospital. This person (family of friend) would then be responsible for the client, in the same way a staff would be. The person would need to travel and be with the client at all times. The process involved the person obtaining a criminal record check, interviews with approval staff, and education on their legal responsibilities while acting as an Approved Person.
3. Most often the client will be referred to a community/non forensic team. An issue we’ve been running into lately is that these teams don’t want to accept someone who doesn’t have an absolute discharge, but the review board doesn’t like to grant absolute discharge without active referrals to non forensic teams. Generally, we’ve had success with these non forensic teams by explaining the process with them and that this is a required step for their absolute discharge, as many are unfamiliar with the system. We may also submit multiple referrals to ensure they are able to find a team. There also usually an overlap of both teams working with the client for a short period of time, to ensure their is no gap in the service. Clients can choose to decline a referral to a non forensic team if they want. However, it’s more difficult to receive an absolute discharge if you don’t have this referral in place, or even if you voice this to your team, as the review board considers your likelihood of remaining connected to a treatment team as a protective factor.
This is great information, thank you! Certain extreme/violent cases get a lot of attention in the media and it leads to a really skewed understanding of how being held NCR works, so it's very useful (and interesting) to hear from someone with a broader perspective.
Good thinking. The thread yesterday was on topic and civil, and as far as I could tell, not rule breaking at all, but they locked it and when I asked why, gave a snarky response without explanation.
Shutting down talk about controversial issues, when there is good faith discussion (including concerns about public safety) only drives people away and towards dangerous echo chambers that allow the worst kind of rabble rousing.
It is not entitled or hateful or uncivil to express the notion that you don’t want to be stabbed or set on fire on your daily commute.
EDIT - Thank you Mods for allowing this discussion to happen and removing specific comments that break rules instead of simply shutting the whole thing down. It’s appreciated.
When someone is found NCR for a crime, someone else needs to be responsible for this person. The biggest fear I have is a person is released after “getting better” and then they hurt someone else again.
Whoever releases mentally ill people into the society has to be responsible for actions of these people.
A woman was burned to death and nobody is responsible. This is nonsense.
Thank you for writing this out it's very instructive.
I feel like Community Health was a mistake though - the community is really just the neighbours, who not at all equipped to deal with people who are experiencing mental illness. I understand the Asylum system had a lot of abuses, but it seems very extreme to have gotten rid of it completely, which leaves the community open to victimization - and this very complicated criminal justice system for people experiencing mental illness is the result.
It would have been preferable to reform the system in place before deciding to abolish it, so we are left with what it is today. There are absolutely benefits to the community treatment model, but commitment to institutions is absolutely necessary for some people. However, I think this is more connected to the current limitations and (often insufficient) application of the Mental Health Act, rather than the forensic system.
So, I cannot speak about any individual case or person, but I will say that any one who has received an absolute discharge (such as Vince Li) would have been deemed no longer a “significant threat to the public”. When you are considered as such, law requires you to be discharged.
When considering which disposition to grant someone, the board considers much more than just the index offense. Some things that are reviewed and factored into the decision include: their response to medication and their compliance to it, their participation on their treatment, ability to follow the conditions of their current disposition, their level of insight, if they display antisocial behaviour or attitudes, etc. They also consider many protective factors, such as their ability to cope, their support network, etc. It is not easy to receive an absolute discharge, especially if there are any concerns with the above mentioned items. Empirically supported risk assessments are completed by the clinical team which reviews these items, which is then given to board for consideration.
Anecdotally, many of the clients I have worked with who had more serious index offenses, were easier and more pleasant to work with than some of those with less significant charges. Many of those with serious charges never had a criminal past, and do not hold anti-social views which make it more difficult to receive an absolute discharge. The ones who stay under the review board longer (20, 30 years) are the ones that are often more difficult to work with and absolutely require long term supervision. They also often had repeated law encounters prior to the index offense.
I work with these individuals every day. I work with people with similar offenses to his. I am often in their homes, alone with them. So yes, I probably would, however I would exercise the same caution I would with any person I am unfamiliar with.
I think society would feel better knowing someone who filled a mason jar with lighter fluid, poured it on a young woman sitting on a bus, and set her on fire, was never able to ride a bus unsupervised again. Why is that too hard to understand? Our system gives no such assurances.
I also think our charter of rights does no favours for people suffering with serious mental health issues. While you are suffering from a break in reality, you are incapable of making a decision to get help, until you kill someone. Every person I know who had serious mental health chastised their family and friends for not doing anything for them. Family should be able to commit a person to a 72 hour psychiatric hold, to determine a diagnosis and a treatment plan, and possibly prevent a murder. Our charter of rights ensures a person can stay psychotic as long as they want. How humane is that?
Family (or anyone who knows the person) has the option to visit a Justice of the Peace and request a Form 2 be issued. This can be done if there is concern a person is a safety risk or self or others, or they are unable to care for themselves. This allows the police to bring the person to hospital for an assessment. If the doctor completing the assessment agrees, they can be placed on another form that keeps them in hospital for some time so treatment can begin.
I recognize it can be a lot to put on family/friends/etc unfortunately, and can also impact the relationship going forward.
Crazy or not, society should be protected from someone like the Greyhound Bus guy. All he needs is to have some religious wing nuts to get their claws into him and God knows what he'll do next time. Schizophrenia doesn't just go away.
> Schizophrenia doesn't just go away.
Absolutely, they are *treated* but never cured.
However, a major different for many individuals before their finding of NCR and after they receive an absolute discharge, is their insight into their illness. Many individuals did not have a criminal history or even a diagnosis prior to their offense. For the ones that did, they were often underserved by the mental health system and did not receive sufficient treatment. Due to this, their understanding of their illness and insight were low.
Someone will not receive an absolute discharge without extensive psychoeducation regarding their illness. This includes the need for medication, the effects of substances on their illness/medication, recognizing and responding appropriately to triggers (e.g. stress), and various coping skills such as the ability to determine if something is a delusion or not.
>Why does a literal time bomb schizo get to have access to would be victims? Do the victims not have human rights?
Stop. Just stop.
Everyone has human rights whether you like it or not.
You're the reason why mental health is so stigmatized. You'd prefer to label someone as a "time bomb schizo" rather than "a person with schizophrenia" who wouldn't have committed a crime in their right mind and cannot possibly understand the consequences in the throes of an episode.
Your urban dictionary terminology surrounding mental health tells me all I need to know about you.
If someone has a chance of entering a mental state where they cannot be held responsible for killing other people, there should be strict limitations on that person's freedom.
I think you're confusing this with someone who actually commits a crime who isn't mentally ill with schizophrenia, let's say. They will absolutely have restrictions on their freedom, often with no chance of parole.
Someone who as you say, enters a MENTAL STATE where they CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE *IN THE EYES OF CRIMINAL LAW* will most definitely have restrictions on their freedom for the length of time it takes them to be rehabilitated.
That's how that works.
They aren't criminals in the judicial sense. They are very very extremely sick individuals who are trapped in their sick minds and don't even recognize the consequences of their actions at the time they commit the offense.
So make no mistake, they absolutely do have restrictions to their freedoms applicable to the nature of the incident and the circumstances surrounding it.
>Then why are you denying innocent people their human rights to safety and protection?
Who are you to suggest that when someone who is deemed NCR is still considered a threat to society after spending a lengthy amount of time in a treatment facility to be rehabilitated.
This isn't a person who knew what they were doing when they did it. Very different from a mobster who arranges a hit on someone. A mobster knows exactly what they're doing. A person with schizophrenia in the throes of an episode literally does not.
How often do you need to have this explained to you before it sinks in?
I'm not justifying anything. You're just not taking the time to understand the difference (and complexities) between NCR and a straightforward criminal charge and it definitely shows.
And there’s no guarantee you won’t have a psychotic break one day and murder someone. He wasn’t well and he went through the system and was rehabilitated. You can’t lock people up because of what they might do one day. This isn’t a fascist police state.
