Thread: getting away with murder

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

One other point about your above-post: brain damage is not the legal equivalent of the concept of criminal insanity

I'm well aware of that, however trev1960 is evidently not. You'll see that my comments were in direct response to his post making that mistaken connection.

Originally Posted by jockeys

none, apart from the civil consequence that his insurance would have to pay out to the other driver's family. what you are describing is an accident, not a crime.

Well then, we at least agree on this point. And the reason I posed the example was to illustrate the concept that we don't generally hold people accountable for their actions without the element of intent. In my example, there was no intent by the driver who was felled by a stroke, and at least we can agree his lack of intent removes any consideration for imposing criminal sanctions.
Now bear with me here: the whole idea of "criminal insanity" is no different. At the risk of beating a dead horse, the very definition of what it means to be criminally insane incorporates the idea the actor lacked all intention because his mental disease has inactivated his ability to understand the difference between right and wrong, and to appreciate the consequences of his conduct. It's really that simple. And that complex. Because as I've said before, it's very, very difficult to prove criminal insanity. But if it's proven, and if the actor didn't intend to do what he did because of his mental incapacity to do so, then by what principle would you impose criminal sanctions on that insane person? Keep him away from others? Yes. Punish him for doing something he was incapable of understanding he did? Nope.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Easy. DNA evidence is routinely used to rule out the possibility of the accused being the perpetrator. Example: woman gets raped and murdered. Someone identifies the accused as the perpetrator. Based on the witness ID (and possibly other circumstantial evidence) the accused is convicted and sentenced. DNA testing wasn't available at the time. Sperm and blood samples taken from the victim are now subject to DNA testing, and show no match to the convicted guy. In other words-the sperm and blood didn't come from the guy sitting on death row.

What if there were 2 rapists? What if the woman had slept with someone consentually earlier? What if the guy on death row had simply used a condom?

All the DNA proves is that sex took place between the woman and an unknown party at some fairly recent point in time and some unkown place. That DOES NOT prove the guy on death row is innocent. Yet people put forward these flawed arguments to support claims of a travesty of justice, often 10 or 20 years after the event, when there is no possibility of having a sensible retrial.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

. Punish him for doing something he was incapable of understanding he did? Nope.

I don't claim to know what it's like inside the head of a criminally insane person. Maybe you have some insight there that I don't It's my belief that people always understand what they are doing, at some level. A person having a stroke is UNCONSCIOUS... apples and oranges.

I guess you would need to make a distinction between criminally insane and "really bad men" (your term from the OTHER death penalty thread JMS started). I don't. I would say that Hitler, John Gacy, etc, were pretty crazy. I also think there is no problem with them getting what's coming to them.

I guess it's really a philosophicial (or maybe psychological?) preference. I understand where you're coming from, and if I felt the same way about criminal insanity, I'd prolly agree with you, but I don't.

"It's my belief that people always understand what they are doing, at some level."

Well, there's the point of why we disagree on this issue. While you may have a personal "belief" that people always understand what they are doing, that does not comport with the legal definition of "criminal insanity" as it applies to the criminal justice system. Just the opposite--where the defense of criminal insanity is raised, it must be shown that the actor did not, as you put it, understand what they are doing. That's the whole point. They are insane and don't possess that ability. The diagnosis is made by medical professionals, just like any other medical diagnosis received at a trial. Barring that diagnosis, the insanity defense won't apply.

So to tie this all up (hopefully): if the definition of criminal insanity is that the actor was so mentally ill that he completely lacked the capacity to understand what he was doing, to any extent whatsoever, would you still treat that person the same as you would a sane criminal defendant?

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

So to tie this all up (hopefully): if the definition of criminal insanity is that the actor was so mentally ill that he completely lacked the capacity to understand what he was doing, to any extent whatsoever, would you still treat that person the same as you would a sane criminal defendant?

I just don't know that it could ever be satisfactorily proven that the person didn't know what they were doing. You can't ever be in their head, you can't even know for sure they aren't faking it to get a reduced sentence. Maybe there are people that don't understand, who knows. I'm not qualified to comment on that. I just see the potential for a lot of abuse, so I'd rather it not be an option.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

What if there were 2 rapists? What if the woman had slept with someone consentually earlier? What if the guy on death row had simply used a condom?

