- Information
- AI Chat
Lecture 9 – Fitness to Stand Trial Criminal Responsibility
Psychology and Law (PSYCH2031)
The University of Western Ontario
Recommended for you
Related Studylists
Exam 1 Forensic PsychologyPreview text
Lecture 9 Fitness to Stand Trial and Criminal Responsibility Actus Reus Mens Rea o Cornerstones of criminal guilt o term not in use in Canada Fitness to Stand Trail o Albert Case: o Old man killed his wife They both suffered from dementia He clearly had no idea what was going on o Is it fair to put this man on the stand for trail for this murder when he clearly does not know what happened? Fitness is the idea that the state should only peruse charges if the person has some idea of what they did o Bill 1992 (Canadian Definition of what Fit meant) o Unfit to stand trail if, on account of mental disorder, unable to: 1. Understand nature or object of proceedings 2. Understand possible consequences of the proceedings 3. Communicate with counsel o If you do these three things you are not fit o If you are not in touch with reality you should not be asked to stand trial o Aka to stand o Origins: 17th Century Britain participation as their own defense Back then clearly it would be bad to get someone who was completely dumb defending themselves o How can they adequately defend themselves? o 1 per cases in Canada that involve a fitness issue (Dept. of Justice, not very frequent but frequent enough that the legal system acknowledges it Fitness Assessment o How many people per province in period who were deemed not fit to stand trial o Ontario largest pop so, obvious we have the most unfit Evaluation of Fitness o The Crown or the Defense can raise the issue o They will be sent to a clinical psychologist who will gage if this person is fit to stand trial, or weather more info is needed o Fitness Interview Test (Revised) Roesch and Colleagues o Screening Tool Given fill in the blank questions basically to see if they know how be in court (we allowed to see the actual questions due to copyright) o If a fitness evaluation is recommended: 1 Officially the test is to preformed in 5 days Can be given an extension to 30 days, but not more than 60 days Some people will need time to regain their fitness (i. drug addicts, severe mental illness) Most cases involved addiction or mental illness Some people will never regain fitness (i. IQ points, or dementia) o Roesch et. al., (1997) o Average: spend 3 weeks waiting in hospital to regain fitness But can spend more time o of assessments conducted in inpatient facilities so a most are withdrawal from drugs, and mental illness Court Procedures o If Ruled Fit: There is a trial o If Ruled Unfit: o 1. Disposition for detention in hospital o 2. Conditional discharge As long as you follow these conditions you can stay in the community If you start using again you will be back in the hospital o 3. Stay of charges if you reoffend in a certain amount of time (12 months), the charges will disappear Is typically chosen if the crime is very trivial, there is no real threat of violence o For the first two after 45 days, to 90 days Do we keep them in the hospital, do we conditionally discharge or stay the charges? o If still unfit: Review board for assessment, disposition, then reviewed annually o Prima facie: Crown proves enough evidence for trial, every 2 years (this can go on forever for 2 years) The crown can show to the court that there is still evidence for the trial On the face of the case the case can be taken to court o Almost always people who are tested for being unfit have documentation for being unfit and its not people pretending Criminal Responsibility o The average Canadian has a distorted view on how the justice system operates o Most crimes are not violent of crime stories in the news are about murder, but the actual rate is really really low) o Not Criminal Responsible (NCR) Cases attract a lot of attention o Attract far more attention then they merit It is in the news a lot but is not a common defence o In Canada, for every cases that go to court only .2 cases involve a defendant pleading NCR (used as a defence) No data in Canada about how often this is successful o Vincent Lee Case (2008) o Guy who decapitated a man on a Grey Hound o Before: In Toronto he was determined as a psychiatrist to be dangerous to himself and was kept in a hospital and then discharged himself, he went back to China and then when he came back was when he did this o It was found that he suffered from Schizophrenia, and suffered from psychosis and was from reality o He was treated for Schizophrenia while he awaited trial, and when he realized what he has done is was mortified o The court then decided that he should not be criminally responsible His actus reus was not of free will o He was given a disposition of hospital o o 2 McNaughten Test Thought (cognitive) based assessment of criminal responsibility o 3 Critical Elements defect or reason or disease of the mind and, at the time: did not know nature quality of act did not know act was wrong o does the person know what they are doing is right or wrong? o We use this a lot in Canada (or a version of) o Alternative to McNaughten Test (mostly used in the US): o 1. Irresistible impulse test Volitional ones drive Not a cognitive assessment You could be found not criminal responsible if the urge to commit the act overrides your free will The person may know what they are doing is wrong but the urge is so strong they do it 13 US states use this i. Jeffery Dahmer o 2. American Law Institute standard (ALI) kinda a combo pack You can be found insane: as result of mental lacks substantial capacity to appreciate criminality or wrongfulness OR conform conduct to You can argue insanity based on cognitive or volitional o 3. Durham test New Hampshire does this You can be insane if you can attribute your criminal act to any mental illness If you lawyer is able to argue that your criminal act is associated to any mental disorder COULD, not very successful Canada: NCRMD o Not Guilty Reason of Insanity o Previously: Indeterminate detention Before 1992, if you were found insane you could be punished forever o Law Reform Commission o Dept. of Justice Commissions Mental Disorder Project, early 1980s They then decided that this legislation in conflict with Charter of Rights Freedoms o 1992, Bill NGRI becomes NCRMD Wording in Criminal Code: o 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 o exact same idea at the McNaughten Standard o Capping on paper you be sent to psychiatric detention for longer than you would have been sent to jail for the same time o Their maximum cap is the maximum sentence someone could have gotten o Problem: That is only on paper the actual length of time people spend in a psych is way longer then they would have spent in jail if they just plead guilty o would go to a plea bargain and would have gotten a lesser sentence (not maximum sentence) things get watered down o Review annual review o Further changes o Detain only if poses criminal threat to society o 4 Assessing Criminal Responsibility o Knew act was wrong, or incapable of appreciating quality of act o It is difficult to know o Psychiatric Assessment o Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales Patient reliability Organicity Brain injury Psychopathology What mental illness? Cognitive control Behavioural control o Evaluation of entire thing, there is no Clinician takes all info into account What Happens if found NCR? o 3 Options: o 1. Absolute Discharge not a threat to society low risk for no point of locking them up o 2. Conditional Discharge released from custody but with conditions not a violent crime mental illness, did not know what he was doing was wrong usually good with meds, but that day need psychiatric care, but will check up to make sure you are compliant with medication in the future o 3. Psychiatric Facility Review Board: Determine dangerousness of offender Likelihood of reoffending If you are sent to a psychiatric facility for a criminal reason you are reassessed the review board every year To determine what should happen (disposition) Annual basis The review board is obliged law to grant as much freedom to the patient as they see safe We value freedom and liberty When deciding disposition the review board must look at (and pick the least limiting course of action): Public Safety Mental State Reintegration Other needs of defendant i. a criminal can say when they are leaving jail they will reoffend and they still get to leave, if a psych patient does this they wont be able to leave Bill (The NCR Reform Act) o Passed May 2013 o Allows for people who are NCR get a high risk designation o think that this defendant poses a high o Judge can choose to make that designation o designation for some o designation given the Courts based on intuation and gut, not medical analysis o One serious offence 5 Real Dangers of Bill o Increased Stigmatization o Seeking treatment o Maintaining Treatment Treatment is key o Diversion into mainstream system 7
Lecture 9 – Fitness to Stand Trial Criminal Responsibility
Course: Psychology and Law (PSYCH2031)
University: The University of Western Ontario
This is a preview
Access to all documents
Get Unlimited Downloads
Improve your grades
