Ncr Injustice

Mental Illness has been prevalent all throughout our history from Isaac Newton to Abraham Lincoln to Sylvia Plath and so on. These illnesses can be as minor as a slight bipolar disorder or as severe as schizophrenia. In recent years, mental illnesses are becoming more prevalent in our criminal justice systems than anywhere else. Mental illness is becoming an association with crime and based on the information that has been found, this paper will attempt to further define the problem of mental illness within our criminal justice system and offer alternatives or insights as to how to possibly help with this problem.

Since our justice system is designed to punish those who have deliberately chosen to do something wrong, there is a defence for those who have a “disease of the mind” (Verdun-Jones, Criminal Law in Canada, 2015, p. 206) because they, technically speaking, did not choose to do so in their right mind. Such defence is the defence of “not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder” (Verdun-Jones, Criminal Law in Canada, 2015, p. 204). As stated in section 16(1) of the Criminal Code (Carswell, 2015):

The ‘loss of control’ tests were formulated as a response to the criticism of the ‘irresistible impulse’ test, whose title was even characterized as misleading by Abraham Goldstein. This new tests have a wider scope, since they encompass situations were a person has lost the power to make choices irrespective of the source that led to this loss. The emerged ‘Parson’s rule’ stresses the need for a causal link between the condition suffered by the defendant and the criminal offence committed, an element that was, also, present in the ‘M’Naghten rule’. Moreover, the test’s unfortunate criterion that the mental disease must have ‘solely’ caused the subject’s act, has been interpreted as meaning ‘primarily’ to ensure the intended scope of the

2. This criticism is on the moral basis and the consequences. This section suggests that the crime is of more importance, then the moral imperatives. It also addresses the way a criminal, who does plea insanity, should be trialed and punished for the crime. It is suggested, that the criminal should be convicted and the mental illness should be taken in consideration at the time of sentencing. If this method would be used by the court, it would allow the judge to determine the length of imprisonment, within a hospital prison, and the defendant would have to provide prove of improvement to the once dangerous behavior. Retrieved from; West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008).

The insanity defense has become popularized by criminal television shows, but it is not used as portrayed. According to Dr. Zachary Torry, a psychiatrist, the defense is actually used in one percent of cases and not even one-fourth of those cases will succeed in front of a jury (Torry). Furthermore, the legal definition of insanity is very different than the societal definition. As stated by George Blau, a criminal defense lawyer, “insane” does not describe someone who is psychotic or crazy, but it instead describes someone who does not know the difference between right or wrong. They are found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) because one of the three traits of a crime is not evident. The three traits are a guilty mind (mens rea), a prohibited act, and a pre-established sentence (Blau). For the insane, there is no mens rea because someone cannot feel guilty for an act that they do not know is wrong. Therefore, those found NGRI have a different punishment than those convicted of a crime. Their sentence is often time at a mental institution where treatment is available, but the sentences can be irregular and unchecked by government associations. Therefore, the insanity defense may need to be amended, by requiring monitoring of the cases and adopting the mens rea approach or to be completely abolished because of its potential improper use and a lack of proof.

The Criminal Code of Canada provides for the NCRMD defence in section 16, part of which states that: “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.” In reference to the case of R. v. Chaulk (1990) 3 S.C.R, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the word ‘wrong’ in reference to all cases of regarding NCRMD means both ‘legally wrong’ and ‘morally wrong.’ In order to claim a NCRMD defence, the defendant must prove on a balance of probabilities that the accused was

Mens rea is a very important aspect of the criminal justice system and it is really important when the issue of mental competency plays a factor in a criminal case. In the United States there are mental competency courts established in order to determine if the offender is found competent for trial. If they are not found competent then they are sent to a mental hospital in order to address their mental state. “Mens rea: In criminal law, the guilty mind. It refers to the intent that is needed in order to be found guilty of a crime” (Bartol, C. R., 10/2014).

Almost every day, we hear about justice being served upon criminals and we, as a society, feel a sense of relief that another threat to the public has been sentenced to a term in prison, where they will no longer pose a risk to the world at large. However, there are very rare occasions where the integrity of the justice system gets skewed and people who should not have been convicted are made to serve heavy prison sentences. When word of this judicial misstep reaches the public, there is social outcry, and we begin to question the judicial system for committing such a serious faux pas.

