Schoenborn case and public safety

[Rosemary1]

While full sympathies go to families of those with mental illnesse, the patients themselves, the greater sympathy must be the family of the victims and the victims - in this case 3 innocent young children.

The types of mental illnesses cover a wide spectrum. Most do not present a continuing and very serious risk to public safety. This is not one of them. Drugs are not always effective, nor can such patients be counted on to take their dosage if released into the community.

If ever released into the community who will safeguard public safety by monitoring them 24/7 for the rest of their life. Who can ensure they diligently take whatever drugs are needed to manage their mental illness?

Psychologists and mental health professionals can't make that kind of commitment or provide unequivocal assurances that they don't present a risk.

What is the alternative solution to the disputed law that can guarantee the future safety of the public (as well as that of the patient himself).

[Silverstarqueen]

In this type of case, where three innocent lives have already been lost, there should be close and frequent monitoring for the rest of their life, including regular drug tests to be sure they are taking their medication, group home to monitor if the person's mental health is beginning to deteriorate.

[Barney Google]

IMHO it is far too soon for Mr Schoenborn to be seeking any kind of 'freedoms' and far, far, far too soon for the families and mother who lost these children to be faced with thoughts or concept of his 'moving forward' in life. Mental illness or no...the victims and those left behind need to be considered first.

[Glacier]

The Harper conservatives have been getting hammer over this one this week. They stated that Schoenborn! Wrong! He is not a criminal because the court ruled that he was not guilty by insanity.

[Atomoa]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... -on-escort

This similar case might be a relevant answer for you.

Being found not criminally responsible because of a severe mental illness denotes that the sick are to be given treatment for their condition as best as possible and with the safety of the community and the patient in highest priority. The medication that regulates their conditions takes weeks to leave a person's bloodstream. If they are monitored closely and regularly, as these people certainly will be for the rest of their lives, there is no more threat to the public of them going crazy and killing someone than any other Canadian. Less, actually.

Psychologists and mental health professionals can't make that kind of commitment or provide unequivocal assurances that they don't present a risk.

Yes they can, and they do.

What is the alternative solution to the disputed law that can guarantee the future safety of the public (as well as that of the patient himself).

Go downtown to the bus terminal and hang out for a few hours. Realize that the people you will run into down there are not monitored or medicated and receive 1/5000th of the police attention and psychological attention that Allan Schoenborn will get. This is a non issue cooked up by politicians.

The official report for the Schoenborn case states :

"If it (the system) had worked appropriately, even by the standards in place at the time, there's a very high likelihood, as I conclude in this report, that the deaths of these children would have been avoided."

The BC Liberals have cut taxes for the biggest tax contributors in BC and in order to make up for the tax loss we cut mental health services and programs to the bone. There are posters on this forum that directly work in the BC criminal justice/mental health areas who do not hide the fact these cuts have severely limited their ability to do their jobs effectively.

Don't worry about Schoenborn, worry about what this Government is doing to prevent the next mental health slip-up.

Hint : nothing

[Silverstarqueen]

Most people with mental health problems are not violent or likely to hurt anyone. Yes, they should have treatment available, but it's not a public safety concern, since they are not likely to do something to harm someone. Schoenborn's case (and a few others like him) is a whole different matter. The guy that went pycho on a greyhound bus some months back somehow slipped through the cracks and obviously should have been under close supervision and treatment. Yet, there he was.

[JayByrd]

With a huge influx of funding and infrasctructure, British Columbia could develop the resources to really make a difference for those with mental health issues. However, the individuals in need of service are so marginalized, the public doesn't want to think about them, let alone spend more money to keep them safe. "What about more services for hard-working folks like us?" is usually the reply.

As awareness increases (and tragedies like the Schoenborn family definitely raise awareness), the tide is starting to turn. Will we see someone run for office with this as part of their platform? Who's going to dare to go first?

[GordonH]

Bumped
https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/205522 ... -high-risk

Other Judge not giving a damn about victims & there Families, Canada's justice system is truly f ed all the hell.

[JayByrd]

I always seem to play devil's advocate in these cases. Helmet's on, with a full shield.

I do know that the Dangerous Offender designation is designed to determine an individual's future in the correctional system. It's not meant to bring justice to victims or the public. If one thinks this should be scrapped for something more punitive in nature that's fine, but we should understand what the purpose of this process was. The severity of a crime doesn't necessarily determine the offender's likelihood to commit further crimes.

[GordonH]

I always seem to play devil's advocate in these cases. Helmet's on, with a full shield.

I do know that the Dangerous Offender designation is designed to determine an individual's future in the correctional system. It's not meant to bring justice to victims or the public. If one thinks this should be scrapped for something more punitive in nature that's fine, but we should understand what the purpose of this process was. The severity of a crime doesn't necessarily determine the offender's likelihood to commit further crimes.

impo he should never be aloud out of his current location..... ever. (Of course I felt same way by the guy off the greyhound bus)

[Cactusflower]

If he's sane enough that he's not a threat to anyone anymore, then he's sane enough to stand trial for the murder of his three children. The justice system in this country is so screwed up. Perhaps his lawyer or the judge should take him out of the loony bin he's in and have him come to live with them and their families for awhile.

IMHO, this piece of trash doesn't even belong in the land of the living.

[Silverstarqueen]

Just because he has some mental illness, does not by any means indicate that the public is safe. So he needs to be in a psychiatric institution rather than a prison for the rest of his life. Sure there are non-violent people with mental illness. He is not one of them.

[Osoyoos_Familyof4]

Does anyone know if there is such a program whereby people must comply with medication as in: Clock in with a worker of some sort who witnesses you taking a mandated medication? Kinda like how they supervise a prisoner who takes meds?

I'm wondering if we could (or do now) mandate legally (via a judge) that a person be required to take medication, or be incarcerated in a prison or a mental hospital?

It really can be remarkable and profound when you balance someone's brain chemistry who is severely mentally ill.

It's really just a terrible situation, I just don't know.

[Silverstarqueen]

Once he behaves normally on medication, he eventually will be deemed safe enough to release.
They can certainly have a voluntary program for him to check in , take meds, or be tested. But there is then nothing to stop him from just walking away and not taking his meds. He's obviously not there yet (releasable). But the community is understandably concerned about the failure of the system to keep tabs on someone like this, who shows every sign that he would reoffend if he managed to just not return from a daypass, or unsupervised release. Once out, you can't watch them every second. So they can escape a voluntary program, if they are smart enough to do it. Most likely scenario, he will reoffend, someone else's son or daughter will be harmed, then they have grounds to put him back in for a few more years, while they "stabilize" his mental disorder.

[Ka-El]

Once he behaves normally on medication, he eventually will be deemed safe enough to release.

My hope would be that, if released, he remain committed and only released under "extended leave" under the MHA with conditions that include attending for regular injections of depot anti-psychotics. Under these conditions he would be immediately arrestable if he didn't show up for his injection, and would be brought to have his medication administered. I can appreciate he is not culpable due to suffering a psychotic break, but the public will always need to be protected from him.