Mental health, punishment, security and a soft on crime bleeding heart liberal

A man pushes three teens in the path of a subway train. The accused "lived a normal life until a year ago, when he was prescribed medication for depression". And he had "no criminal record, had been experiencing "auditory hallucinations" before the incident."

But the accused, who is locked up in a mental institution and may be a danger to himself, is to stand trial because he likely understood the nature of his actions.

Should society be protected from the accused? You bet! Should the accused be locked up in a secure site? Yup. Should we try the accused for, say, attempt murder? Nope.

The criminal system works (sort of) for people who choose to commit crimes. The threat of punishment deters, for example, the social drinker from having a beer too many and driving home. But it doesn't deter a drug addict who looks to their next fix and that's the only event horizon that matters.

As for someone with "auditory hallucinations", well, let's get real -- is he someone who will rationally weigh his options and decide something in accordance with moral principles? The crime itself, a random attack on unknown teens, discloses madness.

The problem with pointing out these obvious issues is that there is an assumption that any recognition of mental health issues in the law means soft on crime bleeding heart liberals are in charge. That's because there is a confusing between punishment (which assumes a wicked choice was freely taken) and security (which assumes no such thing).

I want a safe society. I don't want to be pushed in front of a subway train. I don't want to see people hit by a train (I saw it once and that's enough to last a lifetime).

That means let's stop the charade of trials and sentences for the mentally disturbed. Let's recognize the reason to lock them away is safety and not morality.

Then, yes, once safety concerns are met, release the prisoner. But until then keep the prisoner secure.

Charges to proceed on alleged subway pusher ANTHONY REINHART Globe and Mail

A Toronto man accused of trying to kill three teenagers by pushing them in front of a subway in February has mental health problems, but they would not have stopped him from appreciating the nature of his actions at the time of the incident, his lawyer said Friday.

This means criminal proceedings are likely to go ahead against Adenir DeOliveira, 47, who is charged with the attempted murder of the three boys at the Dufferin subway station on Feb. 13.

Mr. DeOliveira is alleged to have approached the boys from behind and shoved them towards an approaching train. Two of the boys tumbled to the tracks, and one, who is 14, pulled his friend, 15, to safety under the lip of the platform. The 15-year-old suffered a serious injury to his foot.

Since then, Mr. DeOliveira has been in custody, and for the past several weeks, underwent a psychiatric assessment at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

A 36-page report on the assessment, which will become public once it is entered as evidence at trial, "suggests psychiatric issues, but not a lack of criminal responsibility" on Mr. DeOliveira's part, his lawyer, Ian Kostman, said after a brief appearance at Old City Hall courts today.

"It looks as if we're moving in the direction of a trial," Mr. Kostman said. He did not seek bail and conceded to the Crown's request to keep the accused in jail to await pre-trial proceedings.

Citing the CAMH report, Mr. Kostman also asked that Mr. DeOliveira be monitored while in jail because he "may be a threat to himself." Court previously heard that Mr. DeOliveira, who has no criminal record, had been experiencing "auditory hallucinations" before the incident.

A police source has said the accused, who owns a small lawn-sprinkling business, had lived a normal life until a year ago, when he was prescribed medication for depression. He is next scheduled to appear in court, by video link, on April 9.

James Morton