Despite the perception that anyone could potentially fabricate a story and argue for a not criminally responsible verdict, the defence of NCRMD is a difficult one to prove. Very few individuals are found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. In the cases where a trier of fact or jury has successfully accepted the defence, counsel for the defendant alongside expert witnesses, have been able to not only prove a mental disorder at the time of the offence but also have demonstrated that the accused was rendered incapable of knowing that their actions were

The three key goals victims can pursue through the criminal justice system is to punish the offender, compel law breakers to undergo rehabilitate treatment and restitution. Punishment is usually justified on utilitarian grounds as evil. Although it is argued that making transgressors suffer curbs future criminality in a number of ways. It is said if an offender gets punished by unpleasant and unwanted consequences it will most likely discouraged him/her from breaking the law again. Also it satisfies victims thirst for revenge and prevents future vigilantism and incapacitates dangerous predators so they can be off the streets; a safer community. Rehabilitation, some victims want professionals to help offenders become decent,

Filicide can be defined as the act of murdering one’s own child or children; acts of filicide are normally projected loudly in media. There are cases of filicide in which the defense of the accused, plead as not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder referred to as NCRMD. In order to submit the verdict of NCRMD, the criminal act must have been committed at a time in which the accused had already been previously diagnosed with a mental disorder; therefore, resulting in the prevention of understanding the act and its quality. Similarly, in the R. v. Schoenborn case, Schoenborn sought for defence of NCRMD while being charged with first-degree murder for his three children. He had been attempting to fix his relationship with his life partner but was rejected; thereafter, he brutally murdered their children in his partner’s trailer home in Merritt, British Columbia. He was found NCRMD in April 2008 and was held at the psychiatric hospital in Coquitlam, British Columbia. Recently, he has been granted day passes to be in the community outside of the psychiatric facility. There are many cases like this one, where different factors lead to the act of filicide. These factors associated to filicide may be situational, including separation, substance abuse and various others. There are numerous filicide cases in which NCRMD is included; therefore, making it evident that mental health is a significant risk factor. It is essential that one assesses what

Image a life where you have difficulty defending yourself and nobody can clearly understand you. Now visualize trying to convince others that you are innocent of a crime. Since the early 80s, more than sixty mentally ill criminals have been executed the US (Mental Illness on Death Row). This paper will discuss the relationship between the law and the challenges faced by mentally criminals from tries to appeals and execution. It provides examples of some of the more famous cases of the execution of the mentally ill and describes current legislative. But we would try answer the whether the mentally disabled criminals should be charged with a death penalty. Throughout this paper, we will use Borromeo 's definition of someone with mental issues. He stated "mental retardation is a lifelong condition of impaired or incomplete mental development..." ( Borromeo 178). Some examples of these illnesses include but are not limited to major depression, bipolar disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder .

When learning about the legal elements of a crime, it is stated that in order to establish a crime was committed Actus Reus and Mens Rea must be shown. There is however, a default in this procedure. The Free Dictionary defines insanity as “Insanity a legal term for mental illness of such degree that the individual is not responsible for his or her acts.” This is one of many legal definitions of insanity, and as you can see a key part of this definition is “not responsible for his or her acts.” How can we then decipherer Mens Rea ? When making an insanity defense, you are making the argument that the defendant had no Mens Rea during the crime or even a persisting condition. This is where controversy begins, and many debates start to rise about the circumstances of using this as a defense. As studies continue, and more cases are brought out using the insanity defense the increase in demand for a consistent diagnosis is fast approaching. One of the many defaults with cases with this particular defense is, there is never one diagnosis, and different events lead up to other areas. There is only one repeating factor that all insanity defenses have in common, which is the lack of Mens Rea.

A significant and controversial issue within the legal system is the ‘insanity defense’ in which during a criminal trial, the defendant will make a claim that they are not guilty by reason of insanity, or in other words, they have deficient and impaired cognitive and mental capabilities. These mental health problems associated with insanity are caused by psychopathological disorders, which may have led to their dysfunction. What separates this from a regular plead of ‘diminished capacity’ is that a plea of insanity is a full defense rather than just a partial defense (Legal information institute, n.d.). With the diminished capacity defense, the defendant’s mental competence is still the focus, although they are pleading to a lesser crime

Roy Blunt, American politician, once said, “People with mental health problems are almost never dangerous. In fact, they are more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators. At the same time, mental illness has been the common denominator in one act of mass violence after another.” There is a misconception that mental disorders such as dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia are the same. Today’s society often see all mental disorders as one, however, they are very much different. If one was to say someone with multiple personalities is the same as someone who has hallucinations and/or has delusions, they are incorrect, which is why in specific cases such as schizophrenia, the legal term “not guilty due to mental disorder” should be valid.