Essay On Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act

It has long been acknowledged that an offender who, due to mental disorder, is incapable of understanding the nature and quality of a criminal act, or of knowing that it was wrong, should not be convicted. Bill C-54 the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act deals with the accused who has been found Criminally Responsible because of mental disorder. Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) is defined in Section 16 of the Canadian Criminal Code, stating that if someone is deemed NCR he or she can not be held accountable for the offence they committed, if at that time they were suffering from a mental disorder. The Bill will enact three main factors which will affect the mental disorder regime in the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act. The Bill

will increase the notice and involvement of victims who are NCR, create a new category of “high-risk” accused who will have a punitive form of custody, and fortify the conditions of the Review Boards. Still Need To Add Thesis Statement
The NCR law discusses how an accused is incapable of knowing the act they committed was wrong, but the bill fails to distinguish between behaviours arising from mental disorders and unethical behaviours.

The crucial issue will be in finding out whether the criminal act committed was a result of a mental disorder or immoral behaviour. If an accused goes into an automatic state and assaults or kills another person due to ordinary teasing or nagging, the accused is more likely to be categorized as having a disease of the mind because it can be argued that the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of their action whereas, a person who goes into an automatic state after a rare event such as seeing a loved one assaulted or killed and does the same would be convicted of murder (Roach 220). The legislation fails to incorporate erratic circumstances such as the example given above, and leaves it in a grey area because the situation can be debated as an automatic reaction where the person did not actually have the mens rea nor the actus rea of committing the crime but was a sudden

impulse.

When being deemed not criminally responsible there are many decisions that the court has to make, as to what type of treatment to give to the accused and how to penalize the accused in order to get justice.

If Bill C-54 was to come into effect one of the major changes it would bring is having a new category of “high-risk” accused, and being hospitalized for a minimum of three years without having the opportunity to see a review board. This amendment is not only a charter violation but has no proof that depriving the accused of meeting a review board before the three years will serve as a beneficial purpose that will help them reintegrate into society. Section seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”. By holding the NCR accused in the hospital one can say that they are being robbed of there right to liberty without any actual evidence that doing so will in fact have a positive result. Chris Curry who has been working with forensic mental health services commented on the proposed legislation saying: “There are a few glaring errors in this legislation. Say, for example, someone goes off their medication and ends up committing a violent offense. They are caught, and within months are stabilized on proper medication. Now, for the next two and a half years, they have to live in a locked

psychiatric unit. They aren't allowed to leave. The conditions, depending on which hospital they are sent to, can be frightening. How does that promote mental wellness? My hypothesis is that people would end up worse off (and at higher risk to the public) at the end of the three years than when they arrived” (Curry). Not only does the specialist find that labelling them as “high-risk” accused is pointless he also says that doing so will hinder the accused’s progress. In addition to this, when an NCR is being sentenced there is no real difference between treatment and punishment as these two terms are parallel in respect to the definition and actual sentence that would be given. An example of the “treatment” an accused could expect could be having to remain hospitalized for three years, and example of “punishment” could be not being able to have escorted day passes. The sentence in both cases could be considered a punishment as the accused may find that the “treatment” is not really helping him. The proposed legislation will only make the NCR accused not plead insanity due to the harsh amendments that this bill would bring, which in return would result in more mentally ill in the traditional prison system.
The mentally ill are over represented in the courts of criminal justice, thus increasing the burden on the courts and the society, whereas that same money could be used to help prevent mental illness at an early stage. Bill C-54 will make NCR accused remain hospitalized for three years minimum, this change will cost a good portion of money that could be spent on the health care system to help avert the mental illness in the beginning stages. In a recent study three-quarters of those found NCR had at least one psychiatric hospitalization before being NCRMD. The author of the study also found that the mental health services are so hard to get that families have to report criminal acts to the police in order for there family members to get the care the need (Ross). This is because the mental health care is mainly left to the prison system instead of the health care system where it would be more beneficial to both the Government and the NCR. The criminal justice system is flooded with people who plead NCR because after pleading NCR there are a series of psychiatric examinations that they have to undergo to deemed NCR. In a study done by Stats Canada it looked at all the cases where someone had blamed their mental and/or physical act as NCR, the study found that out of 149,701 only 147 cases were found to be NCRMD(Canada). This puts a burden on the courts and the taxpayers as assessing whether someone really can be considered NCR would put the trial on hold and require the already over-loaded forensic psychiatric to deem if they are NCR. The bill does nothing to ensure that there are sufficient mental health services accessible before someone comes in contact with the criminal justice system hence, amending it serves no beneficial purpose (Canadian Bar Association).