On February 10, 2017, the man formerly known as Vince Li, infamous for beheading a fellow passenger on a Greyhound bus in 2008, was given an absolute discharge.

Li will be continuing his life, unsupervised and in the community, as Will Lee Baker.

When it happened, the Greyhound bus incident made international headlines. It was a gruesome, unthinkable crime that happened for no apparent reason. As time as gone on, more details have emerged. 

The incident occurred on the evening of July 30, 2008. On that date, Will Baker was riding a Greyhound bus, travelling from Edmonton to Winnipeg. Twenty-two year old Tim McLean was on the same bus. He sat beside Baker for at least a portion of the journey. 

According to witnesses, it was just west of Portage la Prairie, when Baker suddenly produced a machete-like knife and began stabbing McLean as he slept in the seat beside him. The bus pulled over, allowing passengers to exit, while Baker remained inside with McLean. Passengers and first responders report bearing witness to an unimaginable scene of horror.

Baker was eventually captured after a long stand off with police—but his capture did not come easy. He was shot with a Taser twice before being handcuffed. 

McLean’s ear, nose, and tongue were found in Baker’s pockets. He was decapitated. His eyes and heart were never located and are presumed to have been cannibalized by Baker while still on the bus. 

Now, less than a decade later, Baker is a free man, with all of the same rights, protections, and liberties as anyone else.  

The decision to grant Baker an absolute discharge was not handed down by a court, but rather by the Manitoba Criminal Review Board. 

The Manitoba Criminal Review Board is compromised of 10 members, each of whom are appointed by cabinet. The stipulation of these appointments is that at least one member must be a psychiatrist. Members of the board are responsible for making and reviewing dispositions concerning any accused person who is found to be not criminally responsible for their crimes due to a mental defect or disorder or who is unfit to stand trial. 

The Manitoba Criminal Review Board has been responsible for overseeing Baker's living arrangements and access to the community since he was declared not criminally responsible for his actions in 2008. 

This finding was made due to the fact that Baker suffers from schizophrenia. At the time of the attack, he was unmedicated and untreated. 

Since the offence, Baker has been in a supervised treatment program and is regularly taking medication. He has described by his doctors as a model patient. 

Since 2010, he has been awarded increasing liberties within his treatment centre. First, he was granted supervised outdoor walks. From there, he was granted additional liberties up until last week, when he was awarded an absolute discharge.

This means that Baker is free to live in the community, independently and unsupervised, without any restrictions placed on his liberty or safeguards in place for his continued treatment whatsoever. 

The board gave Baker a discharge after hearing testimony from mental-health professionals, allowing them to come to the conclusion that he no longer posed a substantial risk to the public.

But in spite of Baker's recovery, the haunting echoes of his terrible crime continued to reverberate through the community. 

In July, 2014, one of the first officers to respond to this incident committed suicide. 

Cpl. Ken Barker, an RCMP officer with over two decades of service, took his own life.  His family reported that he was suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder and that he was struggling to come to terms with the brutal crime that he had witnessed on July 30, 2008.

The continued effect that this crime has had on McLean's friends, family, and other community members is also incomprehensible. The decision to grant Baker a discharge must be a difficult one for them to digest. 

But at the end of the day, this decision comes down to a delicate balancing of individual liberties and community protection. The moral implications of this are difficult and convoluted.

If Baker's doctors, and a specialized board, feel that he has made a full recovery and can be safely released and live a normal, unsupervised life, who are we to say that he should not be.?

Still, though, it is natural to worry about the implications of the board's decision. What if Baker stops taking his medication? Or decides that continued treatment is unnecessary? What if something like this happens all over again? 

The world is full of "what ifs". 

We have no other choice but to rely on experts, doctors, specialized boards and government-appointed officials to make important decisions like these.

But at the end of the day, we still need assurances. 

There need to be assurances that this will not happen again. Baker's offence was a serious one that must continue to be dealt with on a serious basis.

We have already seen the awful consequences of this individual untreated and unmedicated. The protection of the public is of the utmost importance—but, unfortunately, this concept appears to be in direct conflict with the recovery process of a mentally ill patient and his ability to live a productive, well-adjusted life in the future.

The board is convinced that Baker will continue treatment on his own accord and that he will not pose a threat to public safety again.

All we can do is hope they are right.