Let's remind ourselves of the realities of the justice system - Vince Li is freely walking around after murdering and eating a fellow Greyhound bus rider
So something he did while in a psychotic state.......one that is now treated, and one that his doctors have sworn they believe will not recur, is something he should be punished for for the rest of his life?
, the supreme court said consecutive life terms for multiple murders is terribly unfair to the little misunderstood dears
You're editorializing a wee bit. There is a way, if you believe someone is likely to be an ongoing danger, to preclude their release; the crown has to move to have the accused classified as a dangerous offender.
Moreover, life in prison is not a 100% guarantee of parole; it comes with eligibility for parole after 25 years. There are offenders, from prior to the dangerous offender legislation, who have never been released.
Clifford Olsen, a notorious serial killer from an earlier era, convicted in 1982 for his crimes, never was paroled.
What the Court was ruling on was making it impossible for people to even ask for parole; and it was right to rule the law unconstitutional, which it was, on its face.
Letting people ask for parole does not mean giving it to them.
, bail is mandatory including for someone who throws flammable liquid on a random transit rider then sets them alight (but of course that is speculation because of publication ban - got to protect the accused at all costs).
Also not correct. Publication bans are broadly used for 2 reasons, one is to protect the identify of victims and witnesses and the other is to protect the integrity of the justice system. How do we know police have the right person? (to be clear, I strongly suspect they do); but the point is; someone is innocent until proven guilty, which means that if they may ask for a jury trial, you need to find a jury who hasn't already made up their mind.
In rare circumstances, publications bans may directly protect the accused (or their family) if there is a belief they may be at imminent risk of harm or for some other extenuating reason, but those are the exception, not the rule.
Given that an 'accused' has not yet been found guilty, depriving them of their freedom is something to be done with the greatest of caution (otherwise we run the risk of jailing a lot of innocent people); in this case, given the nature of the incident I find bail unlikely, but either way, we shouldn't draw premature conclusions.
Let's not forget all those frequent flier shooters and youthful thugs who know they can't be held accountable for the chaos and injury they cause. How do victims of crime get on with their lives when the justice system lets them down so badly, so casually and so often?
Would you mind providing evidence to support that.......is that even an anecdote?
I don't mean to be unkind, but I like opinions to be supported by evidence and fact, and see a shortage of that here.