Enact Tim’s Law

or

An alternate petition can be found at

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/timslaw/signatures-14.html

Many paper petitions are being circulated in various locations and shopping malls around Canada

Thank you for showing your support for Tim’s Law

PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

WHEREAS: Vincent Li brutally murdered Tim McLean in July 2008;

WHEREAS: Vincent Li was found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of a Mental Disorder for the murder of Tim McLean;

WHEREAS: offenders who are found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of a Mental Disorder may be detained in treatment facilities and not prisons;

WHEREAS: offenders found guilty of first degree murder are sentenced to life in prison without parole for twenty-five years and those found guilty of second degree murder are sentenced to life without parole for a minimum of ten years;

WHEREAS: there is no minimum period of detention for offenders found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of a Mental Disorder and their cases may be reviewed every year by a Review Board Committee.

We, the undersigned, citizens of Canada call upon the House of Commons

To amend the Criminal Code of Canada to ensure those who commit murder but are found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of a Mental Disorder are detained for a minimum period of time.

Include you name, province, and postal code where you reside as a comment.

Please feel free to leave additional thoughts offering your support. Your email will be registered by the system and will only be visible for administration purposes. No email addresses will be used for any purpose other than confirming your support. Thank you for supporting Tim’s Law

An alternate petition can be found at

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

Many paper petitions are being circulated in various locations and shopping malls around Canada

Thank you for showing your support for Tim’s Law

Dr Stanley Yaren was called by the crown as their star witness…. actually, their only witness.

Dr. Stanley Yaren described Li as a “decent person” who was clearly out of his mind when he believed he was acting on God’s orders to eliminate “the force of evil” and attacked Tim McLean.

Yaren said Li has made significant strides since being hospitalized after his arrest and could one day function again in the community — something Yaren admits doesn’t sit well with most people, including the victim’s family.

“I completely understand the need for a sense of justice, of retribution,” Yaren told Queen’s Bench Justice John Scurfield.

“But (Li) is as much of a victim of this horrible illness … as Mr. McLean is a victim. Don’t hate the person. Hate the illness.”

Yaren tells court he saw Li nineteen times, for a total of 12 hours. Who is Stanley Yaren… Doctor Stanley Yaren is Manitoba’s chief forensic psychiatrist… He has testified at other hearings… Although I have marked in bold some statements, you can formulate your own opinion!

R. v. Lowes:  Between Her Majesty the Queen, informant, and Kirk Lowes, accused

[1997] M.J. No. 549 Manitoba Provincial Court

Briefly summarized: The accused has pleaded guilty to an information charging him with the offence of distributing child pornography, contrary to Section 163.1(3)(a) of the Criminal Code. The Crown having proceeded by indictment, the maximum punishment is incarceration for a term not exceeding ten years.

Dr Stanley Yaren report for this case:

The psychiatric report prepared by Dr. Stanley Yaren, Psychiatrist, Health Sciences Centre, PsychHeath Centre, dated April 16, 1997 (contained in Exhibit 51):

“The reason for this assessment was explained to Mr. Lowes. He understood that our conversation was not confidential as I would be preparing this report for your use. He was completely cooperative, open and spontaneous throughout the assessment procedure. Mr. Lowes is facing charges in connection with distributing child pornography over the Internet. Mr. Lowes readily acknowledges and admits to the actions which led to the charges against him. He also acknowledges the wrongfulness and immorality of his behaviour. Based upon this assessment it is my opinion that Mr. Lowes’ involvement in the offending behaviour was not intentionally malicious was not done either for personal sexual gratification or for financial gain. Mr. Lowes first developed an interest in the Internet in December of 1996 at which time his home computer became connected to the Internet through a commercial Internet service provider. Mr. Lowes’ interest rapidly progressed to a fascination and then later an obsession. He started spending all of his spare time in front of the computer attempting to master the technology of the Internet. This type of experience was not new for Mr. Lowes or for his wife, as it was his usual practice when he was becoming involved in and learning about something new to totally immerse himself in it. Mr. Lowes eventually mastered the techniques of searching the Internet and discovered News Groups where he was able to access sexually explicit material of all kinds. He admits that initially he was somewhat titillated by the erotic material (but not the pedophiliac material). He states that the novelty soon wore off and the content became boring. He then became interested in exploring more deviant material. He derived excitement from the sense that he was exploring and accessing things that are usually forbidden. He viewed this more as a technical challenge than as something he was doing for sexual gratification. As I understand it he explored a number of areas of deviant sexuality not only pedophilia. Eventually Mr. Lowes sought to increase his technical skills and mastery as well as his exploration of the forbidden by getting into the process of exchanging pictures by electronic mail. Apparently Mr. Lowes was unaware of the fact that there are relatively simple techniques which can be used to exchange E-mail without having it traced back to the individual. Mr. Lowes appears to have been experimenting without giving much thought to the implications of his actions. Mr. Lowes states that by the time he was charged with the offences his interest in the Internet had already begun to wane and it had been several weeks since he had accessed or exchanged any of the pornographic material. He states that he was in the process of deleting the material from his computer hard drive as the pictures were using up all of his storage space. Mr. Lowes is 27 years old. He has no past history of mental disorder and no criminal record. He has been married for the past 2 1/2 years to a woman who he has known for the past 14 years. They are expecting their first child later this year. Mr. Lowes has some university education. He is steadily employed on a full-time basis in a semi-skilled job with a cable manufacturing company. Previously he has worked as a salesman. Mr. Lowes is a moderate drinker and he does not use illicit drugs. He is in good physical health . . . . .

