UNIT #8: Role Of Mental Illness In court Flashcards
(42 cards)
Absolute discharge
x2
(1) The defendant is released into the community without restrictions on his behaviour
(2) If defendant is not threat to
society or poses low risk for
reoffending the court or review
board can order
Actus Reus
A wrongful deed
Automatism
x2
(1) Unconscious, involuntary behaviour such that the person committing the act is not aware of what he is doing
(2) Criminal Code of Canada does not specifically address automatism as a defence; rather, judges have had to rely on their own judgment and case law when such defences are raised.
Capping
Notion introduced through Bill C-30 where there is a maximum period of time a person with a mental illness could be affected by his disposition
Community treatment order
Sentence that allows the mentally ill offender to live in the community, with the stipulation that the person will agree to treatment or the Detention in the event his condition deteriorates
Conditional discharge
x2
1) A defendant is released; however, release carries certain conditions (for example not possess firearms) that the defendant must meet.
2) Failure to meet the conditions imposed with a conditional discharge may result in the defendant being incarcerated or sent to a psychiatric facility
Diversion
A decision not to prosecute, but rather have him undergo an educational or community-service program. Also an option for the courts dealing with offenders with mental illnesses who are facing minor charges. The court can divert the offender directly into a treatment program rather than have him go through the court process
Insanity
Impairment of mental or emotional functioning that affects perceptions, Beliefs, and motivations at the time of the offence
Mens rea
Criminal intent
Prima facie case
Case in which the crown prosecutor must prove there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial.
Review Boards
Legal bodies mandated to oversee the care and disposition of defendants found unfit and/or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.
Unfit to stand trial
Refers to an inability to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings on account of a person’s mental disorder.
Rationale behind the requirement of fitness to stand trial
x4
(1) In order for individuals who are
charged with the commission of a crime to be treated fairly, they should have some understanding of the chargers and proceedings and be able to help in preparing their defence.
(2) With the enactment of Bill C-30 in 1992, section 2 of the criminal code states a fitness standard.
(3) Unable on account of mental disorder to conduct a defence at any stage of the proceedings before invert it is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so.
(4) Unable on account of mental disorder to:
(A) Understand the nature or object of the proceedings
(B) Understand the possible consequences of the proceedings
(C) Communicate with counsel
Two requirements for
criminal responsibility
x3
(1) Mens rea
(2) Actus reus
(3) Both of these elements (and the elements of the specific case) must be found
beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict to be reached
Characteristics of individuals ordered to undergo fitness examinations
x9
(1) More likely to be older females belong to a minority group and to have fewer marital resources.
(2) More African-American defendants were found incompetent compared with Caucasian defendants
(3) unemployed
(4) Had previous hospitalizations
(5) More likely to be charged with property and miscellaneous crimes rather than Violent crimes
(6) Primarily single
(7) Diagnosed as psychotic
(8) Have a current violent offence
(9) more likely to live alone
What happens to an accused when
he is found unfit for trial?
x8
(1) Proceedings are halted until
competency is restored.
(2) Defendant is reassessed for Fitness within 45 days.
(3) Judge may order the defendant be detained in a hospital or that the defendant be conditionally discharged.
(4) If defendant becomes fit he returns to court and proceedings resume.
(5) If defendant remains unfit after 90 days he is referred to a review board for assessment and
disposition.
(6) Cases of defendants who continue to be unfit are reviewed on an annual basis by the review board.
(7) Crown must prove that there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial (prima facie case) Every two years and at any time the defendant requests a proceeding.
(8) For youth found unfit, court must review the case every year instead of every two years.
Prima facie case:
x2
(1) Case in which the crown prosecutor must prove there is sufficient evidence to bring the case to trial.
(2) If court determines that sufficient evidence is no longer available to prosecute the case, case is
dropped and defendant is found not guilty.
Changes to Canadian law since
1990 regarding insanity:
In 1992, Bill C-30 was enacted
and following changes made to
the justice system:
x2
(1) Term not guilty by reason of insanity was changed to not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD).
(2) Wording of the standard was altered
and stated in section 16 of the criminal code of Canada: “no person is criminally responsible for an act committed or omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.”
Changes to Canadian law since
1990 regarding insanity:
Review boards were created:
(1) These legal bodies were mandated to oversee the care and disposition of
defendants found unfit and/or not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. Review boards were required to review each unfit and NCRMD case every year.
Changes to Canadian law since
1990 regarding insanity:
1999: Winko v. British Columbia:
x3
(1) the Supreme Court of Canada stated a defendant who is NCRMD should be detained only if he poses a criminal threat to the public; otherwise, defendant should receive an absolute discharge.
(2) Another review on justice and human rights was undertaken in 2002 concerning mental disorder provisions in the criminal code.
(3) Another review conducted in 2007 to allow for
further data collection on mental health issues and the criminal code.
Changes to Canadian law since
1990 regarding insanity:
Ruling from Supreme Court of Canada in R. V. Swain (1991):
x5
(1) Mental disorder legislation in the
criminal code wasn’t conflict with the
charter of rights and freedoms.
(2) Supreme court determined that defendants who were found not guilty by reason of insanity could not be automatically detained until their level of dangerousness was decided or an appropriate disposition was determined.
(3) Finding a defendant guilty before either of these things was done would be in conflict with the charter.
(4) Court also decided the defendant could raise the issue of his mental capacity at any point in the trial.
(5) But, crown could not do so until it had proved the crime against the defendant or until the defendant raised his mental capacity.
When can the crown raise
the issue of insanity?
x2
1.)Following a guilty Verdict,
crown could argue the defendant was
NCRMD. The situation may occur if the crown believes that the defendant requires
psychiatric treatment and a mental facility
is best suited for the defendant’s needs.
2) If the defence states that the defendant has a mental illness, the crown can then argue it.
What is the level of
proof necessary When the crown can raise the issue of insanity?
(1) The party that raises the issue
must prove it beyond a balance
of the probabilities
What happens to individuals found
not criminally responsible on account
of NCR M.D. after trial?
x3
(1) absolute discharge
(2) conditional discharge
(3) Court or review board may order the defendant be sent to a psychiatric facility.