Week 11 - Mental illness + Juries Flashcards
Mental disorders associated with criminal conduct
- Schizophrenic disorders
- Paranoid or delusional disorders
- Mood disorders (major depression)
- Antisocial personality disorder
Correlation is stronger, but does not make them prone to committing crime
Elements of criminal guilt
Actus Reus: A wrongful deed
- Objective component
- Based on evidence
Mens Rea: Criminal intent
- Subjective component
Beyond a reasonable doubt
- Standard of proof required in all criminal proceedings
- It is proof that is just short of absolute certainty
- In evidence, it means fully satisfied, entirely convinced, satisfied to a moral certainty
Preponderance of the evidence
- Standard of proof for civil suits, fitness to stand trial, insanity defence
- Proof that one side has more evidence in its favour than the other
unfit to stand trial (UST)
Unable, on account of mental disorder, to conduce a defence at any stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered or to instruct counsel to do so
Usually on account of mental disorder to…
- Understand the nature or object of the proceedings;
- Understand the possible consequences of the proceedings; or
- Communicate with counsel
R. v. Demers and Bill C-10
If an accused is unlikely to ever become fit to stand trial, does not pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, and a stay of proceedings is in the interests of the proper administration of justice, a court now has the authority to order an absolute discharge
How is UST assessed?
- Medical practitioners or other professionals designated by the Attorney General
- Fitness Interview Test Revised (FIT-R)
- Develop to meet the fitness criteria outlined in the Canadian Criminal Code
- Semi-structured interview
- Several other fitness instruments, such as the Competency screening test (CST), MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MacCAT-CA)
Unfit defendants are more likely to have/be
- Psychotic disorders
- Unemployment
- Previous hospitalizations
What happens after a finding of unfitness?
- Proceedings are halted until competency is restored
- Detained in a hospital or conditionally discharged
- Reassessment within 45 days
If fit: proceedings resume
If unfit: after 90 days, refer to a review board for assessment and disposition; then re-assessed on a yearly basis; Crown must make a prima facie case every two years or at the request of the defendant
Prima facie case
- The crown must prove that there is enough evidence to continue the trial if the suspect is found fit
- If sufficient evidence is no longer available, the case is dropped and the defendant is found not guilty
To find a person NCRMD (the McNaughton standard)…
- The defendant must suffer from a mental disorder
- The defendant must fail to appreciate the nature or quality of their act (or omission)
- The person may understand what they are doing but might not believe it to be wrong
Issue of insanity
- Few defendant use this defence
- Success rate is around 25%
- By default, unless the defence raises the issue of insanity, a defendant is considered not to suffer from a mental disorder
- The Crown may raise the issue only under 2 situations: following a guilty verdict or if stated by the defence that the defendant has a mental illness
- Must be proven beyond a balance of the probabilities by the party that raised it
Possible dispositions following a finding of NCRMD
- Absolute discharge – released without any restrictions
- Conditional discharge – released with conditions
- Sent to psychiatric facility
Possible conditions with conditional discharge
- Abstain from using specific drugs
- Must follow treatment plan
- Most follow up with a person
Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS)
Scales guide them to assess insanity
- Patient reliability – meant to detect malingering
- Organicity – meant to assess possible organic conditions (e.g., impaired brain functions, mental retardation, etc)
- Psychopathology – meant to assess symptoms of functional disturbance (e.g., anxiety, psychiatric disorder, etc.)