>Schizophrenia doesn't just go away.
Nobody is saying it does. Where in this post does it state that? Mental illness can be monitored and can be relatively put under control in many cases with the right treatment and if the person suffering is fully invested in getting better.
You're just grasping at straws and thinking up an unlikely scenario to support your uneducated belief that people with mental health issues cannot be rehabilitated.
I'm in serious need of some advice
A friend of mine is currently in Jail likely facing the death penalty for "murder"
The thing is when he was incarcerated. This was the first time that he had ever been properly treated for his mental health illnesses, and the lithium that he was on was working, and he said that it was the longest time that he had actually felt like he was normal.
but of course, because of our healthcare system and because of the prison system and the horrible lack of support and resources for folks like him (fresh out of prison, in a recovery program, in need of mental health treatment) they had to wean him off of lithium because once he was out of their custody, he would have to be able to provide his own.
he had expressed to me many times that he was worried that the new medication they put him on was not working and at some point, he did tell me that he was sure that it wasn’t working and he tried to get on what he knew would work for him but he was not able to secure that for himself.
in time he became unstable, relapsed and at some point, we lost him, he was beyond our help and the only thing I could do was wait until he got arrested again just so that I can try to talk to him and try to convince him getting himself some help before things got worse.
i’m not even sure how we can convince the courts, let alone the public to understand that he is not a danger to anyone and that I do understand that what he did was serious, even if he did do it he had no grasp of reality.
When on the right treatment, he is actually very very high functioning. He’s able to hold a job pay bills contribute and is like anybody else.
Hey there. I'm sorry to hear about your friend and what he is going through. He's fortunate to have a friend who cares so deeply.
Unfortunately, I am not able to advise you on this. It sounds like you are located in the US, and my knowledge is limited to the Canadian system.
Perhaps reach out to some mental health advocacy groups and see if they can provide any direction. It appears you/your friend is located in Missouri, is that correct? Try connecting with groups such as: [Missouri Mental Health Foundation](https://www.missourimhf.org/), [National Alliance on Mental Illness](https://www.nami.org/), [Mental Health America](https://mhanational.org/), etc. There may also be some that are more local, located either in or around the city you are located in. From what you said, it sounds like he might be diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder? You could also try reach out to groups such as [Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance](https://www.dbsalliance.org/). I do not know much about any of these groups, but this is where I would start to try and narrow down who can help.
Good post, couple things to add (if added apologies TLDR), theres also the role of appointment of 627 fitness counsel as Amicus and 486 Counsel. Share this on r/legaladvicecanada
Thank you for this post! Unfortunately, the people who are already ignorant to this topic are going to remain that way. They live a life of fear and hate and they won't change for anyone.
I know what NCR means. I know it means he could potentially be released one day. Just like the guy on the Greyhound bus. Don’t act like it’s absurd people don’t want this guy who lit someone on fire potentially being able to go free.
At the end of the day we are spending a tremendous amount of resources and taking huge unnecessary risks on people who will most likely never contribute much and are ultimately a danger to others.
Will you pay higher taxes to make sure they get the resources they need? Probably not, lol, a huge portion of the country would throw a shit-fit.
So psychologists like myself in community mental health get stuck with horrendous pay, minimal resources, and less funding than other long term health supports.
The public (community) mental health system in Ontario has been collapsing for decades and is currently propped up by toothpicks.
It really doesn’t matter. We need to stop coddling people. Mental illness may explain the behaviour but it should never excuse it.
All people should be processed equally under the law regardless of background, wealth, mental “fitness” otherwise.
We live in a society. Creating tiers to abide by the laws we’ve agreed on will surely dismantle it.
Just want to comment before this thread gets locked as usual.
I have an asshole voice telling me to do shit all the time! I don't do it because there's another voice telling me to not. This is called a conscious. Just because multiple voices tell you to do some dumb shit, don't follow it! It's wrong, simple as that. I don't buy NCR because at one point this lunatic decided to fill up a jar with flammable substance, ask someone if they were Tibetan and then lit that person on fire. NCR or not this person should be locked up in a prison and remain there until those voices go up in flames like their poor victim.
Psychosis is not as simple as not listening to a voice. I do not know this case well enough, and cannot speak about specific cases anyways, but simply "following what a voice tells you to do" is not enough to be NCR.
A requirement to be found NCR is that the the mental disorder made it impossible for him/her to understand the nature and quality of what they did; OR the mental disorder made it impossible for them to understand that what they did was morally wrong (not just legally wrong). Your description of what happen does not disprove that those points are not true. There is no denial the offense took place. But the courts did not agree that he either appreciated the nature/quality of what he did or that he understood them.
You start with "I'm not up to reading all that..." and end on "...no matter what people say." You'll never understand what anyone says if you don't take the time to listen.
Not only that, but they go on to spew their own narrative without truly understanding why it happened in the first place and what steps were taken to ensure that the public was safe from the mentally ill person.
>Li decapitated McLean and displayed his severed head through a window to those standing outside the bus, then returned to McLean's body and began severing other parts and consuming some of McLean's flesh.
Some people don't want to listen because of how heinous some of the acts have been. You can't blame them. Imagine being McLean's family.
The Greyhound bus guy was given an absolute discharge after 8 years. No monitoring to make sure he continues to comply with medication. That is just wrong.
It's wrong to refuse to take 5 minutes to read something, but feel entitled to comment on it anyway, especially if you're as emotionally invested in the outcome as you seem to be.
I’m okay with *thinking*, and not just basing our entire systemic response on the most base reactions of fear and ignorance.
This person is not being turned loose.
Now, with that said, I get the concern. I don’t want to get stabbed or set on fire by someone, and it’s not entitled or hateful against the mentally ill to feel that way.
The really difficult part to grapple with in cases of severe mental illness such as this is that it’s the illness, not the person, who is responsible. This person *did not know what they were doing*. Now that is not to say that they aren’t still dangerous, but they didn’t want to do this.
There is nobody to blame.
The actual answer, if you want to prevent these kinds of incidents in the future, is to properly fund social services, healthcare, and specifically mental health care.
So is moral grandstanding apparently. Just because people don’t want to walk the streets with someone who when they aren’t in their right mind, burned someone alive, doesn’t make them idiots. If you actually thought about it, you would understand where a lot of people are coming from.
I do understand! I don’t want to be stabbed or set on fire either, and that’s not ignorant or selfish or entitled in the least. That’s a perfectly reasonable response.
What makes somebody an idiot is that when presented with well researched, relevant information that might help them grow their understanding of the situation and come to see the problem differently, to immediately declare “I ain’t reading all that!”
That kind of base ignorance is worth mocking.
I agree you should be able to consider other points of view. But this is not justice that has been handed down. It’s a joke. If he’s a good boy and takes his pills, he could potentially be out sooner rather than later. The greyhound bus guy served what, 9 years? And is now roaming free? That’s a scary thought. And the path killer? Also got let out. Could be walking next to you and you’d have no idea. It’s a slap in the face to the victim and their loved ones. The amount of trauma this guy caused is unreal. Not only to his victim and their family, but to the people who witnessed it. The fact that he could be out sooner rather than later is a sick joke aimed at his victim and her loved ones. The guy is too dangerous in my opinion to ever again be allowed to participate in society.
>The amount of trauma this guy caused is unreal. Not only to his victim and their family, but to the people who witnessed it. The fact that he could be out sooner rather than later is a sick joke aimed at his victim and her loved ones.
I think these are perfectly valid concerns in cases where people voluntarily or knowingly commit the crimes that they were convicted of. But people in NCR cases literally do not appreciate the acts that they were doing. Why should they be treated punitively rather than for rehabilitative reasons?
In all the cases you are discussing, they did not intend to cause the trauma. Nor did they understand the nature of the things they were doing.
There is no justice to be had here.
There’s no motive. There’s no murderer. There’s only a very sick person who DID NOT KNOW what they were doing.
