It’s impossible to diagnose mental illness based solely on the news reports, and I don’t think that factor means much - it depends on what his mental state was at the time of the actions. For instance, if he was hallucinating so badly that he thought he was killing Bambi and eating some raw deer meat, it would be a strong factor suggesting he was not able to appreciate the nature and quality of his actions. (Note: I’m using that hypothetical purely to illustrate the issue; I have no idea what the medicos have found out about his mental state at the time, nor what he thought he was doing.)
Well, if he was eating the corpse, he probably understood that he had killed. But as Northern Piper mentioned, maybe he thought he killed a deer, as bizarre as that seems.
It’s interesting; this is usually my instinctive reaction to these kinds of stories. A guy riding on a bus just jumps up and beheads somebody? He’s crazy. Obviously the legal definitions are different, but there sometimes seem to be these things where the act itself is the evidence for a mental problem.
Nobody is disputing whether he’s off the beam (especially since I’ve never heard of that phrase). The question is whether he was insane. Someone can be crazy in a way that doesn’t impair their knowledge of right from wrong, and if they kill someone knowing and appreciating that it’s wrong, then they aren’t legally insane. They get the book thrown at them the same as anyone else.
Jeffrey Dahmer, for example, ate people, made little private shrines out of body parts, tried to lobotomize people into sex slaves and so forth, but he was legally sane because he fundamentally know what he was doing and that it was wrong but did it anyway. Thus he went to prison instead of a mental health facility.
This bus beheading guy seems like he probably was insane. He killed the guy in full view of all the other passengers on the bus. Any sane person who appreciated the situation would likely realize that he was going to be caught and punished for doing that, but he did so anyway.
First day’s worth of testimony indicates a major psychotic episode linked to schizophrenia and a voice from God telling the accused that his victim was evil and would come back to life unless dismembered:
Northern Piper, I’d be interested in your take on what’s becoming known as “Tim’s Law,” which Mr. McLean’s family has been trying to promote recently. I was reminded of it from these statements in your Globe and Mail link:
For those not in the know, “Tim’s Law” would see any NCR (not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder) murderer put away for life–in a hospital or a penitentiary, as appropriate.
My off the cuff reaction is that it goes contrary to the basic requirement of mens rea, which is a principle of fundamental justice, entrenched by s. 7 of the Charter: R. v. Vaillancourt. The automatic nature of the detention for life also looks problematic, in light of R. v. Swain.
Thanks for the cites–my immediate reaction to “Tim’s Law” as it has been presented in the news as part of this story was that it somehow couldn’t be passed. But I couldn’t put my fingers on exactly why. Vaillancourt and Swain, both of which I read at law school when we studied mens rea and NCR cases, reminded me of why. Again, thanks!
Looks like it was a joint submission: both Crown and the defence have submitted that the judge should find Li not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder. Judge will give his decision today; seems a foregone conclusion, in light of the evidence presented and the joint submissions.