Mr. Lowes indicates that he does not experience any deviant sexual arousal. He indicated that he worked in one of the first adult video stores in Winnipeg. Initially he found this job quite sexually exciting but he rapidly discovered that continuous exposure to explicit sexual material was boring, monotonous and he soon lost interest. It is interesting to note that this earlier experience seems to have been repeated in his more recent exposure to explicit material over the Internet. It appears that when he became bored with this material he pursued more deviant and forbidden material as a way of stimulating his interest. Mr. Lowes indicated that he and his wife are quite compatible sexually and that he does not experience any need for involvement in deviant sexual fantasies or practice. There is nothing based upon my examination to indicate that Mr. Lowes suffers from pedophilia or any other paraphilic disorder . . . . . I would not classify Mr. Lowes’ level of involvement in the Internet as a true addiction. I do not consider his interest in child pornography to be a manifestation of a pedophilic disorder. I do not identify any other mental disorder or condition requiring treatment or psychological intervention.”

end of report

Sounds like Kirk Lowes would also be a fine upstanding citizen who according to Mr Stanley Yaren, should be allowed to work at your local daycare.. thanks, but no thank… Kirk Lowes can watch your kids!

Li was not convicted of any crime. Based on the testimony of this Dr Stanley Yaren,  the judge was forced to make a judgement based on the evidence presented. Had the judge been presented with evidence allowing him to convict the defendant, there would have been minimum sentencing guidelines that would have been imposed.  But the judge was presented with Stanley Yaren’s professional opinion. Like the opinion I just shared….  This is why we need Tim’s Law.

We are looking for donations to offset the cost of getting the transcript of Dr Stanley Yaren testimony at the Li trial. Information on donating to the Tim’s Law effort can be found under the contact info at the top of the homepage.

The story of Vince Li, who stabbed, beheaded and mutilated carnival worker Tim McLean last year just outside of Portage la Prairie, is a perfect example.

I know all the do-gooders and the highbrow crowd think putting a guy like Li away for the rest of his life is inhumane and uncivilized.

They trot out all the psychiatric statistics and justifications for why we shouldn’t keep severely psychotic people like Li in secure custody forever.

NOT REALLY CRIMINALS

They’re not really criminals. They didn’t really commit the offence, the illness did. And they should be given a chance to reintegrate. Yeah, we get it.

But for those of us who place greater weight on public safety, we say keeping Li off the streets forever is just common sense.

I keep hearing this argument that most people deemed not criminally responsible after killing someone don’t kill again after they’re released into the community.

Therefore, they don’t need to be locked up forever, the argument goes.

Well, the same could be applied to people who are found criminally responsible for homicide. Most of those don’t kill again either, most studies show. But we still hand out life sentences for first and second-degree murder.

CIVILIZED

I don’t see why under the Criminal Code we can’t sentence people deemed not criminally responsible for serious, violent offences to life in a secure facility.

Instead of a prison, a court would sentence them to a secure mental-health facility.

It would be humane, civilized and the right setting for people with severe mental health illnesses.

The reality is, there are all kinds of complicated reasons why people commit offences. Some people are controlled by their addictions, serious psychological afflictions from years of abuse and neglect, fetal alcohol syndrome, mental health issues not serious enough to warrant institutionalization, you name it.