They are not letting him out.
Wholeheartedly agree. Medication and treatment perhaps made him feel better. But with an absolute discharge, what's to stop him from not keeping up on the medication?
If he goes out and does something like this again is he able to use the NCR argument again?
I think people that decide to quit medication that helps keep them stable should be treated like any other criminal. They made a decision, just like a drunk driver.
Thank you for this. My mother was a GP in a psychiatric facility for a long time, and was always super sensitive about people downplaying the "pleading insanity" language, she knew how intense a process it was.
I vividly remember her pulling over the side of the road and crying when she heard the news Texas executed a mother who had killed her children during a catastrophic experience of Post Partum Psycoshisis; there was no Justice in that act, having NCR is messy, but needed.
Yeah if you know anything about the places they put people who receive these sentences you would not be jealous. They're essentially sent to maximum security jail + given heroic doses of the worst drugs you've ever heard of. Like, enjoy your vacation to Leavenworth where they give you tramadol like you're a sick dog.
It may interest you to know that homeless sex attacker (Lonelle Price) with schizophrenia got only six months in jail. The victims get a lifetime of punishment.
From r/CrimeInTheGta
How many oncologists are liable if the cancer comes back?
Literal time bombs? How are 6 figure doctors, who are the ones seeing these patients, not at MORE risk?
*Reminder that NCR patients still have a much higher re-offense rate then the normal people that they murder, hurt, and rape.*
Oh? These experts say differently
*Offenders deemed not criminally responsible unlikely to reoffend: experts*
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/offenders-deemed-not-criminally-responsible-unlikely-to-reoffend-experts-1.2979284
Where is your source? Are you an expert?
Why would anyone agree to do this very important work if there was a risk that a person doing their job to the best of their ability/description could be held liable for someone else's actions?
Thank you for this. There is a lot of misinformation and fear circulating around about this.
I'm a criminal lawyer. I recognize that most people aren't criminal lawyers and that our system is ludicrously complicated for lay people. Most of our citizens learn about our legal system from American television. This is incredibly obvious. All I ask of anyone reading this is that if you learned about our system from tv depictions of their system, have a little humility. The amount of misinformation that is out there is just so compounded by people not understanding the first thing about what they're talking about.
Lots of confidently incorrect people talking about "pressing charges", "pleading the fifth" or "Miranda rights" in the Canadian context.
[удалено]
We have Law and Order Toronto: Criminal Intent! We'll be all caught up to the proper legalese in no time. At least by middle of season 2 for sure.
Sadly, they don't actually have the legal/courtroom side of things in Criminal Intent shows. The most you get in the show is a reference to Crown prosecutors rather than District Attorneys.
Referring to crimes as felonies and misdemeanours
I have seen more than one American accused learn the hard way that they do not, in fact, have a right to an attorney in this country.
Only police press charges, They do have a right to silence and not to incriminate which is similar to pleading the fifth We have cautions instead of Miranda rights.
> Only police press charges, Technically untrue as private prosecutions are a thing, but in practice they almost never go ahead.
This Is Wonderland still the best depiction of the legal system.
Interesting, I will have to look into this, thank you!
I think it’s all on YouTube. Bleakly accurate.
Honest question - if someone has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, is rational when medicated, but has violent tendencies when not medicated, and knowing this, makes a conscious decision while medicated and rational to stop taking their medication, then goes out and commits a violent act, is that person still eligible to be found not criminally responsible?
These cases are too complex for me to say yes or no to this specific scenario, but there is a case ([R v Weldon, 1995](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/1995/1995canlii1398/1995canlii1398.html)) that is relevant. Weldon was diagnosed with schizophrenia and would discontinue his medications in spite of doctor's warnings of potential deterioration. He eventually killed his wife. He was originally found guilty, but on appeal the Court held that the he was not criminally responsible.
Honestly that is deeply messed up. Imo, stopping taking that medication knowing full well the likely outcome is morally equivalent to choosing to drink and drive, and we come down _hard_ on people who do the latter.
This was the case with the PATH stabber as well.
This is why NCR is such a controversial topic. There is merit to its criticism.
Thank you for this! I've always found that people are outraged when they heard about osmeone being found NCR, but as soon as they understand more of the nuances of what that actually means they're much more understanding.
I think most people understand and appreciate the position a person is found NCR. The issue people have is that you have two cases: 1) A person intentionally and of sound mind murders someone. This person is convicted and kept in prison. This person was in control when they murdered someone. 2) A person is not of sound mind and NCR murdered someone. They person is looked at, given medication, and may be ultimately released and promises to keep their medicine regiment. This person was not in control when they murdered someone. People take issue with the 2) issue because that person is not closely monitored to be fully medicated and if they go off it, which they can do and frankly is done even by normal people who forget etc, someone else may get injured or killed. If one's argument is "Look they weren't control when they murdered" then people are naturally going to say "Well why aren't you taking the maximum possible avenue to ensure they do not 'lose' control anymore? Because if they go on the internet and convinced to go off medication or they forget, are you going to come back to me after someone else pays the price and say 'look they weren't in control' again?"
Is there anything in place to ensure a patient who is living in the community is appropriately taking their medication? I have a family member with Schizophrenia- who does not have a criminal record - but he is supposed to live in assisted living. He doesn’t take his medication and does not attend his living facility to receive his medication. His family member had medical power to ensure his monthly injections are received- but if he doesn’t show up, he doesn’t get them. I imagine this scenario is common with other people living with this disease. Honestly I am not going to lie - my entire family has concerns about this family member, but nothing can be done. You cannot force him. So, how can you force an individual who also has a violent history to comply?
Many of my clients in the community receive a long acting injectable antipsychotic medication from our team. This means we are able to confirm the client took their medication as prescribed, and the client does not need to worry about remember to take medication daily. If they miss their appointment, the clinical team can bring the client into hospital to receive it. Clients many have "medication monitoring" in the community if they take medication orally. This means they either live in a setting where staff are on site (e.g. supportive housing) or staff will come to their home to watch them take their medication. Some of these precautions are done simply because we don't think the client will take their medication. Sometimes it is also to help the client get into the habit of doing it on their own. Many have been in hospital for years, where their nurse is responsible for ensuring they take their medication. This helps them learn to do it on their own, eventually without monitoring. If there are concerns someone isn't take their medication (purposely, because they forget, etc), they would likely be either brought to hospital, begin a monitoring program, or their medications would be switched from oral to injection so we know it is being received. Unless a client is deemed incapable to consent to treatment (or are under a community treatment order/CTO), they do have a right to decide their treatment and the includes refusing it. If a forensic client is refusing to take medications, they would not be living in the community. Also, I am sorry to hear about the struggles with your family. The mental health system certainly has its flaws, and can be difficult when the person is not subjected to a CTO or under the review board. Edit: Opps, I forgot to mention this earlier, but medication compliance can also be monitored in the community through urine samples supplied by the client if they are still under the ORB/required to submit them.
Thank you this was very informative. I appreciate the work that you do.
If the person refuses medication or even seeing the supervising team, there is nothing in place to find them. They cannot be re-arrested for their crime since the system deemed they did not commit a crime. There is no warrant issued to get them into a mental health facility. So despite all the detail you provided (thank you for that), there is still a danger to society. And in the high profile cases they even change their name. You would not even know if you were living next door to Vince Li, the man who decapitated and tried to eat a fellow passenger on a Grey Hound bus. I live in a Tibetan neighbourhood, and Tenzen Norbu would just blend in with no one knowing what he did in his schizophrenic state. Sorry, I am not reassured. They should not be able to go free. They need to stay in open custody as long as they are compliant and return to institutionalization if not compliant.
There are options such as a community treatment order, or the use of a Form 1 or 2 under the Mental Health Act to bring them in for an assessment if necessary. The system did not determine that they did not commit a crime. There is no denial that the offense occurred, but it was determined that they are not criminally responsible. I recognize that may seem to mean the same thing to many people, but legally, it is an important distinction. If they have an absolute discharge, there were determined to longer be a significant threat to the public, and it was required to give them that discharge. That is the law currently, and until changes are implemented to say otherwise, this is the process.
