Crespin if thats what she means then maybe thats OK (but still not what I would say but thats just me as I dont offer such a blanket cover of my views, I would take the case step by step etc) Anyway lol I dont think it was meant that way that you said Crespin, but hopefully she will be on here soon so she can verify it herself  :)

> How many people can convince the judge, lawyer that they were not right at the time so they can get off more easily?

In the UK they would be assessed by a psychiatrist and they would present their findings to the jury.  I would imagine it is the same in Canada.  I doubt many of us would possess the knowledge and skills to hoodwind a professional where we might manage it with a layman.

> Crespin if thats what she means then maybe thats OK (but still not what I would say but thats just me as I dont offer such a blanket cover of my views, I would take the case step by step etc) Anyway lol I dont think it was meant that way that you said Crespin, but hopefully she will be on here soon so she can verify it her

Rach - thats the way I read it too that she meant if the killer was a member of her family not about the family of the killer

> well i read them differently than you, the nature of posts rather than speech

Yes I think sometimes that is the problem when you type something, it can be interpreted in different ways :-)

bloodly hell what is the world coming too?

In the UK they would be assessed by a psychiatrist and they would present their findings to the jury.  I would imagine it is the same in Canada.  I doubt many of us would possess the knowledge and skills to hoodwind a professional where we might manage it with a layman

Thats very true Isabel :)

In regards to something mentioned earlier to which Isabels post was a reply to, they dont have to convince the jury etc, its about proving that someone was either of mind or not when committing the crime.
Assumption is the mother of all f*** ups as they say and no one shoud assume this man will go down to jail for the crime as from what I can gather I have no doubt he will be sectioned and not jailed, but thats just me!

> Assumption is the mother of all f*** ups as they say and no one shoud assume this man will go down to jail for the crime as from what I can gather I have no doubt he will be sectioned and not jailed, but thats just me!

I agree Rach and at this point we are all speculating as none of us were there, I don't really think this thread is just about this crime in particular more about our individual beliefs about people who commit crimes like this. I think it was Lea that said earlier that she hopes the person that committed the crime is insane because it would be even scarier to think there was someone of that pure evil out there and I agree with her.

To put it another way how would you feel if the person that committed this crime was found to be of sane mind?
Would you be happy for them to spend time in prison and then released back into the community, bearing in mind that the people of Canada would be paying for their stay and because of the severity of the crime they would probably (again speculating) be given a new identity when they were released which all costs alot of money :-(

> I don't really think this thread is just about this crime in particular more about our individual beliefs about people who commit crimes like this.

That has certainly been the only thing I am debating.  I can't understand why people keep going off on a tangent describing how awful the event was or whether it seems likely he did it.  I can't see that either of those things are in the least bit contested by anyone.  The only thing under any kind of debate is what is the appropriate way to treat offenders that are found to be insane.

> Would you be happy for them to spend time in prison and then released back into the community, bearing in mind that the people of Canada would be paying for their stay and because of the severity of the crime they would probably (again speculating) be given a new identity when they were released which all costs alot of money :-(

The cost doesn't come into it to my mind.  Assuming he is found to be insane, personally I doubt he would ever be deemed safe to live without being closely supervised, but if there was a miracle cure then why shouldn't he be protected.  He would be a victim of his insanity too.  Personally, I would think it shameful that he would need protection but no doubt he would from some sections of society.

> That has certainly been the only thing I am debating.  I can't understand why people keep going off on a tangent describing how awful the event was or whether it seems likely he did it.  I can't see that either of those things are in the least bit contested by anyone.  The only thing under any kind of debate is what is the appropriate way to treat offenders that are found to be insane.
>

Most people talk about how horrible it was because the crime itself was horrific!!!

> The cost doesn't come into it to my mind.  Assuming he is found to be insane, personally I doubt he would ever be deemed safe to live without being closely supervised, but if there was a miracle cure then why shouldn't he be protected.  He would be a victim of his insanity too.  Personally, I would think it shameful that he would need protection but no doubt he would from some sections of society.

I was asking how you would feel if he wasn't insane?
Humans feel emotions and many people would feel upset/angry at having someone (if we are saying he was sane) released and living in the same town as them.

> Most people talk about how horrible it was because the crime itself was horrific!!!

Indeed, but people keep returning to it as though it was a matter of debate.  The level of horror has no bearing on the ethics that are in debate here.

> I was asking how you would feel if he wasn't insane?

Again, that has never been contested.  I don't think a single poster has put forward the idea that the sane should not be punished, in fact I know I have actually stated that, so what is the point in keep putting it forward for debate?

