The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
A Canadian murderer walks free a year and a half after the verdict. Is the system broken?
21stCentury
Call me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered User regular
Call me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered User regular
Let me tell you of a Canadian cardiologist named Guy Turcotte.
Guy Turcotte was a cardiologist at a hospital in the province of Quebec. I have never met him, but my mom worked alongside him. He had two young children and his wife also worked at the hospital, in the emergency room. But then, things soured, his wife had an affair and wanted to divorce him, which led to him attempting suicide on February 20th of 2009, which failed. He then killed both his children. On the 24th, he's charged with 2 counts of first-degree murder.
The trial ended in July of 2011, with him found not criminally responsible. He was not of sound mind as he comitted the crime and, as such, was sent to a mental institute. This verdict sparked outrage in the province, unsurprisingly.
Fast forward to yesterday, December 12th 2012, and he is released from the Pinel Institute after a day of hearings. He has to avoid all contact with his ex-wife and generally keep the peace... And this has sparked, once again, public outrage in the province and the country as, our Prime Minister has decided to use this case as an occasion to tighten laws around non criminally responsible verdicts, in the name of victims and their families.
Now, this leads me to the big question: Is this proof that the system is broken and that we need to punish people who commit severe crimes when they are not found criminally responsible?
I am honestly conflicted about this case. I am probably one of the biggest proponents of a rehabilitative system and I trust in the judgment of panels of mental health professionals, but at the same time, it feels like it really didn't take a long time for them to rehabilitate this guy, not to mention that the public outrage can't help his case at all.
So I'm wondering what you guys think of this case, victim rights, the prison system and non criminally responsible verdicts...
Guy Turcotte was a cardiologist at a hospital in the province of Quebec. I have never met him, but my mom worked alongside him. He had two young children and his wife also worked at the hospital, in the emergency room. But then, things soured, his wife had an affair and wanted to divorce him, which led to him attempting suicide on February 20th of 2009, which failed. He then killed both his children. On the 24th, he's charged with 2 counts of first-degree murder.
The trial ended in July of 2011, with him found not criminally responsible. He was not of sound mind as he comitted the crime and, as such, was sent to a mental institute. This verdict sparked outrage in the province, unsurprisingly.
Fast forward to yesterday, December 12th 2012, and he is released from the Pinel Institute after a day of hearings. He has to avoid all contact with his ex-wife and generally keep the peace... And this has sparked, once again, public outrage in the province and the country as, our Prime Minister has decided to use this case as an occasion to tighten laws around non criminally responsible verdicts, in the name of victims and their families.
(Emphasis mine)CTV News wrote:A Quebec doctor’s release from a mental institution 46 months after he fatally stabbed his two children gives “short shrift” to the victims, says Heritage Minister James Moore, the government spokesperson on the issue.
The Conservatives already have plans to tighten the rules on releasing those found not criminally responsible for serious crimes, and say the Turcotte case shows the need for action.
Guy Turcotte was convicted in the 2009 stabbing deaths of his three-year-old daughter and five-year-old son, but found not criminally responsible.
On Wednesday, a three-member panel unanimously approved his release from Montreal’s Pinel Institute, after concluding that Turcotte has made progress under psychiatric care and does not pose an immediate danger to society.
But Turcotte’s ex-wife, Isabelle Gaston, and other family members were furious, saying they now fear for their safety.
Moore told CTV’s Power Play Thursday that the Turcotte case “is sort of the worst of the worst -- people who take children’s lives.”
“I know that he’s been found criminally not responsible, but…the public says: ‘There’s something wrong with the system here,’” Moore said.
“Not only is he now available for release…but worse than that is that his ex-wife and the victims’ family and community safety has been, frankly, given the short shrift by the system. And that needs to change.”
He said the law needs to emphasize victims’ rights, and it’s high-profile cases like Turcotte’s that “expose flaws in the justice system.”
