Search

The authors present a rare case of a family in which both the mother, and four decades later the son, committed second-degree murder while suffering from major mental illnesses. The mother had successfully used a mental disorder defence and it was likely that the son who had raised the defence would have qualified also. The mother has a history of adverse childhood experiences. The son had also experienced various severe childhood adversities, though there were no functional impairments, personality dysfunction, suicidality or violent crimes until the onset of treatment-resistant schizoaffective disorder around age 18. His earlier comorbidities included sport-related traumatic brain injuries, sickle cell trait, severe burns, and tardive dyskinesia. His comorbidities around the material time included occasional cannabis use and dementia pugilistica. While awaiting court ruling on criminal responsibility, additional stressors triggered significant deterioration of his schizoaffective disorder and the court found him unfit to stand trial. During rehabilitation, he was severely injured by another accused, which subsequently led to his demise. This case is the first report of intergenerational mental disorder defence and involved almost every facet of criminal forensic psychiatry, which highlights the need for further research on the association between intergenerational ACEs and intergenerational risk for criminal behaviour from a comprehensive and longitudinal perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although mental illness has a demonstrated link with violence, the prevalence of targeted (planned and goal‐directed) violence perpetrated by individuals with mental illness and its association with psychiatric symptoms is relatively unexplored. File information was compared for all 293 individuals found not criminally responsible due to mental illness in British Columbia between 2001 and 2005, of whom 19% had committed targeted violence. Most individuals with targeted offenses displayed at least one warning behavior before their offense (93%); all displayed delusions and approximately one third exhibited hallucinations. Compared to individuals who perpetrated non‐targeted offenses, the individuals with targeted offenses displayed greater proportions of threats/criminal harassment, had female victims, displayed a psychotic disorder and/or personality disorder, and displayed delusions during the offense. This implies that severe psychiatric disorders do not preclude the perpetration of planned violence and suggests that exploring symptoms of mental illness that may be proximally indicative of targeted violence is important in preventing future acts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 1999, Gladue principles have been applied in a variety of contexts within the Canadian criminal justice system. Some of these contexts, like bail hearings, have been thoroughly discussed by courts and academics. Others have not. To supplement the ongoing discussion of how Gladue can be used in new and unique ways, this paper analyzes the application of Gladue principles to NCRMD and fitness disposition hearings under s. 672.54 of the Criminal Code. To date, only one appellate court has held that Gladue principles apply to NCRMD and fitness disposition hearings. However, according to the Ontario Court of Appeal, that application is limited. While relevant to the rehabilitation and reintegration of an Indigenous accused, Gladue principles are not relevant when assessing their dangerousness or mental condition. This paper argues that the current approach by the Ontario Court of Appeal is inappropriate, inconsistently applied, and should not be adopted by Courts and review boards across the country since it ignores the benefits a full Gladue analysis can have during s. 672.54 disposition hearings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The public often perceives the insanity defense as a "get out of jail free card". Conversely, several studies demonstrate the substantial control imposed upon these defendants. This study compares Review Boards decisions regarding people found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) to criminal courts decisions regarding convicted offenders for similar offenses in Canada. Method: Detention, using logistic regression, and duration under detention and supervision, using Cox regression, were compared between a cohort of 1794 individuals found NCRMD in three Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia) between 2000 and 2005 followed until 2008 from the National Trajectory Project and a national sample of 3,20,919 Canadians convicted of criminal offense from Statistics Canada's Criminal Court Survey. Results: Individuals found NCRMD are 3.8 times (95% CI 3.4–4.3) more likely to be detained than convicted offenders as well as 4.8 times (95% CI 4.5–5.3) and 2.9 times (95% CI 2.6–3.1) less likely to be released from detention and supervision, respectively. One year after the verdict, 73% of the NCRMD accused were still under legal supervision and 42% were still in detention, whereas these proportions were, respectively, 41 and 1% for their convicted counterparts. Interaction effects show that sex, age, jurisdiction, number of offenses, and severity of crimes committed have a differential impact on decisions applied to NCRMD accused compared to convicted persons. Conclusion: Contrary to popular perceptions, the insanity defense is not a loophole. Differences as to factors influencing the trajectories of the two samples confirm that Review Boards are able to distance their practices from the criminal courts and can set aside, at least in part, the principles of proportionality and punitiveness governing the traditional sentencing practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThe public often perceives the insanity defense as a “get out of jail free card”. Conversely, several studies demonstrate the substantial control imposed upon these defendants. This study compares Review Boards decisions regarding people found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) to criminal courts decisions regarding convicted offenders for similar offenses in Canada.MethodDetention, using logistic regression, and duration under detention and supervision, using Cox regression, were compared between a cohort of 1794 individuals found NCRMD in three Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia) between 2000 and 2005 followed until 2008 from the National Trajectory Project and a national sample of 3,20,919 Canadians convicted of criminal offense from Statistics Canada's Criminal Court Survey.ResultsIndividuals found NCRMD are 3.8 times (95% CI 3.4–4.3) more likely to be detained than convicted offenders as well as 4.8 times (95% CI 4.5–5.3) and 2.9 times (95% CI 2.6–3.1) less likely to be released from detention and supervision, respectively. One year after the verdict, 73% of the NCRMD accused were still under legal supervision and 42% were still in detention, whereas these proportions were, respectively, 41 and 1% for their convicted counterparts. Interaction effects show that sex, age, jurisdiction, number of offenses, and severity of crimes committed have a differential impact on decisions applied to NCRMD accused compared to convicted persons.ConclusionContrary to popular perceptions, the insanity defense is not a loophole. Differences as to factors influencing the trajectories of the two samples confirm that Review Boards are able to distance their practices from the criminal courts and can set aside, at least in part, the principles of proportionality and punitiveness governing the traditional sentencing practices.

Three studies examined the psychometric properties of a new scale, the Forensic Stigma Scale (FSS), designed to measure public stigma of forensic patients. In Study 1, the initial item pool was derived to measure three components of stigma (stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination). An EFA (n = 218) identified a two-factor model with 12 items. In Study 2, this two-factor solution was confirmed using CFA with a separate sample (n = 326) which had good-excellent fit indices. All 12 items loaded (> 0.40) on the two latent factors (Dangerousness/Unpredictability [7 items] and Responsibility/Blame [5 items]) identified in the EFA. In Study 3, using the combined samples from the previous two studies, the 12-item FSS showed promising internal consistency reliability (0.75-0.80) and demonstrated satisfactory-good criterion validity; the scale was moderately correlated with a similar construct and was able to differentiate individuals who did and did not have specific education on forensic psychology. IRT analyses demonstrated that both subscales had discrimination parameters in the moderate-high range (α = 1.03 to 2.54), though the threshold parameters (bi) on the Dangerousness/Unpredictability subscale showed better distribution across trait levels. Overall, the 12-item FSS demonstrates strong psychometric properties, especially the Dangerousness/Unpredictability subscale. The scale may provide clinical and empirical uses for measuring public stigma of forensic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]