All the DNA proves is that sex took place between the woman and an unknown party at some fairly recent point in time and some unkown place. That DOES NOT prove the guy on death row is innocent. Yet people put forward these flawed arguments to support claims of a travesty of justice, often 10 or 20 years after the event, when there is no possibility of having a sensible retrial.

I'm having a hard time with your examples. If there were two rape suspects and two different semen samples were obtained from the victim, neither of which matched the DNA of one of the accused, then this evidence would be relevant to the defense of one of the accused. If that suspect's DNA matches the DNA taken from the victim-then bingo!, he's got a problem.
Take another example: a woman claims she was raped by a man who wasn't wearing a condom; the man denies he raped or had sex with her. The DNA sample taken from the victim doesn't match the man's DNA. Wouldn't that be highly relevant to the man's defense? Further, if the woman denies having had sex with any other man for, say, a month, so the DNA evidence could only have come from the alleged perpetrator, if the DNA doesn't match the alleged perpetrator--guess what? The DNA evidence is extremely strong proof the accused isn't the perpetrator.
Under your logic, no forensic evidence should be used. Blood samples are much less reliable than DNA testing, yet blood tests have been used in criminal cases for eons.

Yet other example: that the woman had sex with another man besides the person she has accused of raping her. Again, this doesn't prove that DNA testing is unreliable or that it can't exclude the accused as the perpetrator. It would depend on other facts as well (did the woman claim the man she had consensual sex with used or didn't use a condom? How much time went by between that act and the rape? etc.) The fact remains that if the victim says she was raped by a man who didn't use a condom, and if a semen sample is obtained in a timely manner and DNA testing can be performed, then if the DNA from the test sample doesn't match the DNA of the accused, chacges are virtually 100% the accused wasn't the rapist (DNA testing is not 100% accurate-but it's accuracy rate approaches 100%, and it's more accurate than blood or finger print evidence).

Bottom line: DNA evidence is often used for exculpatory purposes, and has been accepted as a scientifically reliable and valid test modality by virtually every criminal court in this country.

Originally Posted by jockeys

I just don't know that it could ever be satisfactorily proven that the person didn't know what they were doing. You can't ever be in their head, you can't even know for sure they aren't faking it to get a reduced sentence. Maybe there are people that don't understand, who knows. I'm not qualified to comment on that. I just see the potential for a lot of abuse, so I'd rather it not be an option.

Well, I understand your personally difficulty with the idea of an insanity defense. You obviously don't trust that an ironclad diagnosis can be made. I think we've mined all there is to discuss about this topic given what our philosophic differences are. It was fun...

What I'd be interested to know is did Li (the attacker) have a documented history of mental illness in China? Or did he immigrate to Canada with undiagnosed illness?

Scott

Found this: http://www.canada.com/Health/story.html?id=1356811

Answered my questions

BTW - Is this man really getting away? What kind of personal hell must he be living? Could any man made punishment equal his current sentence?

I have read all the lengthy discussion around the Texas death penalty and really, it has nothing to do with this killing in Canada.

The man in question was seen by not two or three questionable witnesses, but the entire bus-full of passengers. He beheaded his victim, carried his head to the front of the bus, and showed it to the crowd of shocked onlookers as though it were a trophy. No need for DNA testing. He committed the murder. There is no question of his guilt.

His plea of criminal insanity was given with the statement of "God choose me to kill". This probably won't fly. Lots of people try the religious insanity thing and it doesn't really work. The reason it shouldn't work is the fact that he was carrying a large hunting knife with him. It is hard to say you didn't mean to kill someone when you are carrying around a knife that has no use in common urban living. And in a society that dismisses current communication and instruction from God, why would He tell this guy to carry such a knife and kill a random person.

So to the question of should he be sentenced to death. Yes, he should. He should have been killed that night by a concerned fellow passenger when he first started stabbing his victim. His victim could potentially have lived if some of the other passengers had intervened. If anyone is going through some kind of personal 'hell' I imagine it is a passenger that is thinking he/she could have made a difference but did nothing.

So in short, Vincent Li should be killed and I really hope that he is sentenced to death and that this demise comes quickly.