Module 7 - Fitness & Insanity

For PSYO2444 (Forensic psychology)

What are the presumptions of the Legal system?

Two elements must be present to establish guilt: Actus reus and mens rea

Actus Reus

Guilty act

Mens Rea

Guilty mind

Fit to Stand Trial (fitness to stand trial)

Understands the charges and proceedings; help prepare their defense

Unfit to Stand Trial (fitness to stand trial)

Unable to conduct a defense at any stage of proceedings due to a mental disorder

Issues to consider with Fitness to Stand Trial

Historically, there was little legislation to help define and determine fitness

R. v. Prichard (1836)

Helped determine the first criteria for fitness: Is the defendant a mute of malice or are they unable to communicate? Do they have the ability to plead to the indictment? Do they have sufficient cognitive capacity to understand the trial? Unfit defendants were held indefinitely.

Bill C-30 (1992)

Outlined a new fitness standard that a defendant is unfit if unable, on account of a mental disorder, to: Understand the nature or object of proceedings (e.g., why they were arrested), of proceedings (e.g., what will happen to them), or communicate with counsel (i.e., talk to their lawyer).

Assessment Limits (Bill C-30, 1992)

A 5-day limit on court-ordered assessments, but could be extended if needed (maximum of 30 days) up to 60 days. Can only exceed 60 days during compelling circumstances. Assessments typically take 3 weeks.

R. v. Taylor (1992)

Clarified the ‘communicate with counsel’ criteria: Defendants only need to able to state most basic facts relating to the offence, not determine what defense is in their best interest.

Evaluating Fitness (Canada)

Only medical practitioners conduct court-ordered assessments (Not required to have training with offender or clinical populations; psychologists must report to medical partitioner)

Fitness Interview Test Revised (FIT-R)

Semi-structured interview used in Canada to assess psychological abilites outlined in Bill C-30. Responses were rated from a 0 (little to no impairment) to 2 (severe impairment) with no set ‘cut-off’ score. However, the final decision requires more information (overall FIT-R score, past mental disorder diagnosis, past involvement with the legal system, and history in therapy)

Evaluating Fitness (Mental Disorders)

A mental illness is necessary but not sufficient to be rendered unfit, while a specific diagnosis does not dictate whether someone is unfit to stand trial. A diagnosis that could render a person unfit include: Psychotic disorders with active psychosis, cognitive impairments, severe brain injuries, dementia, drug-related impairment.

Evaluating Fitness (Disabilities)

Amnesia, selective mutism, language/hearing limitations, mild
intellectual disabilities, anxiety, personality disorders, and general lack of understanding do not render a person unfit

Insanity

Impairment of mental or emotional functioning that impacts perceptions, beliefs, and motivations (“Disease of the mind”). Is a legal term to describe individuals who are psychologically impaired at the time of an offence, but it does not mean they are a serial killer

Legal Insanity Result

Removes responsibility for an act because the defendant lacks mens rea (criminal intent)

Winko v. British Columbia (1999)

Supreme court established that NCRMD defendants should only be detained if they pose a criminal threat to society. If not = absolute discharge (free without restrictions)

Assessing Criminal Responsibility

The insanity defense requires psychiatric assessment

Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scale (R-CRAS)

Scales (1-5) of Patient Reliability, Organicity, Psychopathology, Cognitive Control, and Behaviour Control included 30 items per scale, ranging from 0.6 on each item (higher score = greater severity)

Advantages of Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scale (R-CRAS)

Is standardized and ensures particular areas are evaluated

Automatism

Unconscious, involuntary behavior where the person is unaware of what they are doing

Insane Automatism (R v. Stone 1999)

Involuntary behaviour caused by a mental illness (1/2)

Non-insane Automatism (R v. Stone 1999)

Involuntary behavior caused by an external factor/forces (e.g., sleepwalking, physical blow, hypoglycemia) (2/2)

Assessing Automatism (R. v. Stone, 1991)

Step 1: Judge decides whether the behaviour was involuntary or not based on psychiatric assessments, severity of triggering event, history of automatic behaviour. Step 2: If involuntary, the judge decides what likely caused the automatism to occur; External factor = non-insane = judge may rule a not guilty verdict; Mental illness = insane = usually proceeds as NCRMD.