- Cognitive control – presence of hallucinations, delusions, ability to comprehend the criminality of their behaviour
- Behavioural control – assess whether the person lacked behavioural control, was unable to change, monitor their behaviour
Automatism
Unconscious, involuntary behaviour such that the person committing the act is not aware of what he or she is doing
R v. Stone (1999): Distinction between non insane and insane automatism
- Non insane: most prove automatism
- Insane: must use the NCRMD defense
Intoxication
- Voluntary intoxication is not recognized as a defence for violent crimes (Bill C-72, 1995)
- Often used to mitigate criminal responsibility
Sexsomnia
A form of parasomnia defined as engaging in sexual acts while asleep
- More common in men than women
- Family history of parasomnia
- Varied sexual behaviour while sleeping
Summary offenses
- tried by judge alone
- Minor offenses (shoplifting): usually won’t be sentenced to more than 6 months or fined more than 2500$
Amnesia (or limited ammesia)
- Worries that the individual may be malingering
- Exception when a clear connection can be made between a brain injury and memory loss
Misconceptions surrounding the NCRMD defence (Latimer & Lawrence, 2006)
- It is commonly used – in Canada, 2 cases per - 1000 adult criminal cases
- It is usually successful
- Most acquittees commit murder
- It is a loophole
- Defendants are not confined very long
- Defendants are dangerous
Indictable offenses
- Less serious indictable offenses, such as theft, fraud, failure to comply with a probation order – tried by judge alone
- Highly serious indictable offenses, such as treason, murder, and piracy – must be tried by judge and jury
- Other indictable offenses (other than those found under the two previous categories), such as robbery, arson, sexual assault with a weapon – the accused can chose to be tried by judge and jury or by judge alone (with or without a preliminary inquiry)
Hybrid offenses
- They are a cross between indictable offences and summary offenses (e.g., sexual assault)
- The Crown attorney decides whether to proceed with the case as an indictable offense or a summary offense
Jury summons
- A court order that stated a time and place to go for jury duty – does not guarantee you will be selected as a juror
- Jury summons are randomly sent to individuals randomly from a voter’s list
Ignoring a jury summons = possible legal penalty (fine or jail time) - Selection of 12 jurors
- The Crown and defence are allowed peremptory challenges (20 for murder trials and 12 for most other crimes) and challenges for cause (need to provide a reason for rejecting a prospective juror)
Scientific jury selection
Rejecting prospective jurors who would be unsympathetic to one’s case and accepting those who would be sympathetic based on predetermined characteristics
- Broad-based approach: traits or attitudes
- Case-specific approach: issues and facts of the case
Two fundamental characteristics of juries [R v. Sherrat, 1991]
Representativeness: A jury composition that represents the community where the crime occurred
Impartiality: A characteristic of jurors who are unbiased
Impartiality
- Must judge the case based solely on the admissible evidence (must set aside any pre-existing biases, prejudices or attitudes)
- Must ignore any information that is not part of the admissible evidence
- Must not have any connection to the defendant
Threats to impartiality
- Negative pretrial publicity related to an increase number of guilty verdicts
- Positive pre-trial publicity can bias jurors in favour of a defendant
How to keep potential jurors impartial?
Change of venue
- Moving a trial to a community other than the one in which the crime occurred
Adjournment
- Delaying the trial
Challenge for cause
- An option to reject biased jurors
Jury Functions
Apply the law, as provided by the judge, to the admissible evidence in the case and render a verdict of guilt or innocence
Others:
- To use the wisdom of 12 to reach a verdict
- To act as the conscience of the community
- To protect against out-of-date laws
- To increase knowledge about the justice system
Jury nullification
When the jury ignores the law and bases their verdict on external factors – when the punishment is too harsh, or the law makes no sense
- Dr. Henry Morgentaler: repeatedly acquitted for performing abortions
- Robert Latimer: jury made sentencing appeal to be allowed parole after a year (instead of 10)
Juror Behaviour Research
To predict a verdict and identify which variables may affect the verdict
- Post-trial interviews: asking the jurors why they reached the verdict they did (note: not allowed in Canada)
- Archives: reviewing records of trials and police interviews of witnesses
- Simulations: simulating a trial to study the effect of independent variables
- Field studies: using actual jurors while they are serving on jury duty (note: not allowed in Canada)
Factors that may influence the ability to disregard inadmissible evidence
Strength of the evidence
- When the evidence weaker, more circumstantial, they are more likely to use it – won’t make the conscious effort to disregard
Reason provided by the judge
- Those who were told to disregard it because it was obtained illegally: more likely to consider the audio than group 2
- Those who were told to disregard it because of poor quality, hard to comprehend: more likely to ignore than group 1
Variables to predicting verdicts
- Demographic variables (gender, race, education, Black sheep effect)
- Personality traits (Authoritarianism and dogmatism = pro prosecution)
- Attitudes (pro capital punishment = pro prosecution)
- Defendant characteristics (attractiveness)
- Victim characteristics (when sexual history is introduced, it biases the verdict in sexual assault trials)
- Expert testimony (race/gender, complexity of case, credentials, battered women syndrome)
Attractiveness and jury verdicts
Sigall & Ostrove
When crime was unrelated to attractiveness (burglary) = more lenient verdict
When attractiveness was related (charming/manipulation/scamming) = more punishing
Patry
Decide on your own = more likely to punish the plain one
Discuss with jury = more likely to punish attractive one
Black Sheep Effect
Racial biases in jury decision making – treating an ingroup member differently than outgroup member
Effect can be moderated by strength of evidence: when evidence of strong, more likely to find ingroup member guilty (to distance themselves from defendant)