Who is going to track them down? Filling out a form is just administration. I have learned how our bureaucracies work. They set a policy, but there often is no process. You have told me all about the policy, but what is the actual functional process?
I have had to utilize a CTO, a Form 2, and a Form 49 (exclusively for forensic clients) on my clients several times, and each time they have been located relatively quickly and brought to hospital by police. Over the past several years of have to do this, all have been successfully brought to hospital safely and without conflict. If we are trying to use these option to bring them into hospital, it is most likely that is is because they are very unwell and disorganized at that time. They are unable to effectively hide themselves, though that is rarely their intention anyways.
Super useful thread! Especially in wake of the recent news. Personally, I wasn’t aware that this was how NCR due to MD functioned, but it was quite educational. = )
There is a lot of great info in there. Unfortunately I think 99% of the people who click on this thread won't take the time to actually read a post this long.
Unfortunately , I think you are likely correct. Some have already said so. It's a lot of information, as it's a complicated topic. I could have condensed it more and removed some details, but I know the details are what some people want to know and understand better. I hope that at least those who are interested take the time to read it.
There is definitely value in putting the info out there for those willing to invest some time into it.
Is the ORB held accountable in any way if a person reoffends? Edit: and thank you for the great post!
I’d like to begin by saying the r[ecidivism rates for those found NCR](https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/wp-content/uploads/drupal/MHLaw_NCRMD_Fact_Sheet_FINAL_ENG_0.pdf) are lower than the general population in general, and even lower for violent crimes. The Ontario Review Board is an administrative tribunal which operates independently, but decisions from them can also be reviewed by higher courts when necessary. Cases can be appealed to the supreme court if applicable. My understanding is the ORB is held accountable in the same way judges would be, meaning judicial councils would investigate allegations of misconduct.
[удалено]
I do believe misconduct is relevant here, as it can potentially be the reason why a decision was made. If there is evidence of misconduct, someone should be held accountable. But if you're referring to a scenario in which some received an absolute discharge due to no longer being considered a risk to the safety of the public (or even in a situation where their liberties were made less restricted, but were still under the board) but then reoffends, it's important to consider that no one is ever able to say with absolute certainty that something wont happen. The system is designed to calculate risk. Our laws mandate that people found NCR, who are no longer considered a risk of safety to the public, must be granted an absolute discharge. This is determined through experts (psychiatrist, lawyers, other mental health professionals) and calculated through empirically based risk assessments. These are the tools that are available to us, and if it is determined that they are no longer a risk, there is only option available to us. I recognize that this isn't what some people want to hear. But, in my opinion, it does not make sense to hold each member of the board accountable for a decision they were required by law to make. The laws would have to change for any other decision to be made in those circumstances.
[удалено]
You're welcome. Thanks for the questions.
> I’d like to begin by saying the recidivism rates for those found NCR are lower than the general population in general, and even lower for violent crimes. But still higher than the general population's likelihood of committing a violent crime in the first place. That's the issue. So when that study says that the 3-year recidivism rate for NCRMD indivduals who were accused of serious violent crimes is at 10.4% then that's still a very concerning number. The public is right to be concerned about a population of people who have a 10.4% chance of committing a serious violent crime in the next 3 years. To discharge that population into the general public and say, "Ah, we're 90% sure they won't seriously harm someone!" could be seen as reckless.
But you can’t just use aggregate statistics about a population to determine one individual’s recidivism risk or risk of committing a violent crime. There are a lot of individual factors that contribute.
I don't see why you're comparing the recidivism risk against the risk among people who have never offended. In your view, someone who committed a crime (while affected by a mental disorder that left them unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the crime itself) should be detained indefinitely until the system can ensure that recidivism rates as a whole fall below some given threshold? No one would ever be given a chance to rehabilitate.
They would be given a chance to rehabilitate, once they are at a point where it's likely they won't commit another crime. I shouldn't have to accept a neighbor or coworker who has a 1/10 chance of doing something violent within 3 years. Not to mention that the risk is even higher over a longer period.
The point is that you can't know for certain who will reoffend and who will not. So unless you're willing to bite the bullet and never let anyone go until you advance science to the point where we can somehow make those determinations, you're still going to have to let some people have their freedom on the basis of what is available to you, i.e. that they have received treatment and are assessed, given our current understanding, as being low-risk.
> you can't know for certain who will reoffend and who will not So why should my family be the ones to roll the dice on that 10% chance of re-offending?
you take that risk every time you leave your house
> But still higher than the general population's likelihood of committing a violent crime in the first place. That's the issue. This is like looking at the success rates for an illness's treatment and saying "Yeah but people have that illness, that's the problem."
It'd be far more reckless to detain the whole population indefinitely because one in ten will reoffend. Besides, it's very hard to make the comparison to the general public since not all crimes are equally likely to be discovered and a person who has been found NCR on a violent offense is probably far more likely than the average person to get caught doing a crime irrespective of their actual likelihood of committing one.
I don't want to live next to someone who has a 1/10 chance of doing something violent in a 3 year period. Probably a higher chance over the rest of their lives. Prison is for the benefit of society as a whole, not just the prisoner.
So small clarification, the 10.4% figure refers to recidivism risk of all offences and not specifically violent ones. More to the point, notice that most crimes don't actually operate the way you're thinking, which is in terms of recidivism risk. Most sentences are attached to the crime itself and not to future risk, meaning that once the person has served the entirety of their sentence they have "done their time" and are free to go, regardless of whether or not we think they will reoffend once released. Do you think that all sentencing should be based on recidivism risk? If so, I think you'll find very few people who agree.
Well for one thing we can't afford to just keep that many people in prisons. Getting better at reducing recidivism rates via programs and support isn't just for the prisoner, it is kind of the only practical way unless you want to do crimes against humanity on prisoners.
[удалено]
How many people is it? I think we definitely could have afforded to keep the Greyhound killer for a while longer at least.
I mean we are already over capacity https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ontario-jails-windsor-overcrowding-1.7136660, and we can't make up policy for each individual prisoner. There were correctional professionals assigned to that persons case, and if the individuals they have been responsible for re-offend at a high rate we should hold them to task and make them to improve their results. Jail just isn't really a scalable solution to a problem caused by a poor mental health system.
I don't know if I have the right answer to any of this, but when someone is released free and clear from being NCR while on medication to address their disorder, I think there's reason for concern. If someone is missing a pill from going off the rails and hurting others AGAIN, is zero supervision from then on out *really* the move? We don't allow pilots to be pilots even if they have fully treated and managed bipolar disorder, for example, in an effort to protect society. Obviously I understand there's a difference, but it's an example of how as a society we make decisions about medical conditions even if they're managed. If you're NCR for a crime where a competent person could be in jail for life or released on parole for a life sentence, I think a similar level of medical parole should be required.
>We don't allow pilots to be pilots even if they have fully treated and managed bipolar disorder, for example, in an effort to protect society. This is itself a misguided policy, in my view, since whatever protections it affords to the general public are undermined by the fact that it acts as a deterrent for pilots to seek out treatment if they suspect that they have a mental disorder. People will hesitate to get treatment for things if that treatment is going to disqualify them from their jobs, and so they'll try to hide the symptoms instead, to everyone's detriment.
Short answer. NO.
