As far as logic goes, would you really want to trust someone like Vince Li when a mental health professional declares him “fit to enter society?” Consider that.

Just face it. It costs a lot more to pay for the housing and rehabilitation of Vince Li (that society will never benefit from, as he’ll never be trustworthy again) than it does to pay for a lethal injection, or a 9mm round.

Vince Li was diagnosed by psychiatrists as having schizophrenia, a mental disorder which can significantly influence one’s behaviour, and which is in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (“DSM-IV”). That is why Vince Li was found not criminally responsible.

Religion, even fundamentalist religion such as that espoused by Osama Bin Laden, is not itself recognized by the DSM-IV. Assuming Osama Bin Laden does not have a mental disorder that significantly controls his behaviour, he would probably be found criminally responsible by a court of law.

Lastly, you say that, if much of the legal community believes that the victim’s family is irrational (and I am not saying that is true or false, I have no idea), then they would also believe that Vince Li’s actions are rational.

This deduction is not logically valid. Take two people: Sally and John. Let’s say that I believe that Sally likes soup. Does that mean that I necessarily believe that John doesn’t like soup? Of course not! There is no reason to infer that; it’s entirely possible that I might also believe that John likes soup. That is because the two things are not connected. Sally and John can both like soup, both not like soup, or only one can like soup.

In this case, a member of the legal community can believe that members of the victim’s family are irrational for wanting Vince Li to be punished, but I am certain that the entire legal community also believes that Vince Li acted irrationally when he killed Tim McClean.

I do not understand what you mean.

Did you mean that non-legal community who raised their voices on behalf of victim and his family is irrational ? if so, then it appears that offender’s action is rational and he should get justice, and that’s how he is legally ‘not criminally responsible’ !! do you want to say so ?

Why do Americans say that Osama Bin Laden is a criminal ? He committed a lots and lots of barbaric crimes, he can also claim that he is mentally ill, probably he is though. He can claim that God told him to kill so many evils to protect him !! and he should get the same justice!!! and you support that.

A few points I would disagree with you on though is that the non-legal community is united in favour of the concept behind “Tim’s law”. It might appear that when witnessing the screeching hysterics of internet comments.

Also I don’t think its necessary “miserable” that lawyers (disclosure: Im still just an articling student for a few more months) dont have all the clout. We have our own biases as well (that admittedly dont come into play necessarily on this issue). We are more affluent, live in safer neighbourhoods, have the resources to provide our kids with more opportunities and so on.

On the other hand we can use our skills with rational argument on issues such as this. The few hysterial folks I got into lengthy discussions on this subject retreated somewhat from their strong initial position.

That is why people should not put much store in what victims and their families want to have happen to the perpetrators. It is not only nonsensical, it is also harmful to their own rights. If victims have a say in the punishment, society will have to start expecting them to be rational, just, and fair to avoid chaos.

I also agree with all that has been said by commenters above.

It is really interesting that in this case, the non-legal community is practically united against a practically unanimous legal community that thinks along our lines. It is rather miserable that the non-legal community has a great deal more electoral clout. This results, for example, the imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing, which the legal community is mostly agreed doesn’t achieve any of its alleged purposes.

I’m worried that ‘Tim’s Law’ may be considered an actual possibility by the political powers that be because of the extent of public outrage over this.

I have been nothing short of appalled by the comments I’m seeing on news sites reporting this story.

For a change of pace, check out this article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090306.wli0307/BNStory/National/home

No social objective is served by “punishing” the mentally ill who would have commited a crime butfor their lack of mens rea. You can’t deter people from not doing things they have no control over and it makes no sense to denounce involuntary behavioiur. The public safety objective is served by the Mental Health Review Board.

Its pretty sick. Medievil bloodlust and little more. Its pretty sad that people living centuries ago recognized the futility of “punishing” for punishmets sake but so many today dont.