A Mother’s Perspective on Tim’s Law

While I agree that prevention is the best cure,understand that it is not a matter of vengeance rather it is an issue of safety and accountability. The fact is that he is a very dangerous individual with an incurable disease. He has proven himself to be non- compliant with medication, that is how this tragedy came about. He left the treatment facility where he was diagnosed schizophrenic,catatonic state, against medical advice and refused to take his meds, he decided he was not ill and decided to listen to the voices in his head. Why was there no follow up on this “very disturbed” individual by the psychiatric community? They all certainly have a lot to say about how he should be treated now, after the fact. Why does the system give control of a “very disturbed”individuals care and treatment to that individual, when clearly they are not in a proper state of mind to make those decisions. I believe more in-put from the mentally ill persons family and friends needs to be considered in their treatment in order to prevent something as atrocious as this from happening. That being said, UNPROVOKED..INCURABLE..possibility of relapse even while medicated. I think the most humane thing that we as a society can do is treat Mr Li in a locked facility for the rest of his natural life for his safety and for our own. This man ate my sons eyes and approx 1/3 of his heart after cutting his head off his body,and removing many other body parts. Do I really need to explain that Mr Li, having my sons tongue nose and ear in a bag in his pocket absolutely screams to me NEVER FREE!! The only thing more insane than Mr Li’s illness would be for us as a society, to do nothing and allow him to one day be free to have the opportunity to do it again. Let me be clear here as well.. These people DO get out more often than you’d care to believe in often VERY short time(1-5 yrs for crimes this heinous), and thats wrong. In the verdict of NCR in this case, the issue of mental illnes is addressed but what about the issue of murder? if not Mr Li, who is accountable for the loss of my son’s life?? psychologically not accountable perhaps but absolutely criminally responsible. A crime was still committed here, negating that fact negates that my son had a life. Mr Li arrived in Canada in 2001 but did not obtain citizenship until 2005, the same year he was diagnosed Schizophrenic in Ontario, and the way the system works that diagnosis ceases once he crosses the border to another Province??? does any of this make sense???

Vincent Li Review Hearing Set for June 1

Vince Li was found not criminally responsible last week for the brutal slaying of Tim McLean last summer near Portage la Prairie, Man,is to make his first appearance before a review board June 1.

Members of the Criminal Code Review Board are expected to send Li to a secure psychiatric facility. The board will review his case every year to decide whether Li must remain institutionalized or whether he is well enough to be released.

At the June 1 hearing, the group will review police reports, victim impact statements and psychiatric assessments, which say Li is a risk to himself and others.

Carol DeDelley, mother of Tim McLean, along with other concerned citizens are lobbying for Tim’s Law to ensure Li and other violent NCR killers are never deemed “cured” and allowed to become a threat to others.

Timslaw.ca Adds Language Translator

The purpose of Tim’s Law is to raise awareness of deficiency in our legal system, which has allowed killers like Vincent Li, the perpetrator of the horrendous murder of Tim McLean, to freely mingle with an unsuspecting public. We have added a language translator to timslaw.ca to further engage and foster a dialogue inclusive of the varying attitudes and opinions,

Proponents of Tim’s Law hope not only to raise awareness of the inadequacy in Canada’s “Not Criminally Responsible” policy, but to also effect meaningful change that will prevent the possibility of repeat offences by NCR perpetrators.

While this translator feature may not offer the perfect solution, our hope is that people may overlook the inherent limitations these translators provide, and see the greater good and awareness that timslaw.ca seeks to promote. Timslaw.ca is endeavouring to provide an inclusive forum crossing both the cultural and opinionated spectrum present in Canadian society.

What Victim’s Should Know About N.C.R

• What Victims of Crime Should Know About Not Criminally Responsible Accused

The purpose of this pamphlet is to explain to victims of crime what happens when the Court finds the person accused of the crime to be “not criminally responsible” due to mental illness. Many people, including victims, are unsure of how the justice system handles cases involving mentally disordered accused. People often think that mentally disordered accused are acquitted which is not the case. This pamphlet explains the role of the Criminal Code Review Board in assessing the accused and making a disposition. It will also help victims understand their rights such as making victim impact statements at Review Board Hearings, obtaining information about the accused, and finding out about the status of the case.
What does a finding of ‘not criminally responsible’ mean?
A finding of ‘not criminally responsible’ means that the judge or jury has a reached a verdict that:
* the accused committed the offence;
* the accused, at the time of the offence, had a mental disorder that prevented him or her from appreciating the nature and quality of the offence; and

* the accused did not know that it was wrong.