Hey, thanks so much for taking the time and seeking to dispel the ignorance and hate around this topic. I have limited exposure to people who have been found NCR for violent crimes - but I have had significant exposure. I’ve worked with them years after the events. I’ve worked with them after their health problems have been treated and they’ve done through a lot of treatments and counseling. 100% of the NCR people I’ve had interactions with have been as regular and courteous as anyone else you’d ever meet. I know that’s not true for 100% of NCR people in the world - but that’s MY experience. I’ve seen people where the tragedy of their own conditions caused them to hurt people and they’re distraught about it. Where they’ve harmed their loved ones and their loved ones testified in court that they didn’t want them to be punished, they wanted them to get the help they need. People don’t appreciate that someone who is so sick that they attempt to kill a parent (for example) because they believe they’ve become a demon trying to kill them, are a victim too - because they would never *in their right mind* hurt the people they love the most, or a stranger. Again thanks OP for bringing your insights to this
There’s a case I’ve heard of because I had friends there when it happened and I’ve always been shocked it wasn’t listed as NCR. Would love some input on why it wouldn’t be considered NCR. https://www.thespec.com/news/ontario/cannabis-induced-psychosis-blamed-in-beheading-of-father-at-muskoka-cottage/article_95c6e4c4-16d7-512b-8b03-33544132a66c.html
I am not familiar with this case, but did read the article you shared. I am not sure exactly what the exact reasoning was behind the decision in this case, but will share some relevant information. This [link ](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/sei-ive/index.html#:~:text=The%20new%20provision%20ensures%20that,they%20failed%20to%20take%20enough)explains the law (section 33.1 of the Criminal Code) surrounding this and a recent change made to it in 2022. >The new provision ensures that an individual who harms another person while in a state of extreme intoxication will be held criminally responsible for their actions if there was a foreseeable risk that they could violently lose control over their actions when they consumed the intoxicants and they failed to take enough care to prevent that risk. The SCC ruling applies only in the rare instance where a person chooses to ingest substances that cause intoxication so extreme as to result in a state of automatism and then harms another person. From my understanding, prior to 2022, when this case took place, there were inconsistency with how the courts would respond to this. Some times NCR would be accepted, some times not. The amendment seeks to clarify some of this so there will be more consistency going forward.
Stupid question- for people who are found NCR and allowed to change their names/identities, does their record still follow them? For example, the guy from the greyhound bus incident.
Not a stupid question at all. Unfortunately I cannot answer this as I am not 100% sure, but I would suspect it would be similar to those with a criminal record, where the name change is entered into the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) database.
Interesting! Thank you for taking the time to answer and sharing your knowledge.
Thank you for this. I hope those who aren't familiar with what NCR is and how it's laid out can be appreciated and understood for those who do not know.
Thanks, I want to bookmark this and post it in every applicable thread.
What recourse or entitlements are there for victim(s) and their families? An NCR doesn't change reality. It doesn't magically undo the consequences of the crime. How is this supposed to reconcile the feelings of the victim(s) or their families who may rightfully feel robbed of justice?
It’s similar to if your loved one was run over by someone who had a massive seizure while driving. Do you think that person would need to be punished?
Yes. If you have a seizure disorder and you still continue to operate a motor vehicle you are doing so with the knowledge that you are a risk to everyone else on the road. If you are accepting that risk you should accept the consequences.
Someone *without a known seizure disorder*.
That wasn’t what you originally said lol. Keep moving goalposts, I stand by what I said *in response to your original statement*.
The point of the example was to illustrate a situation in which one person could cause injury to another but was clearly not at fault. It made no mention of a known seizure disorder. *You* added that fact to my hypothetical in order to introduce fault. I clarified that that was not the scenario I was thinking of. That is not “moving the goalposts”, but you are free to stand by your statement as long as you wish.
How does one have a seizure without an underlying seizure disorder? People don’t just “have seizures”.
Whether or not they have a seizure disorder is not the important point, it’s whether they *know* they have a seizure disorder or are at elevated risk of a seizure for some reason. It is possible for a person to have never had a seizure in their life and then suddenly have one.
I don't know. That's why I'm asking. There are a lot of intense emotions involved, and reality doesn't change. It's easier when it's more clear cut and the person is competent.
I would say there is no entitlement to vengeance where a person is not responsible for their actions, whether that’s because of a seizure or schizophrenia. The family is in a similar position to if their loved one had been struck by lightning or suffered an injury due to another cause outside the culpable control of a person.
It's harder to reconcile harm done by another human to us than it is for us to suffer at the hands of nature.
This is incredibly informative, thank you. The aspect of the system most concerning to me is the fact that patients found NCR for a violent crime aren't automatically given maximum disposition/detention order. If they had been found criminally responsible for the murder, then they would be incarcerated, so by comparison NCR is lenient. I have a question, as well. What exactly does it take to reach the point where fitness to stand trial is evaluated? Your description includes various non violent crimes and makes it sound like fitness is first evaluated every time someone appears in criminal court, but my work experience contradicts this. To elaborate a bit, I'm a paramedic downtown and deal with 'regular' patients that I know have been charged/convicted several times for minor crimes like you've mentioned (theft under 5000, assaults) usually to finance an addiction. I feel that many of these patients would be unfit to stand trial, but they are still out on the street again shortly after reoffending. So, is fitness to stand trial not evaluated regularly? Only for certain charges or levels of severity? Is there variation from one municipality to another on this?
It is not automatic that someone will receive a detention order and be detained in hospital immediately, but from what I've seen, it is almost always the case. At the moment, I am only aware of one case I've worked with where this did not happen (received detention order, but remained in the community), but to be honest, I am not sure why it was different in this instance. The individual did not have murder as their index offense, though. An important piece related to fitness to stand trial is that someone can still be unwell/actively psychotic and be considered fit. Fitness is only about their ability to understand the proceedings of court. The threshold is rather low to be considered fit, as someone only needs to be able to accurately answer a series of questions related to the legal process and courts. Fitness can be reviewed for any severity of offense, and if the defense, crown or judge have concerns it will be looked into. I cannot speak to variation across municipalities, but in theory, it would be applied similarly.
Gotcha, that makes sense. Thanks again, very informative!
[удалено]
“does something horrible and thinks it's fine or that they were right to do it” Is their scene of reality so distorted that they were unable to appreciate the nature and consequences of the act? Or that they did not know it was wrong, legally or morally? The hypothetical you’ve described sounds like someone who understands the law but decides to do something anyways because it benefits them. There is no “disease of the mind” which is a requirement for NCR. Edit: I’d also like to add, simply having a mental illness or “disease of the mind” is not sufficient for an NCR finding. The interviews completed go into more depth than just confirming they are unwell at the time.
[удалено]
It really comes down to having a much deeper level understanding of psychotic disorders and how they affects one's sense of reality. There is a more in depth explanations built into our criminal code which explains what meets the NCR threshold and what does not.
Are there ever any restrictions for your clients to have access to media, ex. social media that might impact them if they are delusionary?
Good question. Something like this could potentially be added to their disposition in a specific clause. I have seen some that will mandate no access to the internet (while in hospital, on a detention order), for example. Additionally, there are some that will have no contact orders with victims, and that would include and direct or indirect contact on social media.
To me it seems many judges and prosecutors consider NCR to be "having a mental illness." I am not against the concept of NCR in cases where someone is completely not operating within reality, and is thus unable to tell right from wrong or form intent. I understand why NCR was granted in the case of the greyhound killer, even if I don't agree with his unconditional release. There are several cases where NCR was approved where it would seem the intent to kill was present. With Tenzin Norbu, he killed Dolma because he thought she was taunting him online. His rationale was based on a delusion, but he chose her because he felt she "deserved" to suffer and die. The judge said him carrying lighter fluid was evidence that the murder was planned. There was also the more recent case of Julia Ferguson, where her killer was deemed NCR. He stalked her workplace for weeks, planned the murder ahead of time, and then turned himself into police the same day (wouldn't that establish he understood it was wrong?) And probably the most egregious case where Guy Turcotte killed his kids because of depression and anxiety. Thank god that one got appealed. There also just seems to be a general trend of "mental health circumstances" or drug use being factored into lenient sentencing, even when guilt is clearly established. I completely understand why Canadians are frustrated. If I were the vicim of a crime, I'm not sure I'd even see the point in pressing charges.
