Tyree Smith, from Bridgeport, Connecticut, killed a homeless man and then ate his brain and eyeballs. Ten years after being committed to a state psychiatric hospital for 60, he has been released.

A man who killed and ate a man has been released back into public life after ten years.

Tyree Smith, from Bridgeport, Connecticut, killed a homeless man and then ate his brain and eyeballs according to officials.

The horrific case made headline news, with Smith found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity after a July 2013 trial.

In lieu of a stint behind bars, Smith was ordered committed to a state psychiatric hospital for 60 years.

But now, ten years after the grim incident, the state Psychiatric Security Review Board said Smith was ready to be transitioned back into the community.

Smith has been released from the facility, Connecticut’s most secure, as of writing.

He will be living in a Waterbury group home, and is not allowed to associate with anyone involved in criminal activity.

The board stated in its report: “Tyree Smith is an individual with a psychiatric illness requiring care, custody and treatment.

“Since his last hearing Tyree Smith has continued to demonstrate clinical stability.

“Mr. Smith is medication compliant, actively engaged in all recommended forms of treatment, and has been symptom-free for many years.”

During the trial, Smith’s cousin Nicole Rabb claimed he arrived at her Connecticut home in December 2011, talking about Greek gods and ruminating about needing to go out and get blood.

When she saw him the next evening she noticed what appeared to be specks of blood on his pants and that he was carrying chopsticks and a bloody ax.

Smith then allegedly told Rabb he killed a man and ate his brains in the Lakeview Cemetery while drinking sake, and grimly warned he intended to eat more people.

A month later, police found Angel Gonzalez’s mutilated body in the vacant apartment on Brooks Street in Bridgeport where Smith had lived as a child.

Police later recovered the bloody ax and an empty bottle of sake in a stream bed near the Boston Avenue cemetery.

The defense’s case rested on the testimony of Yale University psychiatrist Dr. Reena Kapoor, who testified that Smith had kept his lust for human flesh after his arrest, even offering to eat her.

Kapoor claimed Smith suffered from psychotic incidents since childhood and heard voices that told him to kill people.

She then said the voices ordered Smith to eat the victim’s brain so they would get a better understanding of human behavior and the eyes so that they could see into the “spirit realm.”

Kapoor added that Smith went to Subway after eating the man’s body parts.

The report on Smith’s release said: “He denied experiencing cravings but stated that if they were to arise, he would reach out to his hospital and community supports and providers.”

  • Mister_Rogers@kbin.social
    2·
    1 year ago

    The American punitive view vs. a rehabilitative one is terrifyingly real in these comments. It was an awful awful thing that happened, and he should be monitored the rest of his life, but if it is determined by medical professionals (a.k.a. not you) then he deserves to lead a full life, and have the opportunity to contribute to a society that he caused harm too instead of being a cost to taxpayers everywhere for the rest of his life, while he is medicated and able to rejoin society, that harms everyone even more in the long run.

    This man should have had the health supports he needed before this ever happened, likely something exacerbated by the US medical system.

    Also to dispel some common myths:

    • Due to legal fees, it costs significantly MORE to sentence someone to death in the US (sidenote, also one of the few 1st world countries still conducting the backwards barbaric practice), than the cost of them continuing to serve life in prison; it is not the “cheap” option.
    • Insanity pleas on average 1) yield longer sentences in mental facilities than similar cases where there was no insanity plea, b) if not successful in getting an insanity sentence yield longer jail sentences on average. From a criminal judicial standpoint, there is very rarely any advantage to pleading insanity, and it’s even rarer still that someone actually gets it when they were not in fact insane. The testing, and level of evidence needed far exceeds what you can gather from a casual read and comment online. It is a hugely rare thing legally, we just tend to hear about them as they’re represented in the media at disproportionate rates compared to standard trials.

    To all my American friends, not shitting on you, you’re a wonderful country, of largely wonderful people, but with some bad bad bad policies that I hope will improve in coming years.

    Love,

    Your hat.