To put it another way how would you feel if the person that committed this crime was found to be of sane mind? Would you be happy for them to spend time in prison and then released back into the community, bearing in mind that the people of Canada would be paying for their stay and because of the severity of the crime they would probably (again speculating) be given a new identity when they were released which all costs alot of money 

If this man is sane, it would make us have to look deeper into the human mind.  What thoughts would a sane person have before killing someone?  I think most of us hope he is insane, because if not, then its a scarier prospect.  Like, if a sane person can do that, then what is this world about?  I think if he is found insane, then it also gives the human population something to blame.  I am not saying blame is something that should be done, as people with mental illness already have a hard time with assumptions/stereotypes, but we as humans want to blame something for everything.  If he is found to suffer from a mental illness, than it is that mental illness which is to blame.  We as humans, the majority of them anyways, would then think "all of the people that have x wrong with them, are killers".  Sad but true.

And even though you wouldnt verbalize it, in a blaming manner, most posts here are hoping he is insane.  That a sane person couldnt do this.  We are wanting a REASON. 

Even when released, high profile killers, are never alone.  For example, Karla Halmolka (sp) was recently released from prison, after she made a deal with the prosecuters to testify against her partner.  It was later discovered, that her role was more than she let on, and she indeed was a willing participant in the killing of 3 girls, one of which being her own sister.  Now she was just released, after 12 years in prison.  Media is following her everywhere. 

But no one wants people who kill people out on the streets.  There is no way, this guy who killed Tim Mclean is going to be away forever.  He will be out no later than 25 years.  So, unless he is declared a dangerous offender, he will be walking our streets again. 

Rach 85: Dolface I highlighted a bit of your sentence there cause made me think, are you saying that you wouldnt let the family round you as you think they are all killers because their son is?
You really think the whole family will one by one start cutting peoples heads off?
I seriously hope the family never ever ever hear such words from anyone, its terrible enough their son did this crime ill minded or not, but to accuse the family of being the same and able to do the same thing??
So So So wrong....   

What I ment even if that was my family being a brother, father, sister what have you that did this I would not want that particular person anywhere near me or my family cause I would never trust them- you would never know when they might crack-

This man has said just kill me now because of what he did- he obviously knows what he did and doesn't want to live with what he did....

If that was my child that was murdered like that- I won't even go there, personally I wouldn't care whether he was sane or insane I would want to see this man punished for the crime he did with his own two hands- he decapitated an innocent person and started eating him! Stabbed him like over 50 times- took his head off and continued to mutilate his body- like I would ever want someone like that being released into the world- how would you feel knowing this person was your neighbour- would you ever feel safe? Look at how many child molesters are released and reaffend- come on, just sick :(

In regards to something mentioned earlier to which Isabels post was a reply to, they dont have to convince the jury etc, its about proving that someone was either of mind or not when committing the crime.

If it goes to trial:

In a jury of 12, he needs one person to listen and vote to aquit.  They need a unanimous vote to convict.  The defense only has to try to give reasonable doubt in one person.  All he has to do, is have one person say "ok because of x piece of evidence, it could have been someone else".  There is reasonable doubt. 

Let us hope that there isnt that one person. 

If the hearing shows the man wasnt of sane mind:

There will be doctors, therapists, etc etc for both sides.  One saying he is sane, the other saying, he was insane.  Then a judge will make a decision.  Both sides will have reasonable, believeable arguements, but only one decision. 

I would hate to have to be his lawyer :(

I was just wondering you get a lawyer but he feels your guilty would they still take on the case or ask them to find someone else? Never really understand this lawyer stuff I was asked to be a jury many years ago but got out of it, had a weee one at the time and also pregnant and really had no time to be doing it- took a bit but they let me get out of it- I really had no one to watch our child ect ect would have been interesting though- wish I could have been there.

The cost doesn't come into it to my mind.  Assuming he is found to be insane, personally I doubt he would ever be deemed safe to live without being closely supervised, but if there was a miracle cure then why shouldn't he be protected.  He would be a victim of his insanity too.  Personally, I would think it shameful that he would need protection but no doubt he would from some sections of society.

Isabel that is one of the best posts on here, hits it right on the head.

I think we will all be different in how we would treat this person after wards or anyone who does this sort of crime, but money should be the last thing on anyones minds when the freedom of a possibly ill man lies at stake.

I was just wondering you get a lawyer but he feels your guilty would they still take on the case or ask them to find someone else?

From what I have read, through schooling, about lawyers and such, they still need to take on the case if they are from legal aid.  Even if they know the person is guilty, they still have to represent them as best they can to try and aquit. 
If they are being paid (like a private attorney) then they can say that they arent going to take on the case. 

But most likely, the lawyer will be from legal aid, as it looks like the court is going to have to appoint one for him. 

> I think we will all be different in how we would treat this person after wards or anyone who does this sort of crime,

Very true!

> money should be the last thing on anyones minds when the freedom of a possibly ill man lies at stake.

If the perpetrator is ill then of course it would be looked at in a more sympathetic way but alot of people I speak to when campaigning about sentancing etc say that they feel they are paying their taxes to support peoples stay in prison and the majority (unless they are wealthy) feel annoyed about this. Obviously that will not be everyones view but just the view of the people I have discussed it with.