Murder for money!

Remove all ads!

Some here think I'm a loonie when I talk about how stupid the justice system is here in Canada -- and, IMHO, in most weak willed Western democracies. So here's an example of the s*** I'm talking about.

An excerpt:

So all I need to do is kill my father, and then fake a mental illness, and I'm in the money, people! What a great legal system!

What a load of horse puckey. Common sense thrown completely out the window by gutless, namby-pamby losers who have totally and completely lost touch with reality, normalcy, or decency.

 

The article didn't say anything about what kind of mental illness he had. If this guy was a raving psycho, or if he was a violent schizophrenic, with brain scans and everything to confirm it, then this makes sense. If he's claiming 'emotional trauma' or something, then odds are it's nonsense.

Basically, if he tried to cover it up, this is nonsense. If they found him covered in blood, screaming at the top of his lungs, terrified that the corpses of his parents would rise to eat his toenails, odds are it's legit.

 

LKD, even in Canada (I checked*), the mental disorder defense requires the defendant to prove he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. This effectively shifts the burden of proof in the case (not a good thing if you're a defendant), but also guarantees that the defendant will lose his freedom for an indeterminate amount of time. Unlike prisons, which have to release their inmates after they've served their time, a mental institution doesn't have to release an individual committed against his will until he is deemed to no longer be a threat to himself or others. From a time-served standpoint, prison is often the better deal. Possessing an actual mental disorder won't necessarily qualify a defendant for the mental disorder defense, either. It's usually a bad idea, and it usually doesn't work -- even in instances where it probably should.

...but I digress. The judges' hands were tied, LKD. Since Piche was found not criminally responsible for the murder of his parents, the Civil Code stating that a person can't collect an inheritance from someone he's been found guilty of murdering doesn't apply to him. He wasn't found guilty. That said, I doubt Piche will be doing anything with his inheritance for quite some time. To do anything with the money, they'll have to let him leave the institution...and I doubt that'll be happening any time soon.

* To establish a claim of mental disorder in Canada, the defendant must first prove that the he was suffering from a "disease of the mind", and second, that at the time of the offense he was either unable to appreciate the "nature and quality" of the act, or that he didn't know it was "wrong".

 

But Drew, we had a guy about 2 years ago who decapitated someone on a crowded Greyhound bus and ate the victim's ear. The system bought his whole "I wasn't in my right mind" line of s***, and within one year -- one year! -- he actually had a hearing to determine if he was fit to be released from the mental hospital. Now I'm sorry if I appear too harsh, but the fact that releasing this a*****e after only one year was even a discussion item tells me that the system is badly, badly broken.

Some officials even stated that his release was none of the public's business because the guy's health was his private business -- right to privacy kiind of stuff. I don't know how the officials involved in such stupidity can look themselves in the mirror.

 

We have had this discussion before, either you accept that mental illness is an illness like any other or you don't. Either your case with the man who killed and ate that woman is similar to a busdriver who gets a heart attack and kills everyone on board in the crash or it isn't.

You seem to be of the opinion that there is no such thing as mental illness that can make people do things outside of their personal control and that everyone is always responsible for their own actions. With that point of view that "a-hole" should probably fry. Most of the western legal system recognice mental illness as something real and that people can be ill enough to not be responsible for their actions.

 

Actually, in that particular instance, the facts of the case speak for themselves. Someone who cuts somebody's head off and then proceeds to eat the victim's ear, clearly has mental issues. That is some seriously crazy, f'ed up stuff there.

 

I re-iterate what I likely have before -- I believe that mental illness does exist -- but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who says they are mentally ill really is. I believe that mental health experts, desperate to justify their own existances, are far too willing to say that a criminal has a disease.

Put simply, I think the process is abused and public safety thrown under the bus in the name of political correctness and feel good nonsense. And then good people are hurt when they would not have been had the courts done their damn job.

 

Was he released? If he wasn't, you don't have much of a point.

Hearings don't really mean anything. Susan Atkins, AKA Manson murderer Sadie Mae Glutz, was up for parole on 18 separate occasions during her 40 year incarceration. She was given a hearing for 13 of them. On her last parole hearing (Sept. 2009), she was 61 years old, terminally ill, and 85% paralyzed. She was denied then, too, and died 3 weeks later. Despite all those hearings, Susan Atkins still died behind bars. A hearing is an opportunity, not a guarantee.

 

Hearings are recurring events that takes place at regular intervals during the treatment of a mentally ill person who are deemed sick enough to be locked up. Part of due process and such.

I kinda thought like you did LKD about mental illness especially since it is the image that you often see in movies and TV series. The reality I encountered when I actually worked at a psychiatric ward that "treated" (I use the " to indicate that there really isnt much treatment going on for those who are truly insane) is that if anything from Hollywood gets it right it is the comedies and sitcoms. Sketches with loonies parading around like Napoleon are closer to the mark than gangsters pretending to be crazy. Everyone I encountered in there was mad as a hatter. I do not mean slightly unbalanced I mean truly bananas. Well, except for the pedophiles, they were generally perfectly sane except for their attraction to children. The people who had been running around with axes or stabbed mothers with strollers though, they were completely and utterly loonie. I think the mental health experts have plenty to do without diagnosing people that are sane as the mental health system here and I am sure everywhere is heavily underfunded and understaffed in large part due to opinions such as the ones you hold.