What happens when the Court finds an accused ‘not criminally responsible’? In order to determine what happens to the accused, the Court will:

* hold a disposition hearing and issue an initial disposition order and the Review Board would then have 90 days from the time of the verdict to hold a hearing; or
* refer the case to the Review Board, established under the Criminal Code, for disposition. The Review Board must make an initial disposition within 45 days of the verdict unless the Court extends the time up to a period of 90 days.

What is the Review Board?

The Review Board is appointed under the Criminal Code to make or review the disposition of accused persons who have been found unfit for trial or “not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder”. The Board is made up of at least five members. The chairperson must be a judge, retired judge or person qualified to be appointed as a judge. There must be at least one licensed psychiatrist. When the Board sits to review cases, at least three members must be present, including the chairperson and the psychiatrist. (more…)

Criminal or Insane

By CHINTA PUXLEY, THE CANADIAN PRESS

Her son was sleeping peacefully, listening to music on his earphones as the Greyhound bus drove across the Prairies last summer.

Minutes later, horrified passengers heard Tim McLean “scream bloody murder” as he was repeatedly stabbed and eventually decapitated.

Seven months later, McLean’s mother Carol deDelley is steeling herself to face the man charged with second-degree murder in her son’s brutal slaying as Vince Li goes on trial in Winnipeg tomorrow.

But she doesn’t expect closure from the proceedings, regardless of the outcome.

“There is no possible good outcome for me,” she said. “The trial to me seems like another thing we have to endure — a formality that we have to sit through.”

That’s because the sole issue at the three-day trial, being heard by a judge without a jury, will be whether Li is criminally responsible for his actions.

Li’s lawyers have said they are not disputing that he killed McLean. Experts anticipate his lawyers will argue he was in an automaton state brought on by a mental health disorder and should be institutionalized rather than imprisoned.

If this argument is successful, Li would not have a criminal record and could eventually be released if deemed healthy by a mental health review board. Unlike a conviction for murder, anyone found not criminally responsible is also not required to serve a minimum amount of time in detention.

But the victim’s mother says the prospect that the man charged in her son’s death might eventually be released is too much to bear. The law has to be changed so anyone found not criminally responsible for a crime still serves time in prison, she said.

“I don’t think mental illness ought to absolve you of your responsibilities for your behaviour,” Carol deDelley said yesterday. “Once the crime has been committed I still believe they need to be held responsible, otherwise what sort of a message are you sending?” (more…)

Bill C-30: an attractive option for defendants

A Follow-Up Study of Persons Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder in British Columbia
On February 4, 1992, significant changes were made to the mental disorder provisions contained in the Canadian Criminal Code following the introduction of Bill C-30 (1). These amendments were proclaimed into force after the Supreme Court of Canada declared—in R v Swain (2)—that the Criminal Code sections pertaining to the automatic detention of individuals deemed not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) were in violation of sections 7 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Objective: To describe the characteristics of individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) after the 1992 Criminal Code amendments and to track their movement through the forensic system, as well as to unveil the changes to British Columbia’s forensic psychiatric system that resulted from Bill C-30.

Method: Profile information relating to persons found NCRMD between February 4, 1992, and February 4, 1998, in British Columbia was collected and analyzed. Community follow-up data was collected and analyzed for a 24-month period following a subject’s discharge from hospital.

Results: A substantially greater number of individuals entered the forensic psychiatric system in British Columbia after Bill C-30 was implemented. The post-1992 forensic psychiatric population contained fewer persons charged with serious index offences and a greater number of persons charged with relatively minor offences. The length of hospitalization for the NCRMD cohort decreased substantially after the 1992 Criminal Code amendments.

Conclusion: The Bill C-30 provisions have made the NCRMD defence an attractive option for defendants and legal counsel.

The study made a number of interesting points including the average length of initial hospitalization for persons discharged to the community according to the most serious index offence, presented in Table 2.

Not Criminally Responsible

What is NCR…
The notion that an individual who suffers from mental disorder may not bear the full weight of responsibility for their actions dates back to ancient times. Although various approaches to a legal test for criminal responsibility date back centuries in the Anglo-American tradition, some major historical trials during the 19th century in Britain culminated in the enunciation of the so-called McNaughten Rules (1843) in which the Law Lords of Great Britain indicated that for an individual to be found Not Responsible for their act or omission, their mental disorder must render them unable to know the nature and quality of the act or that it was wrong.