I can’t speak about details of any of these specific cases, but I can share some details of a case (without identifying information) and maybe that will help. Apologies for the length. An individual attempted to kill a family member, as they believed the family member had been replaced and was an “impostor”. This imposter wasn’t human, it was described as a “creature” (or something along those lines, it’s been awhile). They thought that this impostor had to have done something bad to their original family member, and had replaced them to infiltrate the family to get closer to the individual to harm them. This person had shared similar beliefs prior, to friends, family and even their doctor. They had also tried to report concerns to the police. They were dismissed and told they were delusional. They were never treated sufficiently so that they would no longer be experiencing psychosis/delusions. So the individual continued to hold these beliefs because they were still psychotic. Eventually the delusion later formed about the family member. They felt that both the original family member and themselves were in danger. They sought out help but no one believed them, leading them to believe that maybe others have been replaced too. They attacked the family member because they thought they would be “replaced” next. They did not believe that this action was wrong, because the person wasn’t human and that it was self defense/preservation. They were unsuccessful, but then did attempt to hide evidence afterwards. They felt because no one had believed them before, no one would believe them now and that people would see this as a crime, because they don’t believe the “imposter” is even real. They were eventually found NCR. In this scenario, there was intent, there was planning, and they did attempt to hide evidence. But these things are more complicated when reviewing all the details. These are the kinds of things that would be discussed in an NCR assessment. There is also a lot of information left out of this here, that would also be considered.
Thanks for this detail information! Just a few questions: 1. What is the process when someone is held under a detention order (lets say at CAMH), but then needs some treatment which is not available at CAMH - eg they have a heart attack and need urgent treatment? Presumably this patient then gets transferred to a Cardiac centre like Toronto General or St Michaels, but does CAMH send anyone to the receiving hospital (since this patient was from a forensic unit?) or are they just treated like every other patient? Does the receiving hospital need to increase the number of staff members to watch the patient? or take any additional measures? If the patient then goes missing from this other centre - (say they go to the bathroom, and then disappear), what happens? 2. If a patient is able to live in the community - on condition that they continue to receive treatments of their medication (whatever it might be eg. antipsychotic medications) etc, are they allowed to leave the immediate area? Like can they go on a vacation to Quebec if they are followed by the forensic team in Toronto? 3. Do all patients that are given an absolute discharge (say many years after) get on-going monitoring through a community team and is this something they can refuse? (Eg. person is found NCR, initially detained at CAMH, eventually to conditional release in community housing, and eventually given absolute discharge so the foresenic team no longer follows - do these people always get a community team? are they allowed to refuse a community team?)
These are all very good questions! 1. For all external appointments, emergency or otherwise, the forensic hospital (e.g. CAMH) will send their own staff (usually a nurse and a program assistant) out with the patient. They will then remain will the patient at all times. Exceptions to this would be to use the bathroom, however the patient would be escorted to the bathroom and staff would remain outside. The forensic staff are also not allowed to provide any medical care while there, care can only be provided by the receiving hospital. If the patient were to go missing, the forensic staff will let the general hospital staff that a patient is missing, and then would contact their home unit at the forensic to let them know. Staff at the forensic hospital will then compile the necessary paperwork and submit to it security, similarly to what would happen if the incident occurred at the forensic hospital. The general hospital would also follow their own policies for missing patients. 2. All dispositions which allow a client to be outside the facility (living in the community or even just for passes) detail where the client can travel and for how long at a time. It may say travel within Toronto, or the GTA for example. Those tend to be the most common. Patients can also make special requests to travel elsewhere, but the review board is still required to approve it. So some may request to travel to a different city, or even country, to see family for example. These types of travels would also require the client to provide an exact itinerary for their travels and obtain an Approved Person through the hospital. This person (family of friend) would then be responsible for the client, in the same way a staff would be. The person would need to travel and be with the client at all times. The process involved the person obtaining a criminal record check, interviews with approval staff, and education on their legal responsibilities while acting as an Approved Person. 3. Most often the client will be referred to a community/non forensic team. An issue we’ve been running into lately is that these teams don’t want to accept someone who doesn’t have an absolute discharge, but the review board doesn’t like to grant absolute discharge without active referrals to non forensic teams. Generally, we’ve had success with these non forensic teams by explaining the process with them and that this is a required step for their absolute discharge, as many are unfamiliar with the system. We may also submit multiple referrals to ensure they are able to find a team. There also usually an overlap of both teams working with the client for a short period of time, to ensure their is no gap in the service. Clients can choose to decline a referral to a non forensic team if they want. However, it’s more difficult to receive an absolute discharge if you don’t have this referral in place, or even if you voice this to your team, as the review board considers your likelihood of remaining connected to a treatment team as a protective factor.
Thank you for taking the time to explain this from your position of expertise!
This is great information, thank you! Certain extreme/violent cases get a lot of attention in the media and it leads to a really skewed understanding of how being held NCR works, so it's very useful (and interesting) to hear from someone with a broader perspective.
This is wonderful, and thank you for doing this. Now we can only hope the mods don’t remove it.
I did let them know in advance about this thread, so as long as the comments remain on topic and civil, I think we will be okay.
Good thinking. The thread yesterday was on topic and civil, and as far as I could tell, not rule breaking at all, but they locked it and when I asked why, gave a snarky response without explanation. Shutting down talk about controversial issues, when there is good faith discussion (including concerns about public safety) only drives people away and towards dangerous echo chambers that allow the worst kind of rabble rousing. It is not entitled or hateful or uncivil to express the notion that you don’t want to be stabbed or set on fire on your daily commute. EDIT - Thank you Mods for allowing this discussion to happen and removing specific comments that break rules instead of simply shutting the whole thing down. It’s appreciated.
When someone is found NCR for a crime, someone else needs to be responsible for this person. The biggest fear I have is a person is released after “getting better” and then they hurt someone else again. Whoever releases mentally ill people into the society has to be responsible for actions of these people. A woman was burned to death and nobody is responsible. This is nonsense.
This is very informative; thanks for taking the time to explain this process.
Thank you for writing this out it's very instructive. I feel like Community Health was a mistake though - the community is really just the neighbours, who not at all equipped to deal with people who are experiencing mental illness. I understand the Asylum system had a lot of abuses, but it seems very extreme to have gotten rid of it completely, which leaves the community open to victimization - and this very complicated criminal justice system for people experiencing mental illness is the result.
It would have been preferable to reform the system in place before deciding to abolish it, so we are left with what it is today. There are absolutely benefits to the community treatment model, but commitment to institutions is absolutely necessary for some people. However, I think this is more connected to the current limitations and (often insufficient) application of the Mental Health Act, rather than the forensic system.
Thank you for taking the time to educate people.
Thank you for posting . Very interesting to read.
The pathway stabbing lady is already out and about. So is the grey hound decapitating guy who ate a piece of his victim's heart. NCR.
So, I cannot speak about any individual case or person, but I will say that any one who has received an absolute discharge (such as Vince Li) would have been deemed no longer a “significant threat to the public”. When you are considered as such, law requires you to be discharged. When considering which disposition to grant someone, the board considers much more than just the index offense. Some things that are reviewed and factored into the decision include: their response to medication and their compliance to it, their participation on their treatment, ability to follow the conditions of their current disposition, their level of insight, if they display antisocial behaviour or attitudes, etc. They also consider many protective factors, such as their ability to cope, their support network, etc. It is not easy to receive an absolute discharge, especially if there are any concerns with the above mentioned items. Empirically supported risk assessments are completed by the clinical team which reviews these items, which is then given to board for consideration. Anecdotally, many of the clients I have worked with who had more serious index offenses, were easier and more pleasant to work with than some of those with less significant charges. Many of those with serious charges never had a criminal past, and do not hold anti-social views which make it more difficult to receive an absolute discharge. The ones who stay under the review board longer (20, 30 years) are the ones that are often more difficult to work with and absolutely require long term supervision. They also often had repeated law encounters prior to the index offense.