Are those people responsible for their crimes? Did they know what they were doing? Did they know it was wrong?

Yes, no, maybe.

At some point did Vince Li know what he was doing was wrong when he dismembered Tim McLean? Did he have a lucid moment?

Not even Dr.Stanley Yaren, the forensic psychiatrists who testified at his trial could say for sure.

If we’re going to allow someone like Vince Li back on the street because he has a serious mental disorder, should we let the person with FAS convicted of second- degree murder out, too?

If not, why not? No doubt a bunch of high-priced lawyers and forensic psychiatrists could make a case for why the FAS offender shouldn’t be held responsible for his actions because he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong.

After all, it wasn’t his fault his mother drank during pregnancy.

No, we shouldn’t let the FAS killer out. We shouldn’t let the crack-addicted killer out. And we shouldn’t let Vince Li out.

All for the same reason: public safety. Put them in the right institution. Treat them humanely. Give them the treatment they require. Whatever.

But for goodness sake, don’t let them back on the street.

For excerpts of the agreed statement of facts in the Vince Li case, visit Brodbeck’s blog Raise a Little Hell at winnipegsun.com.
News Columnists / Tom Brodbeck

The results showed almost 20% of respondents had no reaction to the verdict, and almost one in four felt sympathy for the killer.  Cast you vote here

Listen Up TV also did a very interesting segment on Tim’s murder, and efforts to enact Tim’s Law        When Justice Meets Horror – Episode #366

Results
Disbelief 31%
Sympathy for the victim’s family 28%
Sympathy for the killer 23%
No reaction 19%

Oddly, there were two mass slayings in the news today, one of them at a school in Germany and another in Alabama, where 11 died.
I can only offer sympathies and prayers for the bereaved surviving family members and friends.

After such incidents, there is always the soul-searching in the media, with endless questions about ‘why’ the killer did what he did, as if any explanation really suffices. Inevitably, there are likely to be calls for stricter gun controls, although the German incident seems to undermine the liberal idea that strict gun laws prevent such occurrences. But nonetheless, there will be laments about the ease with which Americans can obtain guns, and there will be blanket condemnations of ‘society’ and its guilt in incidents like this. There is always disparaging talk about the South or heartland America in general, and its ‘gun culture’, as if that is the problem rather than simply human evil.

Why is it that so many people today have a problem identifying evil? If somebody kills most of their own family members, as the Alabama shooter did, is that act not evil? The German shooter apparently targeted mostly girls. Nowadays, what with feminism and with even many conservatives regarding women as more or less the same as men, it is not particularly seen as cowardly to target women or girls, though the code of chivalry would see it as such.

Most of all, though, incidents like these mass slayings always provoke more discussion of ‘mental illness’, as it is accepted by almost 100 percent of society that anyone who commits such crimes is automatically ‘sick’ or a victim of a mental disorder. Again, this obscures questions of good and evil, and individual responsibility.

That problem was also evident in the story I blogged on the other day, about the Chinese immigrant in Canada who savagely killed a Canadian bus passenger, in a particularly gruesome fashion.

On the discussion thread following that blog entry, reader and commenter Fed Up Canuck posted this link to the blog of Canadian radio commentator Charles Adler, who wrote about the court decision: Canada – Guilty of Gullibility in the First Degree.

Yes, it’s been a bit of a rough week. Not nearly as rough for me, as for the family of Tim McLean. But one of the reasons I sounded a bit rough yesterday, was because I was trying as hard as possible to be restrained, out of respect for the event that was fresh and raw. The event being a judge rendering a verdict of not guilty of criminal responsibility, in the case of the beheading of a young Canadian named Tim McLean. To me, it felt like he had just laid down a guilty verdict on all of us.

The Canadian people found guilty of allowing an elite group of experts, who do business in the legal system, telling us what is right and what is wrong.

The Canadian people found guilty for allowing themselves to believe that confining a mentally ill person for life is the equivalent of condemning all people suffering from any kind of mental illness.

The Canadian people found guilty for supporting a public school system where REASON is not taught and so vile arguments are presented in courts of law, and courts of public opinion go unchallenged by many members of the public who should know better, but have never been given the tools by an education system because it’s more about indoctrination than education.

The Canadian people have been found guilty for allowing their country to be stolen from them by the jackals of political correctness and moral equivalence and baffle gab.”