Sure some of them can appear reasonably sane for short periods with heavy medication but then they are little more than walking zombies and even then you notice the insanity if you spend any amount of time with them. The people who get locked up really are as insane and "ridiculous" as they are in TV sketches. It is conversations with god and the president, it is money through wires, it is mental control over hte universe and demons everywhere.

 

A mental health defense is an increadibly hard thing to pull off. They generally fail. Of the one's that succeed, they generally are of the type that there is no treatment. You 'treat' the people by keeping them contained and as comfortable as reasonably possible. TV rarely portrays this.

If you want to see a good portrayal of the way it usually happens, there's an episonde of Law & Order: SVU where the murderer suffered mass delusions and hallucinations due to prolonged syphilis literally eating away his brain. There's nothing that can be done for him, and he honestly had no idea what was really happening when he killed those people.

 

Actually, he didn't eat the ear:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Tim_McLean

No he wasn't (or at least I don't think he was). It was just part of an annual review.

 

I reiterate, the fact that there was even a review of the case is in and of itself a disgrace and an insult to the innocent victim. In any event, the fact that the possibility existed that this psychotic killer might be released after one year in the mental health institution, without word one to the vulnerable public, prompted a large and (IMHO) highly justified public outcry. To my knowledge, the killer is still in the hospital's custody, and I pray to God that he gets the help he needs -- and that he never gets out. Public safety first!

It boggles the mind that these doctors can try to make us believe that a few weeks of group therapy and drawing pictures of their mommies can make these sorts of psychos safe for public release. Yet we are supposed to defer to their expertise, and if someone else dies, well, oops, sorry, it's not an exact science! Sorry for the loss of your loved one.

And the utter lack of common sense in awarding insurance money to the person who killed the insured just floors me. Laws or not laws, that's ridiculous. The law should have a common sense clause.

 

But LKD, as has been stated, this is part of the due process that all mental health prisoners receive. I do not think that there was any real chance that the person would have been released, and I certainly do not think that there were doctors (as you implied) that were advocating for this person's release. From what has been presented, I would think that it would be more likely that the doctors would favor his continued confinement. It seems much more likely it was a "check the box" type hearing, where they said the guy should remain locked up.

Perhaps I missed this in the link - were doctors saying this guy was safe for release?

 

LKD, would you do me a favor and show me when a doctor has ever tried to get us to believe that they can make the criminally insane safe for public release with a few weeks of group therapy and drawing pictures? Yes, yes, I know. You didn't actually mean that! You were just exaggerating to make a point. I don't think I really understand your point, though, and maybe I just don't read between the lines very well. It looks to me like your point was primarily about how you feel about this perceived flaw in the Canadian penal system, but what I'm trying to understand is why I should agree with you -- and cerebral, bookish types like me need concrete examples, not emotional arguments and exaggerations. I'm gonna need you to spoon-feed me, dude.

Look back a few 100 years, LKD, and you'll see exactly why western democracies insist on the rule of law.

 

Well, it's good to know you want him locked away forever, even after he's cured of the terrible disease that caused this to happen. I dearly hope you never have a stroke while driving at an old age. I can only imagine what blame you'd put on yourself if you accidently ran over someone's cat while unconscious or something.

Actually, in many cases, just a pill a day or so can do it. In others, a little ECT and some simple therapy can make a world of difference. In others, there's no hope, and the hearing is just a formality (and a legally mandated one).

So, if a man gets in a car accident and kills his wife of 40 years, whom he deeply loved and cherrished, he should be denied the insurance money because he killed her? Or god fobid he ever tries to teach her how to handle a rifle and she accidently shoots him, or herself. You still seem to be working on the mistaken assumption that these people are just evil criminals. They aren't.

 

NOG, I'm working on the assumption that they are dangerous. And a car accident is not the same as an axe attack -- no shrink can ever convince me that those two things are even close to the same page.

I guess I just don't trust the psychiatric profession to put the welfare of the community first. I also don't trust our legal system to di it either. But they should. And regardless of the medical situation, a person who kills others with an axe should not be allowed to receive money for that action. No doctor, lawyer, butcher, baker, or candlestick maker can convince me of that.

 

LKD, what someone does under the influence of schizophrenia is exactly analogous to what someone does under the influence of a stroke, heart attack, or other medical problem. They exist in the exact same field: a medical ccondition which removes a person's rational control of their body.

Now, for less clear-cut cases than schizophrenia, things get a lot more dicey, and I'm asking you to believe that the mind can be damaged just like the body can. I can understand why you'd balk at that idea. Unfortunately, that's the same reason that most jurors balk at the idea, meaning that contrary to your fear of perfectly sane criminals living a cushy life in a psych ward, the reality is that a lot of perfectly insane people who have no idea what they did or why they did it get put in prison.

Also realize that not all mental illnesses are counted as legally insane. Post-partum depression usually isn't, but post-partum psychosis is. Narcisistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder aren't. A psychotic break is.

So, a man who's chopping wood out back when his wife bring him tea, only to have a siezure and put the axe through her chest before collapsing and almost dying himself shouldn't recieve life insurance? He killed someone with an axe after all.

I think what you really mean is someone who intentionally kills people with an axe. I'd agree with you 100% there, but that's the whole point of these cases: they lack the ability to form intent.