Thinking About the Insanity Defense: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions With Case Examples
Contents:
The meaning of the word "wrong" was determined in the Supreme Court case of R.
Thinking About the Insanity Defense
Chaulk [] 3 S. The current legislative scheme was created by the Parliament of Canada after the previous scheme was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. The new provisions also replaced the old insanity defense with the current mental disorder defence. Once a person is found not criminally responsible "NCR" , he or she will have a hearing by a Review Board within 45 days 90 days if the court extends the delay. Parties at a Review Board hearing are usually the accused, the Crown and the hospital responsible for the supervision or assessment of the accused.
A Review Board is responsible for both accused persons found NCR or accused persons found unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder. Proceedings before a Review Board are inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Often the Review Board will be active in conducting an inquiry. Where the Review Board is unable to conclude that the accused is a significant threat to the safety of the public, the review board must grant the accused an absolute discharge, an order essentially terminating the jurisdiction of the criminal law over the accused. Otherwise the Review Board must order that the accused be either discharged subject to conditions or detained in a hospital, both subject to conditions.
The conditions imposed must be the least onerous and least restrictive necessary to mitigate any danger the accused may pose to others. Since the Review Board is empowered under criminal law powers under s. Therefore, the nature of the inquiry is the danger the accused may pose to the public safety rather than whether the accused is "cured.
Moreover, the notion of "significant threat to the safety of the public" is a "criminal threat. While proceedings before a Review Board are less formal than in court, there are many procedural safe-guards available to the accused given the potential indefinite nature of Part XX.
Navigation menu
Any party may appeal against the decision of a Review Board. In when the new mental disorder provisions were enacted, Parliament included "capping" provisions which were to be enacted at a later date.
These capping provisions limited the jurisdiction of a Review Board over an accused based on the maximum potential sentence had the accused been convicted e. However, these provisions were never proclaimed into force and were subsequently repealed.
A Review Board must hold a hearing every 12 months unless extended to 24 months until the accused is discharged absolutely. The issue of mental disorder may also come into play before a trial even begins, if the accused's mental state prevents the accused from being able to appreciate the nature of a trial and to conduct a defence.
Insanity defense - Wikipedia
An accused who is found to be unfit to stand trial is subject to the jurisdiction a Review Board. While the considerations are essentially the same, there are a few provisions which apply only to unfit accused. A Review Board must determine whether the accused is fit to stand trial. Regardless of the determination, the Review Board must then determine what conditions should be imposed on the accused, considering both the protection of the public and the maintenance of the fitness of the accused or conditions which would render the accused fit.
Previously an absolute discharge was unavailable to an unfit accused. Demers, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the provision restricting the availability of an absolute discharge to an accused person who is deemed both "permanently unfit" and not a significant threat to the safety of the public. Presently a Review Board may recommend a judicial stay of proceedings in the event that it finds the accused both "permanently unfit" and non-dangerous. The decision is left to the court having jurisdiction over the accused.
An additional requirement for an unfit accused is the holding of a "prima facie case" hearing every two years. The Crown must demonstrate to the court having jurisdiction over the accused that it still has sufficient evidence to try the accused. If the Crown fails to meet this burden then the accused is discharged and proceedings are terminated. The nature of the hearing is virtually identical to that of a preliminary hearing. In the Nordic countries , insanity is not a defense; instead, it is the responsibility of the court system as such to consider whether the accused may have been psychotic or suffering from other severe mental defects when perpetrating the criminal act.
This explains why, in Norway, the court considered the sanity of Anders Behring Breivik , even if he himself declared to be sane. In Sweden, psychotic perpetrators are seen as accountable, but the sanction is, if they are psychotic at the time of the trial, forensic mental care. In Denmark and Norway, psychotic perpetrators are declared guilty, but not punished.
Account Options
Instead of prison, they are sentenced to mandatory treatment. Still, important differences exist between Norway and Denmark. In Finland, punishments can only be administered if the accused is compos mentis , of sound mind; not if the accused is insane syyntakeeton , literally "unable to guarantee [shoulder the responsibility of] guilt". Thus, an insane defendant may be found guilty based on the facts and his actions just as a sane defendant, but the insanity will only affect the punishment.
The definition of insanity is similar to the M'Naught criterion above: If an accused is suspected to be insane, the court must consult the National Institute for Health and Welfare THL , which is obliged to place the accused in involuntary commitment if he is found insane.
The offender receives no judicial punishment; he becomes a patient under the jurisdiction of THL, and must be released immediately once the conditions of involuntary commitment are no longer fulfilled. Diminished responsibility is also available, resulting in lighter sentences.
This increased coverage gives the impression that the defense is widely used, but this is not the case. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Archived from the original on Cornell University Law School. Archived from the original on 2 January Retrieved 19 December Archived from the original on 8 October Archived from the original on 2 February Retrieved 2 February Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Archived from the original on 13 January Legislative assaults and legal rejoinders".
Thinking about the insanity defense : answers to frequently asked questions with case examples
The Times, Raymond Gregory, on the advice of his lawyer, pleaded insanity in to being asleep drunk on a building site in Washington DC, USA with a pen knife in his pocket. Archived from the original on 15 November The extensive bibliography directs students and citizens interested in psychology, law, and criminal justice to further cases and analyses. The insanity defense is one of the most significant topics in psychoforensics.
Grand Eagle Retail is the ideal place for all your shopping needs!
With fast shipping, low prices, friendly service and over 1,, in stock items - you're bound to find what you want, at a price you'll love! Please view eBay estimated delivery times at the top of the listing. We are unable to deliver faster than stated. We are unable to offer combined shipping for multiple items purchased. This volume provides a clear and compelling introduction to one of the most important topics in the relation between psychology and law.
Compiled by members of a Harvard seminar, it directs attention to the issues most often raised by the general public and by students of social science and criminal justice. The frequently asked questions about the insanity defense address: The case examples illustrate a variety of outcomes and include individuals who were: The extensive bibliography directs students and citizens interested in psychology, law, and criminal justice to further cases and analyses.
The insanity defense is one of the most significant topics in psychoforensics.