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???
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.
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 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…)
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…)