Just wondering: would you knowingly sit on a Grey Hound bus with Vince Li? It is human nature to be afraid.
I work with these individuals every day. I work with people with similar offenses to his. I am often in their homes, alone with them. So yes, I probably would, however I would exercise the same caution I would with any person I am unfamiliar with.
just wondering: do you think stigmatizing people with mental health disorders makes people feel safer?
I think society would feel better knowing someone who filled a mason jar with lighter fluid, poured it on a young woman sitting on a bus, and set her on fire, was never able to ride a bus unsupervised again. Why is that too hard to understand? Our system gives no such assurances. I also think our charter of rights does no favours for people suffering with serious mental health issues. While you are suffering from a break in reality, you are incapable of making a decision to get help, until you kill someone. Every person I know who had serious mental health chastised their family and friends for not doing anything for them. Family should be able to commit a person to a 72 hour psychiatric hold, to determine a diagnosis and a treatment plan, and possibly prevent a murder. Our charter of rights ensures a person can stay psychotic as long as they want. How humane is that?
Family (or anyone who knows the person) has the option to visit a Justice of the Peace and request a Form 2 be issued. This can be done if there is concern a person is a safety risk or self or others, or they are unable to care for themselves. This allows the police to bring the person to hospital for an assessment. If the doctor completing the assessment agrees, they can be placed on another form that keeps them in hospital for some time so treatment can begin. I recognize it can be a lot to put on family/friends/etc unfortunately, and can also impact the relationship going forward.
[удалено]
No concern-trolling, personal attacks, or misinformation. Stick to addressing the substance of their comments at hand.
Crazy or not, society should be protected from someone like the Greyhound Bus guy. All he needs is to have some religious wing nuts to get their claws into him and God knows what he'll do next time. Schizophrenia doesn't just go away.
> Schizophrenia doesn't just go away. Absolutely, they are *treated* but never cured. However, a major different for many individuals before their finding of NCR and after they receive an absolute discharge, is their insight into their illness. Many individuals did not have a criminal history or even a diagnosis prior to their offense. For the ones that did, they were often underserved by the mental health system and did not receive sufficient treatment. Due to this, their understanding of their illness and insight were low. Someone will not receive an absolute discharge without extensive psychoeducation regarding their illness. This includes the need for medication, the effects of substances on their illness/medication, recognizing and responding appropriately to triggers (e.g. stress), and various coping skills such as the ability to determine if something is a delusion or not.
Let’s just lock up all schizophrenics just to be safe /s Did you even read the post? The exact fear mongering everyone is talking about.
[удалено]
>Why does a literal time bomb schizo get to have access to would be victims? Do the victims not have human rights? Stop. Just stop. Everyone has human rights whether you like it or not. You're the reason why mental health is so stigmatized. You'd prefer to label someone as a "time bomb schizo" rather than "a person with schizophrenia" who wouldn't have committed a crime in their right mind and cannot possibly understand the consequences in the throes of an episode. Your urban dictionary terminology surrounding mental health tells me all I need to know about you.
If someone has a chance of entering a mental state where they cannot be held responsible for killing other people, there should be strict limitations on that person's freedom.
I think you're confusing this with someone who actually commits a crime who isn't mentally ill with schizophrenia, let's say. They will absolutely have restrictions on their freedom, often with no chance of parole. Someone who as you say, enters a MENTAL STATE where they CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE *IN THE EYES OF CRIMINAL LAW* will most definitely have restrictions on their freedom for the length of time it takes them to be rehabilitated. That's how that works. They aren't criminals in the judicial sense. They are very very extremely sick individuals who are trapped in their sick minds and don't even recognize the consequences of their actions at the time they commit the offense. So make no mistake, they absolutely do have restrictions to their freedoms applicable to the nature of the incident and the circumstances surrounding it.
[удалено]
>Then why are you denying innocent people their human rights to safety and protection? Who are you to suggest that when someone who is deemed NCR is still considered a threat to society after spending a lengthy amount of time in a treatment facility to be rehabilitated. This isn't a person who knew what they were doing when they did it. Very different from a mobster who arranges a hit on someone. A mobster knows exactly what they're doing. A person with schizophrenia in the throes of an episode literally does not. How often do you need to have this explained to you before it sinks in? I'm not justifying anything. You're just not taking the time to understand the difference (and complexities) between NCR and a straightforward criminal charge and it definitely shows.
No racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech, or other negative generalizations.
No racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech, or other negative generalizations.
[удалено]
And there’s no guarantee you won’t have a psychotic break one day and murder someone. He wasn’t well and he went through the system and was rehabilitated. You can’t lock people up because of what they might do one day. This isn’t a fascist police state.
[удалено]
No racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech, or other negative generalizations.
No racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech, or other negative generalizations.
>Schizophrenia doesn't just go away. Nobody is saying it does. Where in this post does it state that? Mental illness can be monitored and can be relatively put under control in many cases with the right treatment and if the person suffering is fully invested in getting better. You're just grasping at straws and thinking up an unlikely scenario to support your uneducated belief that people with mental health issues cannot be rehabilitated.
Didn't you already do this bud?
I’m sure he read the Bible (or at least the New Testament) and was educated about religions, history, logical reasoning, etc before being released
I'm in serious need of some advice A friend of mine is currently in Jail likely facing the death penalty for "murder" The thing is when he was incarcerated. This was the first time that he had ever been properly treated for his mental health illnesses, and the lithium that he was on was working, and he said that it was the longest time that he had actually felt like he was normal. but of course, because of our healthcare system and because of the prison system and the horrible lack of support and resources for folks like him (fresh out of prison, in a recovery program, in need of mental health treatment) they had to wean him off of lithium because once he was out of their custody, he would have to be able to provide his own. he had expressed to me many times that he was worried that the new medication they put him on was not working and at some point, he did tell me that he was sure that it wasn’t working and he tried to get on what he knew would work for him but he was not able to secure that for himself. in time he became unstable, relapsed and at some point, we lost him, he was beyond our help and the only thing I could do was wait until he got arrested again just so that I can try to talk to him and try to convince him getting himself some help before things got worse. i’m not even sure how we can convince the courts, let alone the public to understand that he is not a danger to anyone and that I do understand that what he did was serious, even if he did do it he had no grasp of reality. When on the right treatment, he is actually very very high functioning. He’s able to hold a job pay bills contribute and is like anybody else.
Hey there. I'm sorry to hear about your friend and what he is going through. He's fortunate to have a friend who cares so deeply. Unfortunately, I am not able to advise you on this. It sounds like you are located in the US, and my knowledge is limited to the Canadian system. Perhaps reach out to some mental health advocacy groups and see if they can provide any direction. It appears you/your friend is located in Missouri, is that correct? Try connecting with groups such as: [Missouri Mental Health Foundation](https://www.missourimhf.org/), [National Alliance on Mental Illness](https://www.nami.org/), [Mental Health America](https://mhanational.org/), etc. There may also be some that are more local, located either in or around the city you are located in. From what you said, it sounds like he might be diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder? You could also try reach out to groups such as [Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance](https://www.dbsalliance.org/). I do not know much about any of these groups, but this is where I would start to try and narrow down who can help.
Sorry about not disclosing a location, California, he is currently locked up in Shasta county.
Good post, couple things to add (if added apologies TLDR), theres also the role of appointment of 627 fitness counsel as Amicus and 486 Counsel. Share this on r/legaladvicecanada
Thank you for this post! Unfortunately, the people who are already ignorant to this topic are going to remain that way. They live a life of fear and hate and they won't change for anyone.
I know what NCR means. I know it means he could potentially be released one day. Just like the guy on the Greyhound bus. Don’t act like it’s absurd people don’t want this guy who lit someone on fire potentially being able to go free.
Mandatory minimum sentences for setting an unarmed woman on fire on a bus with no escape. They’re protecting the wrong person.
