Comments on: Who is to blame? http://lawiscool.com/2009/06/17/who-is-to-blame/?nucrss=1 The law school blog and podcast from Canada Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Amelio The http://lawiscool.com/2009/06/17/who-is-to-blame/comment-page-1/#comment-5654 Amelio The Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:42:38 +0000 http://lawiscool.com/?p=1667#comment-5654 I’m glad you brought this up, Pulat, because I think there’s a misapprehension in (at least Canadian) society about just what exactly “not criminally responsible (NCR) for reason of mental disorder” actually means. Although it’s true that those found to be NCR are not found guilty of the criminal offence, it’s not true that those found to be NCR are “off the hook”. Nor should the consequences of a NCR verdict be equated with mere treatment and release from a mental health institution. Sec. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, allows the Review Board dispositionary hearings to decide either 1) an absolute discharge, or 2) a conditional discharge, in addition to 3) custody in a mental health institution. But this same section directs these Review Boards to find the “least restrictive” disposition “need(ed) to protect the public”. Since dispositionary hearings for dispositions of custody are conducted yearly, and there’s no limit to consecutive dispositions, this could actually mean that a person with a mental disorder that makes them dangerous could be in custody for much longer than any prison term. It’s possible that the public outcry comes from lack of the stigma attached to a guilty verdict. NCR lacks the condemnation of “GUILTY”. But perhaps the disconnect in the public mind occurs when they conflate the treatment of mental disorders with curing mental disorders. Paranoid schizophrenics suffering violent delusions can be medicated – but that treatment does not necessarily remove the danger (the potential for another violent delusion) to the public. And for as long as they could still be a danger, the prerogative for custody remains. Statistics are hard to come by, but one study looking at NCR findings in B.C. between 1992-1998 reported that of the 29 individuals facing murder charges found to be NCR during that time period, only 4 were discharged and only after an average of over 3 years. What that really means is hard to say, since the numbers don’t necessarily tell their stories. But it would seem that NCR is far from a lack of consequence. Anecdotally, a judge I’ve heard speak on the topic seems to share the opinion of your crim law prof. He said that Review Boards always err on the side of caution, and that dangerous offenders of the kind as Vincent Li, are likely to spend the rest of their lives in a mental health institution. I’m glad you brought this up, Pulat, because I think there’s a misapprehension in (at least Canadian) society about just what exactly “not criminally responsible (NCR) for reason of mental disorder” actually means.

Although it’s true that those found to be NCR are not found guilty of the criminal offence, it’s not true that those found to be NCR are “off the hook”. Nor should the consequences of a NCR verdict be equated with mere treatment and release from a mental health institution.

Sec. 672.54 of the Criminal Code, allows the Review Board dispositionary hearings to decide either 1) an absolute discharge, or 2) a conditional discharge, in addition to 3) custody in a mental health institution. But this same section directs these Review Boards to find the “least restrictive” disposition “need(ed) to protect the public”. Since dispositionary hearings for dispositions of custody are conducted yearly, and there’s no limit to consecutive dispositions, this could actually mean that a person with a mental disorder that makes them dangerous could be in custody for much longer than any prison term.

It’s possible that the public outcry comes from lack of the stigma attached to a guilty verdict. NCR lacks the condemnation of “GUILTY”.

But perhaps the disconnect in the public mind occurs when they conflate the treatment of mental disorders with curing mental disorders. Paranoid schizophrenics suffering violent delusions can be medicated – but that treatment does not necessarily remove the danger (the potential for another violent delusion) to the public. And for as long as they could still be a danger, the prerogative for custody remains.

Statistics are hard to come by, but one study looking at NCR findings in B.C. between 1992-1998 reported that of the 29 individuals facing murder charges found to be NCR during that time period, only 4 were discharged and only after an average of over 3 years. What that really means is hard to say, since the numbers don’t necessarily tell their stories. But it would seem that NCR is far from a lack of consequence.

Anecdotally, a judge I’ve heard speak on the topic seems to share the opinion of your crim law prof. He said that Review Boards always err on the side of caution, and that dangerous offenders of the kind as Vincent Li, are likely to spend the rest of their lives in a mental health institution.

]]>