Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He was evaluated by a psychiatrist. He didn't say "herp derp I lick windows when I'm bored" and the Canadian justice system said, "well that satisfies me, not guilty!" here's your sign..
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Care to point out just where the cited article delves into the political leanings of those who reloeased the man? Or just more baseless allegation from the right?
Care to point out just where the cited article delves into the political leanings of those who reloeased the man? Or just more baseless allegation from the right?
He was evaluated by a psychiatrist. He didn't say "herp derp I lick windows when I'm bored" and the Canadian justice system said, "well that satisfies me, not guilty!" here's your sign..
Yeppers the Canadian justice system is so much more lenient. The guy was not found guilty of anything because he was certifiably insane! I seem to recall the U.S. having much the same legal back door.
He was not found "not guilty." He was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR). It's an insanity defense that very rarely works, but it did in his case.
He's been institutionalized for the past eight years, where he received treatment. Under Canadian law, his confinement in the institution is reviewed every so often (I cannot remember how often, but it would be at least once every year). If he is not deemed well enough to leave, he stays; and his matter will be reviewed again next time. He could have been in the institution forever, but I guess the most recent review found him to be well enough to leave.
But again, it is incorrect to say that he was not guilty, even if you follow it with "because of mental illness." The correct term, as I stated, is "not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder." There is a definite legal distinction between "not guilty" and NCR in Canadian law.
Yeppers the Canadian justice system is so much more lenient. The guy was not found guilty of anything because he was certifiably insane! I seem to recall the U.S. having much the same legal back door.
Care to point out just where the cited article delves into the political leanings of those who reloeased the man? Or just more baseless allegation from the right?
You can play naive all you like, but common sense tells you that leniency for criminals is much more likely to be by liberals than conservatives.
Heck, liberals like Obama & Co have been very busy letting out all sorts of scum back on the street, whether it be drug pushers or even those convicted of illegal gun crimes. Why?
Supposedly some liberal kooky idea of restorative justice or racial crap having nothing to do with the individual responsibility for committing the particular crimes.
This along with demonizing law abiding gun owners and trying to infringe upon their constitutional rights to legally own guns.
How do liberals fit that square peg into the round whole?
MSNBC and CNN are always running these shows about poor prisoners and what their life is like behind bars, when FOX is running programming about American history and heroism of of founding fathers.
You tell us who is more pro-criminal and more lenient toward the criminal element, and if you want to play dumb and say it is not liberals, then you are either being intentionally obtuse or are ignorant of the facts.
Like I said on the other thread,they must have decided he did society a favour taking out the person he did....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.