Forensics Flashcards
List some evaluation tools that can be used to assess fitness to stand trial
● McGarry’s criteria
● Fitness Interview Tests - Revised (FIT-R)
● The Nussbaum Fitness Questionnaire (NFQ)
● Georgia Court Competency Screening Test, Canadian Adaptation
what was the relevance of the case Regina vs. Taylor
Canadian Supreme Court case where accused was unable to communicate need for counsel due to mental health reasons which ruled in favor of accused and leading to the standards of fitness to stand trial
what are the two components of a crime
Actus Reus
Mens Rea
both must be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt
what is Actus Reus
guilty act
what is Mens Rea
guilty mind
who bears the burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal prosecution
the party that raises the issue
what is the legal basis for NCRMD
(Criminal code of Canada)
● No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an 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
● Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities
● Burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue
what is the McNaughten Rule
a PRESUMPTION OF SANITY unless the defense proved that “at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a DEFECT OF REASON, from DISEASE OF THE MIND, as not to know the NATURE AND QUALITY of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong”
what must happen before someone can be found NCR
must be first found guilty of the act
how is someone managed once they are found NCR
● Two main questions:
○ Does the person pose a significant threat?
○ If so, how can the threat be reasonably managed
● If there is a threat, then disposition must be the least onerous and least restrictive available
● Dispositions:
○ Absolute discharge - “not a significant threat to safety of the public”
○ If a threat then least onerous / restrictive:
■ Conditional discharge
■ Detained in hospital
what is the significance of the case of Winko vs BC
ruled that treatment can be forced on someone that poses a significant threat to public (the accused appealed against the forced treatment)
list 4 assessment tools for violence risk
○ HCR-20 V3 (historical clinical risk)
○ VRAG (violence risk assessment guide)
○ PCL-R (psychopathy checklist)
○ McArthur - Iterative Classification Tree
how do recidivism rates compare between those found NCR and those released from general prison population and who did not receive forensic care
general population re-offends TWICE AS OFTEN as those found NCR (at 3 year follow up)
NCR recidivism for any offense is 17% compared to general prison pop 34%
what is the most common mental illness in those found NCR
psychotic disorder
who is on a review board
Review board is usually chaired by a lawyer the other members will include psychiatrist and public member (odd numbers of 3 or 5 members total)
○ Review board is federally legislation but provincial boards
○ Quasi Judicial Tribunals
what is the paramount consideration that the review board considers when making a disposition for someone found NCR
the SAFETY of the public is PARAMOUNT
what does the review board consider when making a disposition for someone who is NCR
○ the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration
○ the mental condition of the accused
○ the reintegration of the accused into society
○ the other needs of the accused
where does a duty to protect/warn exist
○ in the event that risk to a clearly identifiable person or group of persons is determined
○ when the risk of harm includes severe bodily injury, death, or serious psychological harm
○ when there is an element of imminence, creating a sense of urgency
what are the legal cases related to duty to warn
● Tarasoff case was the index case in US for duty to warn
● Smith vs. Jones is Canadian case to protect public safety
is there a MANDATED duty to warn in canada
short answer, NO, we dont HAVE to but we are protected if we DO
Canadian courts have not expressly imposed a mandatory “duty to warn” on physicians to alert third parties of a danger posed by patients. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a physician was permitted to warn police when aware of the serious, imminent danger posed by a patient to an identifiable group against whom the patient had made specific threats.3
The Supreme Court recognized that physicians may disclose confidential patient information in the limited and exceptional circumstances in which they have reason to believe there is an imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death to an identifiable person or group. The Court, however, expressly refused to address whether physicians had a mandatory “duty to warn” in the context of the doctor-patient relationship.
Tarasoff I (1974) - duty to warn - the court held that a therapist bears a duty to use reasonable care to give threatened persons such warning as are essential to avert foreseeable danger arising from a patient’s condition–> this was in the USA
Tarasoff II (1976) - duty to protect - “The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.”
what is the difference between competency and capacity
competency–> legal term, determined by the legal system
capacity–> determined by clinician in clinical assessment