"Isabelle Gaston does not deserve to live in fear of her children's killer and neither do other victims of similar crimes across Canada," Moore told a news conference earlier Thursday.
"Isabelle Gaston deserves better than this. The system has failed her."
The planned legislation may require longer waits between formal reviews of the status of people held in psychiatric hospitals after they are found not criminally responsible for an offence, Moore suggested.
At his release hearing Wednesday, Turcotte said he wants to lead a productive life.
"I'd like to work, to do some good around me," he told the panel.
"My biggest challenge will be dealing with others, with the public. There's been a lot of badmouthing, a lot of things that will be said. There will be a lot of prejudice against me."
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/turcotte-s-release-highlights-need-to-tighten-rules-moore-1.1078247#ixzz2Eyo2OPeG
Now, this leads me to the big question: Is this proof that the system is broken and that we need to punish people who commit severe crimes when they are not found criminally responsible?
I am honestly conflicted about this case. I am probably one of the biggest proponents of a rehabilitative system and I trust in the judgment of panels of mental health professionals, but at the same time, it feels like it really didn't take a long time for them to rehabilitate this guy, not to mention that the public outrage can't help his case at all.
So I'm wondering what you guys think of this case, victim rights, the prison system and non criminally responsible verdicts...
0
Posts
On average, a person found not guilty by reason of mental defect will spend a longer period of time under psychiatric care than they would have served in prison. A single case does not change this.
Our justice systems are designed to mete out justice, not vengeance. This is why we have the McNaughton system in the first place.
And our legal system handles thousands of cases annually. A single example of a light sentence does not show the system is "broken". A pattern of failures would do it, but no one has shown such a pattern here.
He's also a cardiologist - a somebody with a useful skill to offer society. That may have helped grease the hinges on the Pinel Institute's doors.
I don't question the principle of it, though. If somebody's undergone psychiatric treatment and they're no longer a threat, then they should get their freedom back (with reasonable parole/probation terms on a case-by-case basis).
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
once the judiciary farms off review activity to the civil service, stuff starts getting confused.
I do agree with Feral's stance, that there are reasons to question the medical judgement but the principle is not in doubt.
Worth pointing out that we have no good information on what exactly the review entailed and we're not likely to get much.
Gotta love our conservative government! Tough on crime!
I have 549 Rock Band Drum and 305 Pro Drum FC's
REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS REFS
This is one of those very few things where I feel like the victim's rights should come into play - this woman lost her children and I think she at least has the right to never have to be near the man who killed them again. I'm not sure exactly why this condition was placed on him but I don't think it's necessarily indicative of his being a threat to her.
Reading this story on CBC actually made me really mad today. I'm hating the Conservative government more and more. I hate the way they keep confusing justice with vengeance. I want a criminal justice strategy more nuanced than "more prisons, longer sentences". Mentally ill people need treatment, not incarceration. If this man has proven to a panel of experts that he is not a danger to himself or others and can be allowed a monitored version of freedom, I trust them. I'm assuming he will still have to have some form of psychological treatment, be that therapy, drugs, or a combination of both to help him re-adjust to society.
Or it could be a reasonable restriction based on the history. Its not like him being entirely safe makes such a meeting non-problematic.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
They believe:
(1) The people running the system are stupid, and despite their professional training and direct experience of mental illness and those who would like to feign mental illness, are easily hoodwinked.
(2) The people running the system are smart, and when they put someone in prison, only do that to the actually dangerous, and not the mentally ill.
Alternatively:
Those who assume people like this man have tricked the system think real life is like a TV show.
Also, for those who want punishment and revenge, he is going to suffer for the rest of his life in a way you can barely conceive of. I have a daughter, and I can't even watch/read stories where little kids are in danger. If some terrible event caused me to hurt her (I can't even type anything worse than that) then I would be amazed if I didn't kill myself after. I certainly can't imagine living the rest of my life with that guilt.