In the years following, courts on both sides of the Atlantic struggled with the meaning of the individual words of this rule. At the present time in Canada the Criminal Code dictates a test, derived from McNaughten, stating that for an individual to found “Not Criminally Responsible”, they must have been unable, by virtue of mental disorder, to appreciate the nature and quality of the act or know that it is wrong. Within Canadian jurisprudence, these individual words have been subject to judicial interpretation.

http://www.forensicpsychiatry.ca/

Canada – Guilty of Gullibility

exert from column by Charles Adler

Folks, I want to ask you a question. In the so-called trial held in a Canadian court room, a trial to determine whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty of murdering Tim McLean, do you know how many witnesses were called? Two. Both of them psychiatrists, who both agreed that the defendant was not criminally responsible because he was ill. None of the testimony was challenged by the Prosecution because the Prosecution agreed with the Defence on everything of substance and there was no point in challenging testimony they agreed with. So who was representing the victim’s family and the family known as the Canadian people? Were there eyewitnesses to the crime? Dozens of them. The passengers and the bus driver. Why weren’t any of them called? The so-called witnesses who were called, weren’t witnesses of anything. They were two doctors who talked to the accused, who under medication told a story of God and voices. We have no evidence that he is telling the truth, but we are told that he is a sick man, obviously a sick man. Jefferey Dahmer was a sick man. Charles Manson was a sick man. Paul Bernardo was a sick man. Because the man who killed Tim McLean and presumably ate his victim’s eyeballs – because he was sick and is sick – the rest of us are forced to be sickened by the notion that he is saved from a permanent incarceration by his sickness, which the witnesses say can be medicated away.

And so the family of Tim McLean will have to deal with a yearly review, a yearly report on their son’s killer. They will spend the rest of their lives praying that psychiatrists keep on giving Vincent Li’s mind a failing grade. But the system this week was all about feeling good, instead of doing good. It helped the “feel good” to not call any eyewitnesses to the crime. Eyewitness testimony of that July night, on that bus, would have left nobody feeling good. The truth of what happened does not contain a speck of “feel good” and the public would have gotten very, very angry. Instead we got two shrinks. Feel good practitioners telling us that Vincent was a good guy, had always been a good guy, had a bad night and doesn’t really know what he did that night. All he knows is that he heard the voice of God telling him to kill the passenger next to him. He knew enough to buy a knife, and carry it on a bus. He knew enough to butcher a relatively small man, a vulnerable man. He doesn’t really know what he did, but he knows what he was instructed to do by the voices. No need to challenge this testimony???? No, this is really as solid as the rock of Gibraltar. No one would think of challenging a doctor who deals with mental illness and has done hours and hours of interviews with a person who has murdered and cannibalized. (more…)

The petition for Tim’s Law

This petition has been started in hopes that the laws will be changed regarding persons being found not criminally responsible for their actions due to mental illness. They should still be held criminally responsible, and unable to re-enter society.

“Tim’s Law is if you voluntary take an innocent life you will lose your freedom for the rest of your life. I think that’s fair and reasonable and I think that’s justice,”

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/timslaw/index.html

Family wasn’t shocked

It was a verdict Tim McLean’s family knew was coming, one they didn’t want to hear.

Before a packed courtroom yesterday morning, Justice John Scurfield ruled Vincent Li not be held criminally responsible for stabbing, dismembering and decapitating McLean aboard a Greyhound bus last summer.

The decision means Li will not be going to jail, but a mental institution.

“Persons who are profoundly ill do not have the mental capacity to intentionally commit a crime,” Scurfield said.

“The goal of criminal law is to punish criminals, not persons who have a mental illness.”

Scurfield ordered Li to remain in a secure psychiatric facility until a hearing can be scheduled before the Criminal Code review board. Li is expected to then be committed to the Selkirk Mental Health Centre for long-term treatment.

Once lodged at the centre, Li will be subject to annual reviews to consider his release.

“We didn’t go into this morning with any surprises expected and we didn’t get any,” McLean’s mother Carol deDelley told reporters outside court. “We will now have to go on a yearly basis, instead of having a birthday party, to ensure Mr. Li is kept locked up to keep everybody else safe.”

“Knowing that killer might get out very soon is very hard,” said McLean’s father Tim.

At a trial earlier this week, two forensic psychiatrists testified Li is a schizophrenic who believed he heard the voice of God directing him to kill McLean.

McLean’s family is calling on the federal government to pass a new law requiring mandatory life sentences for murder, regardless of the offender’s mental state.

“There is still a possibility of him being freed,” deDelley said. “Is the likelihood there? I’m not sure, but the possibility shouldn’t even be there. He still did it, whether he was in his right frame of mind or not. There was nobody else on that bus holding a knife slicing up my child.”

Li’s two-day trial heard testimony from just two witnesses — the forensic psychiatrists who examined him. Crown attorney Joyce Dalmyn said because Li admitted killing McLean, there was no reason to hear testimony from the nearly three dozen passengers who were on the bus with them.

Awaiting clarification

Dalmyn said the Crown’s office is still awaiting clarification from the RCMP as to whether an NCR finding means Li will have a criminal record.

“Certainly it is something that the RCMP do track and is information that would be available to them were there any further finding or charges in the future,” she said.