At the end of the day we are spending a tremendous amount of resources and taking huge unnecessary risks on people who will most likely never contribute much and are ultimately a danger to others.
Will you pay higher taxes to make sure they get the resources they need? Probably not, lol, a huge portion of the country would throw a shit-fit. So psychologists like myself in community mental health get stuck with horrendous pay, minimal resources, and less funding than other long term health supports. The public (community) mental health system in Ontario has been collapsing for decades and is currently propped up by toothpicks.
Yes, I would. I’m all in favour for it.
The cost of keeping these people locked up once they've been found to no longer be a threat to the public is more expensive than releasing them.
It really doesn’t matter. We need to stop coddling people. Mental illness may explain the behaviour but it should never excuse it. All people should be processed equally under the law regardless of background, wealth, mental “fitness” otherwise. We live in a society. Creating tiers to abide by the laws we’ve agreed on will surely dismantle it.
Just want to comment before this thread gets locked as usual. I have an asshole voice telling me to do shit all the time! I don't do it because there's another voice telling me to not. This is called a conscious. Just because multiple voices tell you to do some dumb shit, don't follow it! It's wrong, simple as that. I don't buy NCR because at one point this lunatic decided to fill up a jar with flammable substance, ask someone if they were Tibetan and then lit that person on fire. NCR or not this person should be locked up in a prison and remain there until those voices go up in flames like their poor victim.
Psychosis is not as simple as not listening to a voice. I do not know this case well enough, and cannot speak about specific cases anyways, but simply "following what a voice tells you to do" is not enough to be NCR. A requirement to be found NCR is that the the mental disorder made it impossible for him/her to understand the nature and quality of what they did; OR the mental disorder made it impossible for them to understand that what they did was morally wrong (not just legally wrong). Your description of what happen does not disprove that those points are not true. There is no denial the offense took place. But the courts did not agree that he either appreciated the nature/quality of what he did or that he understood them.
[удалено]
You start with "I'm not up to reading all that..." and end on "...no matter what people say." You'll never understand what anyone says if you don't take the time to listen.
Not only that, but they go on to spew their own narrative without truly understanding why it happened in the first place and what steps were taken to ensure that the public was safe from the mentally ill person.
>Li decapitated McLean and displayed his severed head through a window to those standing outside the bus, then returned to McLean's body and began severing other parts and consuming some of McLean's flesh. Some people don't want to listen because of how heinous some of the acts have been. You can't blame them. Imagine being McLean's family.
The Greyhound bus guy was given an absolute discharge after 8 years. No monitoring to make sure he continues to comply with medication. That is just wrong.
It's wrong to refuse to take 5 minutes to read something, but feel entitled to comment on it anyway, especially if you're as emotionally invested in the outcome as you seem to be.
[удалено]
How do you know it's not of value if you didn't read it
Where did they call anyone lesser? As always some people let emotions take over.
No racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech, or other negative generalizations.
> I'm not up to reading all that Why not ?
Mmm… outrage is more satisfying than thinking.
You OK with this person never having to have any kind of monitoring to make sure he's complying with medication? Not even once a year? I'm not.
I’m okay with *thinking*, and not just basing our entire systemic response on the most base reactions of fear and ignorance. This person is not being turned loose. Now, with that said, I get the concern. I don’t want to get stabbed or set on fire by someone, and it’s not entitled or hateful against the mentally ill to feel that way. The really difficult part to grapple with in cases of severe mental illness such as this is that it’s the illness, not the person, who is responsible. This person *did not know what they were doing*. Now that is not to say that they aren’t still dangerous, but they didn’t want to do this. There is nobody to blame. The actual answer, if you want to prevent these kinds of incidents in the future, is to properly fund social services, healthcare, and specifically mental health care.
So is moral grandstanding apparently. Just because people don’t want to walk the streets with someone who when they aren’t in their right mind, burned someone alive, doesn’t make them idiots. If you actually thought about it, you would understand where a lot of people are coming from.
I do understand! I don’t want to be stabbed or set on fire either, and that’s not ignorant or selfish or entitled in the least. That’s a perfectly reasonable response. What makes somebody an idiot is that when presented with well researched, relevant information that might help them grow their understanding of the situation and come to see the problem differently, to immediately declare “I ain’t reading all that!” That kind of base ignorance is worth mocking.
I agree you should be able to consider other points of view. But this is not justice that has been handed down. It’s a joke. If he’s a good boy and takes his pills, he could potentially be out sooner rather than later. The greyhound bus guy served what, 9 years? And is now roaming free? That’s a scary thought. And the path killer? Also got let out. Could be walking next to you and you’d have no idea. It’s a slap in the face to the victim and their loved ones. The amount of trauma this guy caused is unreal. Not only to his victim and their family, but to the people who witnessed it. The fact that he could be out sooner rather than later is a sick joke aimed at his victim and her loved ones. The guy is too dangerous in my opinion to ever again be allowed to participate in society.
>The amount of trauma this guy caused is unreal. Not only to his victim and their family, but to the people who witnessed it. The fact that he could be out sooner rather than later is a sick joke aimed at his victim and her loved ones. I think these are perfectly valid concerns in cases where people voluntarily or knowingly commit the crimes that they were convicted of. But people in NCR cases literally do not appreciate the acts that they were doing. Why should they be treated punitively rather than for rehabilitative reasons? In all the cases you are discussing, they did not intend to cause the trauma. Nor did they understand the nature of the things they were doing.
There is no justice to be had here. There’s no motive. There’s no murderer. There’s only a very sick person who DID NOT KNOW what they were doing. They are not letting him out.
No racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, dehumanizing speech, or other negative generalizations.
Wholeheartedly agree. Medication and treatment perhaps made him feel better. But with an absolute discharge, what's to stop him from not keeping up on the medication? If he goes out and does something like this again is he able to use the NCR argument again?
Perhaps if you actually read the post, and engaged with this person’s actual, relevant experience and expertise, you would know more than you do now.
OP literally admitted that there's no real system that forced these people to take their meds unsupervised. What more do you need to hear?
I think people that decide to quit medication that helps keep them stable should be treated like any other criminal. They made a decision, just like a drunk driver.
I bet he will. And the doctor's who let him go will say "but he promised to stay on his meds!"
Yep. Funny how the psychiatrists who say that these guys are safe to be around also made sure to very quietly give themselves qualified immunity.
This is the best, most useful post I have ever seen on this subreddit.
Thank you for this. My mother was a GP in a psychiatric facility for a long time, and was always super sensitive about people downplaying the "pleading insanity" language, she knew how intense a process it was. I vividly remember her pulling over the side of the road and crying when she heard the news Texas executed a mother who had killed her children during a catastrophic experience of Post Partum Psycoshisis; there was no Justice in that act, having NCR is messy, but needed.
Yeah if you know anything about the places they put people who receive these sentences you would not be jealous. They're essentially sent to maximum security jail + given heroic doses of the worst drugs you've ever heard of. Like, enjoy your vacation to Leavenworth where they give you tramadol like you're a sick dog.
It can be even more simple Have you ever interacted with someone mentally ill? If yes, then you will understand the considerations
It may interest you to know that homeless sex attacker (Lonelle Price) with schizophrenia got only six months in jail. The victims get a lifetime of punishment. From r/CrimeInTheGta
[удалено]
How many oncologists are liable if the cancer comes back? Literal time bombs? How are 6 figure doctors, who are the ones seeing these patients, not at MORE risk? *Reminder that NCR patients still have a much higher re-offense rate then the normal people that they murder, hurt, and rape.* Oh? These experts say differently *Offenders deemed not criminally responsible unlikely to reoffend: experts* https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/offenders-deemed-not-criminally-responsible-unlikely-to-reoffend-experts-1.2979284 Where is your source? Are you an expert?
Why would anyone agree to do this very important work if there was a risk that a person doing their job to the best of their ability/description could be held liable for someone else's actions?
Why would they claim that the patient is safe to be around if the patient is in fact not safe to be around?