Adler’s commentary is sound, and it applies to America almost as much as Canada, and most of those who left comments agreed with him and shared his outrage. However there are a few typically obnoxious and piously self-righteous liberals who leave typically nasty comments.

Like this commenter:

Brilliant Charles. Do as the US does. Shoot the guy on site. Lovely. Vigilante justice. Won’t be accused of being ‘elite’ then! Why don’t you move to the states if you find their style of justice so soothing to your scared self. You can take comfort in the fact that they imprison more people than any other country in the world, yet still have the worst crime rates.”

Somehow America has the reputation of being the most crime-ridden country in the world, and few people challenge that assertion which is frequently made by liberals on forums and blogs and in the old media. However, even considering that liberals are disingenuously spreading false ideas, the fact is that high-profile mass slayings, like that in Alabama today, further cements the liberal (and foreign) image of America as a dangerous and violent country where (mostly White) psychotics with guns run amok on a regular basis.

It seems, too, that liberals and foreigners lambaste our American justice system, in which they believe we carry out draconian, inhuman punishments on the poor criminals. The fact is, we in America are quickly becoming as liberal as Canada and Europe, yet the leftists have succeeded in portraying us as this land with a harsh and brutal justice system. Perhaps if we were, we would have less crime.

But it is paradoxical that they think we are such a barbaric society with criminals running loose, yet at the same time we are too harsh on our criminals. It would seem the ideas rather contradict each other.

But a few terse comments on the Adler article linked above are the most dead-on, such as this one:

I HAVE NEVER UNDERSTOOD THE TIME, THE RUSH, THE UNDERSTANDING AND THE SOLIDARITY GIVEN TO THE CRIMINAL RATHER THAN TO THE VICTIM.

Agreed!

How twisted, really, to defend a murderer and cannibal, and reserve all one’s anger for the justice system, or for ‘evil Americans’ who actually punish the occasional criminal once in a while.

It has to be repeated, though, that liberals’ famous sympathy for criminals is markedly diminished when the criminal is a White male, especially a White male from the South. The liberals do not get out their hankies for the White perpetrators. One of the distinguishing marks of the liberal/leftist is his or her sympathy and solidarity with criminals, though mostly when the criminal is of an official victim group. Li gets double points: he is nonwhite, and an immigrant. If the victim were nonwhite and the perpetrator White, you can bet there would be no sympathy given by the usual suspects. There would be no crocodile tears shed and no righteous denunciation of the cruel legal system. Political correctness discriminates.

When non-whites kill numbers of people, like Colin Ferguson on the commuter train in New York, excuses fly, such as the defense’s ‘black rage’ defense: having been a victim of racism, Ferguson was full of rage towards Whites, and also Asians.

But the time-honored defense, at least for the last half-century or more, is ‘the accused is said to have a history of mental illness.’ And everybody knows that murderers are, by definition, ‘sick’.

The following comment is right to the point:

Psychiatry is about as scientific as astrology, there’s more substance in snake oil. Wake up people.”

I believe it was Nobel-winning scientist Richard Feynman who said it was akin to witch-doctoring, and it was not a science.

I think the love affair with psychiatry and psychology is at the heart of a lot of what is wrong with our ‘justice system’ as well as with much of our society. Psychiatry and psychology pass as ‘sciences’ in our society, despite their slippery, subjective nature. And despite their imprecise and subjective, touchy-feely nature, they are allowed an enormous amount of influence in our justice system. Adler points out in his piece that the only witnesses in the Li trial were two psychiatrists:

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 Defense 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.”

We have seen Li escape just punishment for his heinous crime, based on the idea that he was a ‘sick’ man and not a bad man. I have a feeling that we won’t hear such sympathy for today’s shooters; they were just White males.

At least they will not be tried in our compromised court systems, because they died before being arrested.

But we will hear about their supposed ‘sicknesses’ and we will hear more liberal hand-wringing about how the ‘mental health system’ has to identify and treat such people before they act out. How we are to reconcile that with our ideas of civil rights, due process, etc., is yet to be determined. However I am expecting to hear, as the stories come out, that these shooters may already have been medicated with psychiatric drugs, possibly anti-depressants. It seems that a disturbing number of these incidents involve people on such medications, all in the name of treating their sicknesses and making them better.

