The family of a man who was beheaded on a Greyhound bus says his killer is "getting away with murder," but the judge who found him not criminally responsible for the "barbaric" slaying says the law doesn't unnecessarily punish the mentally ill.I will be the first to say that I cannot understand the family's pain. I'm lucky to have lived a life untouched by that kind of horror inflicted on a loved one. I certainly understand their desires for justice, though I doubt they really understand how unlikely it will be that Vince Li will ever be a free man. If he had been found guilty, unless labelled a dangerous offender, he would have been eligible for parole in 16 years. With this process he actually has fewer rights than a convicted criminal.
[snip]"He is getting away with murder," said McLean's older sister, Vana Smart. "He'll never have a criminal record. After the review board decides that he can be medically managed in the community, he can get a job in a daycare. He can cross the border.
"He'll never have this stigma attached to him ... He will be able to pursue his life as he pleases."
[snip]That was cold comfort to McLean's mother, Carol deDelley, who said Li may be mentally ill, but he still killed her 22-year-old son in the most brutal possible way.
"Whether he was in his right frame of mind or not, he still did the act," she said. "There was nobody else on that bus holding a knife slicing up my child. Nobody else did that. Just one individual did that."
DeDelley said the law needs to be changed so someone can be found not psychologically accountable but still criminally responsible for a crime.
That may be very cold comfort to Tim McLean's family. I don't know what to do in this situation morally. From a logical standpoint, Vince Li wasn't criminally responsible for the crime because in order to be guilty of a crime under our law you have to have to be aware of your actions. Unless he is a very good actor, Mr. Li is not. On the other hand, from a different logical standpoint, Vince Li did commit the crime, even if he wasn't responsible.
Should he carry a stigma with it in the unlikely event he is let out again? I actually semi-agree with this point, though I am unsure of what legal stigma we could give and what teeth it would or should have.
Is the point moot? Probably not. I doubt that Vince Li will ever set foot outside an institution again. I honestly don't think he got away with murder, but then I could be wrong on both counts.
I really don't know
His Grace
2 comments:
See, also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Lake_murders for another Canadian tale. Victor Hoffman slaughtered nine people (for religious reasons) in 1967, but was released under supervision in 2001.
Well anonymous, I didn't say it didn't happen. But if you look at your own quoted article, it was the granting of supervised access to three towns (I've been to all three) near the mental institution where he was being held. It is not the same thing as parole, and again he has very limited rights legally. Should he have been granted that? I don't know. I'm not on the review board and I have no idea how he would have been doing medically speaking. I don't really know what one would want to do to him under the circumstances. Is it logical to punish someone who cannot medically speaking process the depth of their own crimes? Should we be helping them get better? I would say yes, but then I am a schizophrenic, so I admit I'm more than a little biased in the matter.
Post a Comment