Mental Illness Flashcards
How do you establish guilt?
Actus reus:
Wrongful deed
Mens rea:
Criminal intent
Both of these elements and elements of the case must e found beyond a reasonable doubt for a guilty verdict to be reached.
-Requires that defendant understands charge(s) and can participate meaningfully in proceedings.
Issues of insanity, automatism, and mental disorders all call into question these basic 2 elements.
Unift to stand trial
What case stated that an unfit person could not be sentenced?
If Unfit to Stand Trial, defendant unable to conduct a defence at any stage of proceedings on account of mental disorder
Fit to stand trial
What is the precedence for fitness standard?
If fit, individuals charged with crime expected to understand nature of proceedings and assist with defence
R. v. Prichard (1836)
What case stated that an unfit person could not be sentenced?
R v. Balliram:
Fitness must be restored for defendant to be tried and sentenced.
Historically what was the criteria set forth by the R v. Prichard case for fitness to stand trial?
Whether defendant is mute of malice ie. intentionality
Whether defendant can plead
Whether defendant has sufficient cognitive capacity to understand trial proceedings
Legislation of fitness to stand trial
With the enactment of Bill C-30 (1992), Criminal Code (s. 2) states:
Defendant is found to be unfit if he or she is unable, due to a mental disorder, to
understand the nature of the proceedings,
understand the consequences of the proceedings, or
communicate with counsel.
*Before a verdict is rendered
Changes to the fitness legislation in 1992
R v. Taylor (1992) - “best interest” criterion too strict
Defendant need only be able to tell counsel the facts relating to the offence
Bill C30 Information
Stated terms of fitness to stand trial
Provision in R v. Taylor
Length of time a defendant could be detained:
5-day limit with provisions, if necessary
Extension not to exceed 20 days
With extensions, entire stay should not exceed 60 days
*Avg 3 weeks, 88% inpatient (Roesch et al, 1997)
Legal issues regarding fitness level
Issue of fitness raised at various stages from arrest to sentence determination
In Canada, only medical practitioners can conduct court-ordered assessments:
Criminal code of Canada states that a defendant is assumed to be fit unless the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities to prove unfit
Defence or Crown can raise issue of unfitness: that party must prove
In US (& others) “competency” “Incompetent to stand trial”
Fitness Instruments
Screening instruments help evaluators quickly screen out defendants who are competent to stand trial. Various formats: Checklists Self-report questionnaires Sentence-completion tasks Interview-based techniques
Full assessment follows
Types of fitness instruments
Fitness Interview Test-Revised (FIT-R); : Semi- Structured Interview-based
Competency Screening Test (CST):Sentence-completion task
MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA): Interview-based (with criterion-based scoring)
FIT-R
Developed by psychologists at SFU
Fitness Interview Test Revised:
Designed to to meet fitness criteria in CAD criminal code
30-min semi-structured interview; Each response rated: 0 (no/little impairment) 1 (moderate impairment) 2 (severe impairment)
FIT-R: Section 1
Criminal Code: Understand the nature or object of the proceedings
Factual Knowledge of Criminal Procedure
Focus on criteria of understanding the nature or object of the proceedings
Items:
1. Understanding the arrest process
2. Understanding of nature and severity of current charge
3. Understanding of the role of key participants
4. Understanding of the legal process
5. Understanding of the pleas
6. Understanding of court procedure
FIT-R: Section 2
Understand the possible consequences of the proceedings
Appreciation of Personal Involvement in and Importance of the Proceedings
Focus is on criteria of understanding possible consequences of proceedings
Items:
7. Appreciation of range and nature of possible penalties
8. Appraisal of available legal defenses
9. Appraisal of likely outcome
FIT-R: Section 3
Communicate with counsel:
Ability to Participate in Defence
Focus is on ability to communicate with counsel
Items:
10. Capacity to communicate facts to lawyer
11. Capacity to relate to lawyer
12. Capacity to plan legal strategy
13. Capacity to engage in own defense
14. Capacity to challenge prosecution witnesses
15. Capacity to testify relevantly
16. Capacity to manage courtroom behaviour
CST
Competency Screening Test: Developed at Harvard Medical School Goal: minimize lengthy stays for inpatient evaluations 22 incomplete sentences developed to identify defendants who are clearly competent 0 = incompetent 1 = marginally competent 2 = competent Focus on legal abilities
25 min
High false positive rates
MacCAT-CA
MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool- Criminal Adjudication
20-55 mins to administer
3 sections to assess:
Understanding the legal system and legal processes
Reasoning Ability
Appreciation of own legal situation and circumstances
22 items
16 involve answering questions about brief vignette
8 2-part questions (understanding)
8 questions about facts considered relevant (reasoning)
6 questions about defendant’s specific circumstances (appreciation)
All rated 0, 1, or 2
Unfit Defendant
Demographics: young never married unemployed living alone male Criminological: more likely charged with a violent offence less likely to have a prior arrests
Differences between fit and unfit accused?
Demographics:
living alone
transient
living in a hotel at time of offence
Criminological: no diff. in offence type no diff. in seriousness of crime Mental Health psychosis history of psychiatric hospitalization
After finding unfitness..?
Either detained in hospital or conditionally discharged
Proceedings halted until fit
–Reassessed within 45 days
Defendant proves to be unfit after 90 days- review board
For defendants who continue to be unfit, Crown must prove that there is enough evidence to continue if fitness restored
-Prima facie case ( every 2 year review)
R v. Demers
Supreme court of Canada ruled that the inability of the courts review boards to issue and absolute discharge due to the defendants who are unlikely to become fit and who pose no significant threat to society could not be detained because it was in violation under section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms (Bill c-10)
Bill C10
If unlikely to become fit, court can stay proceedings according to Bill C-10 if:
Accused is unlikely ever to become fit
Accused does not pose a significant threat to public safety
Stay of proceedings is in interests of administration of justice
Does not provide review board with the ability of absolute discharge only the courts have this power
Restoring Fitness
Do we have the right to refuse medication?
Medication
YES- indefinitely hospitalized
Insanity
Not being of sound mind
Being mentally deranged and irrational (Sykes, 1982)
Legally, insanity removes responsibility of performing an act because of uncontrollable impulses or delusions
-Removes free will
2 cases that have shaped insanity:
James Hadfield: Criminal Lunatics Act (1800)
Daniel McNaughton
McNaughton Standard
Substantive Elements of Defence:
A defect of reason, from disease of the mind
Do not “know” nature and quality of act you are committing
Do not know that what you are doing is wrong
S. 16 of the Criminal Code
No person is criminally responsible for 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 of knowing that it was wrong.
What does it mean to “know it was wrong”?
R. v. Chaulk (1990)
Facts:
Accused were convicted of first degree murder Unsuccessfully argued for insanity defence
Issue:
Meaning of the word “wrong” in S. 16
Does this mean knowing that the criminal action was legally wrong, morally wrong, or both?
Decision:
Crown must show that accused knew what s/he was doing was morally wrong
