I know you’re kidding, but I want to express some frustration with the media here. When the media reports this story using simply “not responsible”, some may think that he is just turned back out onto the streets to kill again next week. Not so much. He wasn’t “not responsible”, he was “not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder”. He did all those really hideous, stomach-turning things, all right, just didn’t have the capacity to know that it was wrong. Now, it’s off to a high-security mental institution with yearly reviews to determine whether he has to stay there, eg. whether he is a danger to himself or others.
Emeria - According the the news report I saw, he’ll get a re-evaluation in 90 days (I think). So it would seem that if he was placed on meds at the time of his initial arrest and is deemed “no longer a danger to society” because of those meds, he could be released. It probably won’t happen, but there’s no saying it couldn’t.
“Oh, yes, your honor. As long as he takes his medications, he’s perfectly normal.” Until he decides to stop taking them.
StG
My understanding is that he’s still in denial about some of the things he did (it’s assumed he ate part of Tim McLean’s body, but he isn’t accepting it). I also read somewhere/got the impression that he’s still pretty deep in a schitzophrenic episode right now, so I think it will likely be quite some time before doctors really consider releasing him, just based on that.
I hope so. It sucks that’s he’s so severely mentally ill, but what he did… it’s just so horrible. I was nearly in tears reading the summaries of the statement of facts; I never want to read the whole thing!
That issue, whether he has taken responsibility for continuing treatment and whether he understands the risks posed by not doing so, would form a very important part of the evaluation.
So what is ‘mens rea’ again?
Is there a jurisdiction in which “not guilty by reason of insanity” isn’t a possible defence? 
The mental element of a criminal offence.
Roughly, a “crime” is composed of two things: carrying out some action, and the “mental element” - basically, the guilty intent to do wrong.
Say I run someone over in my car. This could be either a pure accident (the person jumped in front of my car and I couldn’t possibly stop) or it could be premeditated murder (I lurked in waiting for this person, planning to run them down and hoping they would be killed when I did).
With someone who is truly crazy, the “mental element” is missing - they may kill, but it has no more meaning (if you will) then someone being killed randomly by lightning. The difficulty of course is that there are lots of mental disorders that do not reach the level required for being “truly crazy” in this manner - arguably all psychopaths are “crazy” to an extent, but not to the extent which would render them in effect legally “non-actors”. The rules are usually pretty stringent so that only the genuinely crazy get treatment rather than jail.
Thanks, Malthus. I thought it was something like that, and your explanation makes it clear.
No prob. 
The reason this scenario attracts outrage is the fear that the insane person could be declared “cured” and allowed out in short order - maybe to have a relapse and do it again.
I have no idea whether this fear has any basis in reality, being unfamiliar with this part of our justice system. My impression is that anyone found not guilty by reason of insanity for something like this is looking at a very lengthy and perhaps permanent stay in a locked mental institution with their periodic review being turned down more or less as a matter of routine, but I confess I have no real knowledge of how it works in practice.
Thisarticle interviewed someone who says that it may be “years” before Li is out of max security at the facility he’s being sent to, and even more years after that before he might be released, and even then, he’d likely have twice-a-day contact with psychiatric nurses/help for the rest of his life. While the person they interviewed has a background in psychiatry (executive director of the College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of Manitoba), I don’t think she has any contact or involvement with Li’s case.
I hope she’s right, or even optimistic in her views!
There’s also a widespread public misunderstanding and distrust of psychiatiry as a whole when dealing with cases such as this - when antidepressants are being advertised by drugs firms as a simple cure-all, it’s understandable that people might fear that a handful of antipsychotics is all the guy will get before he’s set free.