Not a "Get Out of Jail Free Card": Comparing the Legal Supervision of Persons Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder and Convicted Offenders.

Sandrine Martin,Anne G Crocker,Chloé Leclerc,Yanick Charette,Michael C Seto,Tonia L Nicholls

doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2021.775480

Abstract

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.

Highlights

In many countries, a legal defense of insanity can be raised if a person commits an offense while suffering from a mental disorder that impairs their ability to appreciate that the nature and quality of their actions or omissions were wrong
In Canada, individuals who successfully raise the not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) defense come under the purview of a provincial or territorial Review Board (RB) specialized in mental health
The first comes from the National Trajectory Project in Canada (NTP) [26] and is comprised of a cohort of individuals who received an NCRMD verdict between May 1, 2000, and April 30, 2005, in the three most populous Canadian provinces

Summary

Introduction

A legal defense of insanity can be raised if a person commits an offense while suffering from a mental disorder that impairs their ability to appreciate that the nature and quality of their actions or omissions were wrong. In Canada, individuals who successfully raise the not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) defense come under the purview of a provincial or territorial Review Board (RB) specialized in mental health. Denunciation, deterrence, and punishment are not principles that govern RB decisions as in criminal courts [1]. Instead, they render dispositions according to the risk the accused represents for public safety as well as the accused’s therapeutic needs [1]. 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

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion