A Valuable (and Ongoing) Study, the National Trajectory Project Addresses Many Myths about the Verdict of Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder

Baillie, Patrick

doi:10.1177/070674371506000301

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to popular belief, the insanity defense is rarely used and scarcely successful in North America (Baillie, 2015; Mitchell, 1999; Reid, 2006). This may be partially attributable to negative attitudes toward the insanity defense that are at times held by jurors, and negative stigma surrounding individuals with mental illness, to the extent that researchers have proposed such attitudes as a barrier to ensuring that defendants receive fair trials when using the insanity defense in the United States and Canada (Maeder, Yamamoto, & Fenwick, 2015).…”

Section: The United Kingdom United States Canada Australia and New Ze...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although this may be interpreted as evidence that the Canadian system values an individual's rights more highly than the safety of society, recent changes to the Criminal Code and National Defense Act suggest that the climate may be changing. Specifically, effective 2014, individuals found to be NCRMD who are determined to be high risk may be limited in their access to community treatment and discharge options (Baillie, 2015).…”

Section: Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An international perspective on criminal responsibility and mental illness.

Grossi

Green

2017

Practice Innovations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criminal responsibility refers to the degree to which an individual is accountable for an illegal act that he or she committed given idiographic factors such as age, cognitive abilities, and psychological functioning (Packer, 2009). Thus, perception of criminal responsibility has the potential to greatly impact forensically involved individuals, and most often forensically involved individuals living with severe and persistent mental illness and/or cognitive limitations. This paper focuses on international and cross-cultural perspectives on criminal responsibility; the topic is of importance because mental health professionals may perform evaluations of criminal responsibility, and potentially testify in this regard, in jurisdictions with dissimilar perspectives and/or policies related to criminal responsibility. Specifically, this article discusses the similarities and differences between several geographic areas' definitions of criminal responsibility, evolving legal standards, and the apparent relevance of formal diagnoses in determining criminal responsibility. Variation in perceptions of treatment to rehabilitate mentally ill offenders and the potential legal consequences of a finding of guilt or nonguilt by reason of insanity are also discussed. Findings emphasize that mental health experts who perform criminal responsibility evaluations must be attuned to the specific context in which a defendant is being tried, particularly if practicing in multiple jurisdictions, and that consumers of criminal responsibility research should attend to the broader social context(s) in which each research study is conducted and findings are interpreted.

show abstract

Section: The United Kingdom United States Canada Australia and New Ze...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An international perspective on criminal responsibility and mental illness.

Grossi

Green

2017

Practice Innovations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These measures raise certain issues, debates, and questions not only from a public perception perspective ( 2 , 3 ), but also from scientific and ethical perspectives. On the one hand, the NCRMD defense is associated with public perceptions that the defense is a “get out of jail free” card ( 4 , 5 ), that facilitates the release of potentially dangerous individuals into the community ( 6 – 8 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

A Valuable (and Ongoing) Study, the National Trajectory Project Addresses Many Myths about the Verdict of Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder

Cited by 2 publications

References 6 publications

An international perspective on criminal responsibility and mental illness.

An international perspective on criminal responsibility and mental illness.

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About