Sanctionner les (non-) coupables. Préciser la disposition de non-responsabilité criminelle

Abstract

Dej, E. (2015). Sanctionner les (non-) coupables. Préciser la disposition de non-responsabilité criminelle. Criminologie, 48 (1), 37-58. doi:10.7202/1029347arRésumé de l'article L'appellation NRC (non-responsabilité criminelle) subit d'importantes modifications législatives qui accordent une plus grande attention à la sécurité publique et aux renseignements pour les victimes et qui visent également la création de la désignation « à haut risque ». Au Canada, cette appellation a un historique contradictoire qui accentue la complexité à superposer les structures thérapeutique et punitive. Les dernières modifications à la désignation NRC sont une réaction punitive aux réclamations du grand public quant à sa sécurité et à sa protection, ainsi qu'à une perte de confiance dans la capacité de la psychologie et des disciplines connexes à traiter et à gérer les accusés atteints de troubles mentaux. Par conséquent, l'appellation NRC a acquis une rhétorique punitive malgré le fait qu'elle est formulée en dehors du système de sanctions.Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. [https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politiquedutilisation/]

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

“…Of particular relevance, the forensic population has low rates of reoffending ( 34 – 38 ) and revocation of release ( 35 – 40 ) [possibly because of the access to psychiatric care and the supervision provided by RB decisions, including a psychiatric follow-up in the community provided during conditional release ( 38 , 41 ) and conditions allowing hospitalization in case of re-emergence of symptoms ( 10 , 42 )], and thus represents a lower risk to the public than people who are convicted. This divergence is relevant to inform the debate around the NCRMD defense, more generally ( 43 ) and is especially important considering the more punitive trends observed in the beginning of the 2000s in sentencing legislation ( 23 )and more specifically with the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Law C-14) in 2014 which created the high-risk accused designation and stated that public safety is the predominant decision criterion, before the therapeutic needs of the individual ( 13 , 22 ). Our findings highlight the importance of translating and disseminating accurate information regarding this defense, especially since some studies in the United States have indicated that negative attitudes toward the defense attenuated when presented with facts ( 33 , 44 ).…”

“…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 ). Conversely, several scholars stress the significant control imposed on the NCRMD population ( 9 – 12 ) and question the ability of RBs to distance themselves from the philosophy of the traditional penal system in their decision-making practices ( 13 – 15 ).…”