I want a news on cure …i am just too bored man…
Public Safety should always be #1.
Who let that man out anyway? Seems these folks who think people that are dangerous should get to experience freedom, well, they should get to go live with the folks that let them out.
The problem is not giving him his freedom but in not ensuring that he will be supervised re medication.
I think the officials are playing with fire, and trust me, it’s never them who get burned.
Let’s stuff our heads in the sand because then no one can see us.
STUPID.
It’s a tough call because of the severity of the incident… But I think medication should only be force-fed if there is immediate thread to oneself or others. From the article, I understand that the man is doing well and as such poses no immediate thread at the moment. It has to be up to mental health services, police, and general public to assess whether that changes - as is the case for any individual. Regardless of the verdict of the court about the incident at the time, I mean whether he had to do time in jail or had to be treated, as soon as the treatment and/or time in prison/whatever the court decided has been served, one is back to being a regular citizen that enjoys all the privileges and rights of any citizen. Yes he has a mental health condition, but now that he served his time, he should be treated no different than others with a mental health condition. I personally wouldn’t appreciate anyone with a mental health condition to be monitored for taking their meds - even though I am med compliant, this is my own decision. I believe it is a slippery slope towards a society I would be rather scared of, if we start monitoring and controlling more intensely people that pose no immediate thread to self or others. Of course society would be safer if you put people with a past of violence away for life - it would be even safer to put everyone away for life such that no one ever has a past of violence.
The questions that arise are would he likely be a threat if not taking his meds and can we be certain he’ll stay as stable as now and med compliant?
Is it really worth the risk to the public in order to safeguard any individual rights.?
Even if you can argue he shouldn’t be forced to take meds are checks to monitor his ongoing mental health really that bad a thing for him to be subjected to?
At least with checks they would be able to intervene earlier and minimise the risk of a repeat fatal attack on an innocent bystander.
No we can’t.
This may differ among countries, but I think in many places the rule for force-feeding medication is pretty similar: indications for an immediate thread of harming oneself or others. Regular checks to monitor whether someone is taking medication or not effectively amount to indirect force-feeding medication. Accordingly, I think such measures should only be taken if there are indications of immediate thread of harm to self or others. One may ask, how do we know that if we don’t monitor? The answer is precisely how we know it in cases where there is no history of violence: friends, family, neighbours, mental health professionals. If this is not enough, the consequence would be that we’d have to monitor everyone, mentally ill or not.
One could also argue: this case is different, for this guy has a history of violence towards others. Perhaps this is the crucial point. I think merely having a history of such behavior, especially when it is followed by treatment, is no indication for an immediate thread of harming others or self.
Accordingly, I can understand there are no indications that would have him qualified for forced-medication. Compare to someone who has a history of harming him/herself: after being treated, and judged to be doing well by professionals, should such a person be force-fed medication by the mere fact of having this history?
It remains a difficult topic, and the article does not go into the court’s reasoning unfortunately. But a mere theoretical possibility without actual indication should not be a reason to limit someone’s rights I believe.
I think they will regret letting him go free
If I was stupid enough to listen to “God,” and kill and cannibalize another human being I would want to be in prison or an institution for the rest of my life. This is insane!
They also let the ■■■■■■■ change his name. This person obviously has an antisocial personality which caused him to have these thoughts in psychosis anyway. If this happened in Texas, he would be put to death. Then I would have no problem with the outcome.
I’m afraid to voice my thoughts on this… But imagine all Sz and sza lived on an island…what do we do with the cannibal Sz?.. I never have said this about another Sz before but I deeply hope he doesn’t find our nice peaceful forum…
Personally I feel if someone cut the head off of someone they sat next to on a bus without being provoked, they should not be allowed the chance for it to happen again.
Never.
‘He did his time’ is not enough, sure he gets to be free to do what he wants now, but not the guy he killed, that man was someone’s son, maybe a brother, uncle, father, grandfather to someone who now is deprived of ever getting to be with him ever again.
There is no justice for the dead guy, and he did nothing wrong to deserve this other than sitting next to someone who couldn’t control themselves, and for that, the killer should never be allowed the chance to repeat his actions on anyone else-ever. If you can’t play well with others, you have to play by yourself.
I believe those that think it’s okay to allow this killer his freedom, should also be equally responsible for any of his adverse behaviors that hurt others.
How many of you are willing to house this man in your home and take tesponsibility for him?
I’m not.