Wait...why wouldn't they say this openly? Psychiatric experts are not infallible, I'd think people would be readier to assert that this guy conned the system rather than the system being broken if they had goodwill towards the system. Are you saying that those people saying the system is broken have an ulterior motive that actually means the system isn't broken? Because that is some next-level shit, man.
As for your first statement, yes, mentally ill people do need treatment. But when you stab - repeatedly - you own kids, you become a criminal, and criminals need incarceration.
I don't care if he's a risk to society or not. I care that because of his actions, a boy and a girl will never have a chance at living their lives. And that demands more than a year and a half.
Show me some stats for people who kill other people. Not true for murderers in my state.
Disagree so, so so much with this overstatement. Give me a break. I dunno if that's what this thread is about but yeah.
I mean, surely the contradiction here is the depth of his personal tragedy, and then turning around and saying "but look how quickly he can be rehabilitated to no longer pose a threat to himself or society".
Is he mandated to continue therapy? I saw a news article that claimed he said he wanted to whether it was mandated or not, but for a discussion about the merits of the system, the distinction between mandatory and voluntary therapy seems pretty relevant.
Why should I give a shit if he's being raked over coals?
Retribution does jack for me.
You can fucking pay for the bonus years if they do so much for your conscience.
Well, in this case, 'Victims Rights' means locking up the doctor indefinitely solely because the ex-wife is 'fearful'. If being afraid of someone was worthy of a life sentence in prison, society would look very different. Victims rights should not be part of sentencing or treatment. It should be part of victims services, assistance, and restraining orders, but if the courts and, in the case of mental defect, the doctors treating the patient all say the person is no longer a threat to society, the victim of their crime should not be able to unilaterally overrule that decision to send the person back to prison.
Where does this fucking anger come from, anyway?
While I can't speak for him personally, this attitude of "criminals must be punished!" is infuriating.
On aggregate, it makes things worse for everybody. Why do people keep advocating it?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I disagree, and believe that rather it is proponents of outcomes such as this that must face a contradiction.
1) Individuals who have a mental illness, whose biology or history or illness lead them to cause harm to other people should be treated fairly and released from custody due to the fact that it was the fault of their illness that harm was caused, not their own will.
2) Individuals who are healthy and (so goes the argument) rational or responsible for their own decisions should be incarcerated.
And somehow this isn't punishment of those in 2), but is instead protecting the rights of those in 1), even though the entire reason the individuals fall into 1) is that they had no control over the harm they caused to others, hence they should almost certainly be expected to cause harm again if the same situations arise.
The reason this case is particularly jarring is that even those that do believe that mental illness can be cured, don't believe it can be done in anything like the situation described here. I'd like to see statistics on, say, how many alcoholics relapse after being sober for a year and a half. In this case, the result of a relapse is so much worse that it should be very difficult to argue that this individual should be released.
The entire concept of not guilty because your insane is a joke to me. Of course he's insane! How can you not be to reportedly stab your children over 40 times? Why even debate it? While we're at it, why not have everyone that does the same thing lie down on a couch, have a few sessions a week for a few years, and go on with their merry lives?
I feel that by defending his actions by declaring him mentally ill, the act of killing is kids becomes secondary. It makes the motive of the crime more important than the end result. He murdered two innocent children. He did not do it in self defense, or any other justifiable way. Worse, he does not even have the decency to be terminally insane. It was a ''temporary'' thing, like a zit at the end of your nose. You pop it, and your face goes back to being unblemished.
Locking him up for a long time is retribution, because as a society, I believe that some gestures should carry heavy consequences. Taking someone's life, with no accident or misfortune involved, is one of those times.
I'm curious what you do with a drunk driver who kills a family? Compulsory AA meetings for a while, then back on the street?
All that aside, a condition so severe that he did what he did... forgive me for being disheartened about his rather short recovery period.
What would you consider to be appropriate in this case?
So, in short, you have no real understanding of how the justice system works, but you're willing to pontificate on the matter as if you do.
