<snort>
Basic honesty! Ha!
Here's some of what you said, commodore:
So, I understand that people are horrified by what he did, but it seems to me this is a commonplace type of situation. The first sentence tells you what you need to know. The man was found "not criminally responsible" for his actions. He was hospitalized, he's now stable and on suitable medications to control his schizophrenia, and so he's being released. That sort of thing happens all the time, in Canada I'm sure, and in the US. Yes, his actions in this case were particularly nasty, but that doesn't really change the way the law works with regard to insanity pleas.
<>
I agree that it makes one uncomfortable to be simply asked to trust that this guy will stay on his meds. However, I would also have questions about legal requirement forcing a person to ingest chemicals or undergo medical treatment. Not only is it costly to monitor him for the rest of his life, but there are civil rights questions to be answered, in my mind.
<>
The point is, this shouldn't be some surprising or shocking thing, and it's certainly not a WTF that is singular to Canada. This is how it works with people who are found to be not guilty by reason of insanity . . . I know some of you don't like it, but in a civilized society based on rule of law, you don't get to just restrict someone's rights for the rest of their lives . . . It might make us feel better if he was required to prove that he's taking his meds for the rest of his life, but that's not the law, and I think that might raise some civili liberties questions.
Basically, you couldn't be more wrong. It IS shocking, it's not commonplace in the US, and it has nothing to do with anyone's civil rights. Just admit it. Or at least shut up. Don't call my honesty into question because you can't admit you're flat wrong.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Basic honesty! Ha!
Here's some of what you said, commodore:
So, I understand that people are horrified by what he did, but it seems to me this is a commonplace type of situation. The first sentence tells you what you need to know. The man was found "not criminally responsible" for his actions. He was hospitalized, he's now stable and on suitable medications to control his schizophrenia, and so he's being released. That sort of thing happens all the time, in Canada I'm sure, and in the US. Yes, his actions in this case were particularly nasty, but that doesn't really change the way the law works with regard to insanity pleas.
<>
I agree that it makes one uncomfortable to be simply asked to trust that this guy will stay on his meds. However, I would also have questions about legal requirement forcing a person to ingest chemicals or undergo medical treatment. Not only is it costly to monitor him for the rest of his life, but there are civil rights questions to be answered, in my mind.
<>
The point is, this shouldn't be some surprising or shocking thing, and it's certainly not a WTF that is singular to Canada. This is how it works with people who are found to be not guilty by reason of insanity . . . I know some of you don't like it, but in a civilized society based on rule of law, you don't get to just restrict someone's rights for the rest of their lives . . . It might make us feel better if he was required to prove that he's taking his meds for the rest of his life, but that's not the law, and I think that might raise some civili liberties questions.
Basically, you couldn't be more wrong. It IS shocking, it's not commonplace in the US, and it has nothing to do with anyone's civil rights. Just admit it. Or at least shut up. Don't call my honesty into question because you can't admit you're flat wrong.
"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."