Can we legally convict someone who was not sane when he committed a crime?
Criminal liability
Section 16 of the Criminal Code states:
16 (1) 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.
(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.
(3) The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue.
Indeed, the court will consider two factors when deciding whether a person suffered from a mental illness so startling that they could potentially receive a finding of not criminally responsible:
- the inability to judge the nature and quality of the crime (i.e. the inability to understand the consequences of the act);
- and the inability to know that the criminal act is wrong (i.e., the inability to differentiate right from wrong).
Thus, a person may be considered to have a mental disorder if he cannot distinguish right from wrong or realize the consequences of the crime he has committed.
Not criminally responsible
In the Turcotte decision, a cardiologist and father stabbed to death his two children, aged 3 and 5, on the night of February 20, 2009, in Quebec. In the weeks leading up to the murders, Turcotte had repeatedly argued with his ex-wife and her new lover. On the night of the murders, Turcotte was having suicidal thoughts and drinking windshield washer.
According to psychiatrists, Turcotte suffered from an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood at the time of the crime. Turcotte had several symptoms of mental disorders, including: a significant emotional charge experienced in the weeks preceding the tragedy, the installation of an evolutionary depressive picture, acute suicidal impulse, acting out (intoxication) and the fatal outcome of suicidal acts (homicides). Following the trial, the jury pronounces a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.
In this judgment, the Court of Appeal confirmed three factors that could assist the judge in the context of a comprehensive method of analysis to determine whether the evidence submitted moves the alleged condition out of the category of mental illness:
- The internal cause factor: is the cause or trigger for the accused’s mental condition internal or external? The more likely a person without a mental illness is to develop such a condition when placed in the accused’s position, the more courts will consider the alleged disorder to be external and not internal or personal to the accused. In other words, the courts consider that if a reasonable or “normal” person in the accused’s position would not react like the accused, the accused’s behaviour would likely result from an internal factor, namely the existence of a mental disorder.
- The remaining risk factor: this factor stems from the need to ensure public safety by assessing the risk of recurrence of a similar event. The greater the risk and the more likely recidivism is to occur beyond the control of the accused, the more mental disorder can be equated with a mental disorder.
- Public order concerns: Does the mental condition of the accused require special treatment and does it constitute a threat to others? If not, it will be easier for the courts to conclude that the accused was not mentally ill at the time of the events.
Unfitness to stand trial
Mental disorders should not be confused with unfitness to stand trial. A person with a mental disorder must still stand trial unless their lawyers can prove that they are not able to:
- understand the nature or purpose of the prosecution;
- understand the potential consequences of prosecution;
- and (c) communicate with his lawyer.