Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Soldier not guilty in sex attack on Manitoba girl

fredr123 · 06-22-2006, 02:44 PM

I would still like to read the judge's reasons before I comment too much further so maybe we can bump this in a couple of days.

If someone is found not criminally responsible because of mental illness, they are not "not guilty". There is still the potential for the court to order them held in custody at an institution for any length of time. Being stuck in one of those places for quite a while isn't exactly getting off scot-free. From what I understand, the court has yet to rule on whether such an order will be made.

The idea within the criminal law is that for different offences the prosecution has to satisfy both the mental element (mens rea) and the physical element (actus reus). The mental element can range from absolutely nothing to full on knowledge. While it doesn't appear to be the case that the actus was challenged, the mental element was definitely at play.

In the case of murder, for example, the law requires the highest degree of mental fault (if you want to call it that) that can be found within the law. If that element is lacking or is vitiated by something else, then the accused cannot be found guilty. Over time, mental illness became one particular element that vitiates that mental element for certain offences.

Consider for the moment a 19 year old male with a severe mental disorder. Perhaps he has the mental functioning of a four year old. Maybe he has no concept of money. Would you hold that person criminally responsible for taking a candy bar at 7-11 without paying for it? Probably not. Now take that example and see how far you are willing to stretch it. What kind of offences WOULD you hold that guy responsible for? What if, instead of being severely mentally handicapped, the person had some other recognized mental disorder? What if the disorder was just recently included in the DSM-IV-TR rather than one that has enjoyed relative consensus for a long period of time in the psychological community?

These are just a few of the issues the law concerns itself with in cases like this. Undoubtably there are extreme emotions on either side of the issue and no doubt this case comes extremely close to that line. Awesome for discussion.

06-22-2006, 02:44 PM	#12
fredr123 Franchise Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Exp:	I would still like to read the judge's reasons before I comment too much further so maybe we can bump this in a couple of days. If someone is found not criminally responsible because of mental illness, they are not "not guilty". There is still the potential for the court to order them held in custody at an institution for any length of time. Being stuck in one of those places for quite a while isn't exactly getting off scot-free. From what I understand, the court has yet to rule on whether such an order will be made. The idea within the criminal law is that for different offences the prosecution has to satisfy both the mental element (mens rea) and the physical element (actus reus). The mental element can range from absolutely nothing to full on knowledge. While it doesn't appear to be the case that the actus was challenged, the mental element was definitely at play. In the case of murder, for example, the law requires the highest degree of mental fault (if you want to call it that) that can be found within the law. If that element is lacking or is vitiated by something else, then the accused cannot be found guilty. Over time, mental illness became one particular element that vitiates that mental element for certain offences. Consider for the moment a 19 year old male with a severe mental disorder. Perhaps he has the mental functioning of a four year old. Maybe he has no concept of money. Would you hold that person criminally responsible for taking a candy bar at 7-11 without paying for it? Probably not. Now take that example and see how far you are willing to stretch it. What kind of offences WOULD you hold that guy responsible for? What if, instead of being severely mentally handicapped, the person had some other recognized mental disorder? What if the disorder was just recently included in the DSM-IV-TR rather than one that has enjoyed relative consensus for a long period of time in the psychological community? These are just a few of the issues the law concerns itself with in cases like this. Undoubtably there are extreme emotions on either side of the issue and no doubt this case comes extremely close to that line. Awesome for discussion.