First off, our legal system has a pretty narrow definition of what is considered to be a mental defect - the M'Naghten rules. It's not just enough to say that something was wrong with you mentally - it has to be shown that either you did not know what you were doing, or that you were incapable of determining right from wrong. That's a pretty high bar to get over.
Second, you then have to successfully win the defense. Running the defense is such a gamble - juries tend to look on a failed insanity defense poorly, resulting in even harsher sentencing - that it is used in only a handful of cases. Even then, it more often than not fails. (Specifically, a 1991 NIMH study found that in the US, insanity defenses are raised in less than 1% of all county court cases, with a 25% success rate.)
Third, even if you win, it doesn't mean you get to go home. Yes, you've been found to not meet the legal standard of guilt, which in western law, with the exception of a handful of pro se crimes like statutory rape, requires not only the determination of the committing of the act but also the state of the accused's mind, but you have still been shown to commit an act that makes you a danger to society. Thus, you are then involuntarily committed to psychiatric treatment until you are deemed to no longer be a threat to society - a determination that may never come. And even if you are deemed to be treated, the law allows monitoring of such individuals that would be considered a violation of the rights of an individual who has served his or her time. (An example would be "Kendra's Law" in New York, where such individuals can be legally compelled to take their medications after release.)
Frontline has a good FAQ with links and cites to the relevant information.
Yes, in western law, the act is only part of the determination of guilt, alongside mental state. This is a bedrock principle of the concept of guilt. And to equate mental illness to a facial blemish is extremely offensive to people who deal with mental illnesses every single day, even under treatment.
Retribution does not, has not, and will never have a role in the pursuit of justice. Period.
This is a rather offensive apples to oranges comparison. A drunk driver knows what they did is wrong, they just elected to commit the wrong. In fact, these days the act of driving drunk is considered to be an act of reckless endangerment, enhancing penalties.
This is because murderers are given life sentences. Even considering that, it winds up being life behind bars, or life committed into a psychiatric institution. Not much difference there - in fact, it's arguable that the prisoner is better off than the committed patient, because at least the prisoner still has their legal rights.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Do I have the gist of it there?
I would support a minimum punitive sentence for violent crimes committed by people otherwise found not criminally responsible by way of mental break or illness. Time spent being treated at a mental health facility can be concurrent with the punitive sentence, and rehabilitated and treated persons wouldn't necessarily need to be imprisoned in the highest tier of security to serve out the remainder of their term.
This case definitely stinks. If a doctor wants themselves dead, they can do it - more likely he chose a method that he knew would not quite work so that he could back up his insanity plea. And since when did "temporarily insane" mean the same thing as "really, really angry"? I could see arguing that he was temporarily insane if he had killed his children thinking they were possessed by demons. But just after finding out his wife cheated on him? Please. This guy has clearly played the Canadian justice system like a maestro.
Yeah, he's clearly Hannibal Lecter.
Yes, because only fictional murderers ever try and get away with it.
This guy was not doing anything more than applying the skills he already had as a doctor. He understood a way to attempt suicide without actually dying, and most importantly he knew how to convincingly fake insanity. Most people who try to fake insanity would probably use the wrong details and tip off a psychiatrist, but this guy would already know the symptoms he needed to fake.
You believe a rational person stabs their children?
But one year from that state -> not a threat is fucking weird and almost unbelievable.
Threat assessments are sometimes wrong. And it depends on how you weigh consequences of these assessments being wrong. I would advocate that after release they are kept on a pretty tight probation/evaluation very regularly. Just to keep track of them AND also continue to offer help.
Twenty years ago (ish) they decided to close down the wards containing criminally insane here. Interns were let out and minimally helped back into society, with the onus on them to ask for help if needed. This did not lead to many crimes, one murder that I know of, but without dependable care these people were harmful to themselves. Unable to re-adapt, suicides, homelessness. One does not simply go from murdering two children to a healthy state of mind, that requires constant aid probably lifelong.