We do place a great deal of blind faith in our systems of psychology and psychiatry, despite their rather poor record of identifying, predicting, curing or effectively treating violence-prone people. This is something that needs to be questioned and scrutinized. We have largely abandoned the old Christian ideas of right and wrong, good and evil, and human responsibility which underpin our system of laws. The new religions of psychiatry and psychology are essentially incompatible with our system of justice. Accordingly, we need to re-examine our beliefs and determine whether we can reconcile the basically conflicting systems of thought.

As well, no one can give me a straight answer about my question of faith. “Does belief in God constitute a mental illness?” My fury over the conduct of Dr Yaren lies in his VERY faulty logic used to determine Li’s mental “illness.” I believe the direct quote used in the papers is, “God made me do it.” God making you do something defaults you as schizophrenic? Or is it only when you take his name in murder? Who on Earth has the qualifications necessary to determine who gets to believe in God and who doesn’t? Where in Medical school is it taught that you can disprove one’s faith in God? Is it because God told you to kill? There is a religious text that espouses that very notion: it is called the Qu’ran. The 6th pillar of Islam is Jihad, the declaration of Holy War against those who sully the faith or names of Allah or Muhammad. Are 1.5 billion Muslims all schizophrenics? I would think that a religious cleric is infinitely more qualified than a Psychiatrist to determine one’s true faith in God. To disavow Li’s belief in God is to violate his religious freedoms so enjoyed by others in this country. I wonder if a rich, suburban, well read run of the mill Christian white person who commits a similar act would earn the same expedience of a predetermined NCR like Li? Is he or she mentally ill or just a cold blooded, sane killer b/c of a lack of historical hardships?

History proves time and again that murder is justifiable so long as God gives the green light. Examples? The Crusades led by King Richard that sacked Byzantium, then became Constantinople at the cost of many lives. Ironic that Constantinople fell to the same violence of the Ottomans (Muslims) in 1453. The Spanish pogroms that killed thousands of Jews by Muslim mobs in 11th century AD. The Spanish Inquisition led by Ferdinand and Isabella that saw people burned at the stake for refusing to covert to Christianity. The Salem witch hunts that tossed “witches” to their deaths as they were deemed servants of Satan. Modern day terrorists that are led by fanatical Imams to Jihad…9/11 ring a bell?

Were all the aforementioned murderers schizophrenics? I am not contesting that Li is mentally sick. I am sickened by how there was zero attempt by the prosecution to even consider challenging he was possibly sane at the time of the murder. And, he may have well known that what he did was wrong. I’d like someone ( a COMPETENT prosecutor) to explain how: writing a goodbye letter, using a fake name to buy a bus ticket, and walking on a bus with a hunting knife constitutes “not knowing what he was doing?”

I believe that Li would have shared a similar fate to that of Jeffrey Dahlmer if he had went to prison. And, since the definition of being Canadian is showing the world how un-american we are, that mentality carries over into our “coddle the criminal” court systems which are definitely the antithesis of American justice. At least there, the prosecution knows their responsibilities are NOT to collude with the defence.

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/

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. Why isn’t that the same thing as challenging every challenged person in Canada? Isn’t that stigmatizing all people facing mental challenges? Do we really need to do that?

The Canadian people have been found guilty of allowing their society to be hijacked by MORAL CHARLATANS ladies and gentlemen, who ride on the back of the vulnerable. And I know that from the emails I have received in the past twenty four hours from some parents dealing with their challenged children, who think that because I wanted Vincent Li locked up for life, that I want their children locked up for life, even though their children have committed no crimes at all. And it doesn’t matter how often I say that, I do want to live in a country where people are judged by what they do, not by who they are. It doesn’t matter. The psychiatrists and their allies in media, willing and unwilling dupes of this culture of moral equivalence, have convinced many families in this country dealing with mental illness that the best thing they can do to support their families is to support the idea that Vincent Li will be fit to live among us some day.

The Canadian people, it would appear, after having been found guilty of allowing their society to slip through the cracks, are now condemned to listen to the B.S. and the baffle gab of a legal system that has redefined the meaning of justice. Justice used to be about making the guilty accountable. Today’s justice makes the families of the victims feel guilty. They are told that their idea of justice is simply animal vengeance fed by blood lust. They are being told that they are in worse shape than the cannibal. See the cannibal is getting treatment in a relatively confined setting. But the families of victims and their friends aren’t getting the same psychiatric medications that would alter their personalities, and so they spend much of their free time staying angry with a system that is merciful and compassionate. However, these families are condemned for never being able to appreciate that.

Read the full column of Charles Adler on the Corus Radio Network.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9119