Insanity defense, as it is known in many jurisdictions refers to the assertion by a person accused of criminal prosecution that at the time of committing the criminal act(s) they were not in the right state of mind as to appreciate the wrongfulness of their acts. Insanity has been invoked in many jurisdictions to reverse legal decisions or acquit people accused of crimes and it comes forth as the perfect defense. Whenever it is applied, it permits a person who is factually guilty to escape punishment and incarceration. Canadian laws have numerous circumstances exempt individuals from criminal responsibility whenever they are found to be incapacitated by a mental disorder. In essence Canadian law states that “the basic principle of Canadian criminal law that to be convicted of a crime, the state must prove not only a wrongful act, but also a guilty mind.”. However, this assertion contradicts several principles of justice as it opens numerous and ambiguous loopholes for offenders to abuse it and escape justice. As such, Canadian law should not recognize temporary insanity as defense.
Temporary insanity should not be recognized as a defense because it opens numerous loopholes for people to induce themselves with temporary insanity and cause crimes. The Julia Campagna was one of the most memorable cases where temporary insanity let her walk. She was released by British Columbian court on grounds of temporary insanity after she caused the deaths of two Canadian women through a motor accident in 1998. Campagna claimed that she was suffering from psychotic delusions that she suffered after she started taking an over the counter drug known as Xenadrine- to help her lose weight in preparation for a marathon. Although, Campagna’s situation may have been purely accidental, this situation opens a loophole where people with criminal intent may plot and induce themselves with drugs that cause temporary insanity when they intend to commit crimes. The law is unclear on the range of drugs people can use and neither does it have any control over the side effects leading to temporary insanity. As such, the law is open to abuse and for this reason temporary insanity should not be recognized as defense under Canadian laws.
The temporary insanity should not be recognized as defense because there are numerous, indefinite and widely varying circumstances that can lead to that condition. The ambiguity breeds a lot of notoriety and confusion. The wide range of reasons that defendants can give for temporary insanity provides numerous unjustifiable ways of exoneration for defendants who are obviously guilty. Indeed, many people who are let free on the temporary insanity basis confess to crimes that are accused of but counter with the assertion that they were not in their right state of mind. Some of the many situations in which people have invoked the temporary insanity defense include black rage, battered spouses, infanticide, and homosexual panic killings. The defendants have blamed premenstrual syndrome, adverse relations to psychotropic medications, cultural defense, menstrual related dysfunctions such as “congestive dysmenorrhoea”, post partum psychosis, and junk food overdoses. In other cases, there have been war atrocities, honor killings, among others. It seems that when properly armed and with a good lawyer, one can never lack a reason to invoke temporary insanity and get acquitted. As such, temporary insanity ought not to serve as defense because of its amorphousness and ambiguity.
Temporary insanity should not be recognized as defense because there are various other mechanisms besides incarceration that can be used as deterrent and corrective measures against offenders who have mental disorders. A 1976 report by the Law Reform Commission stated that there needs to be therapeutic disposition for people who have committed offenses yet they suffer from temporary insanity or some other form of mental disorder. Going by the recommendations of the commission, it means that defendants seeking to shield themselves ought to face the law in a form that suits their cases. They ought not to be exempted from prosecution but they need to be judged accordingly with a view to sentencing them to imprisonment in rehabilitation centers where their insanity can be treated. Indeed, the laws ought to provide that people who are temporarily insane serve some detention time in a treatment facility as part of an initial imprisonment. The reasons for this may vary from case to case but they are justifiable in cases where the defendant seems to have premeditated a criminal act. In the premeditation phase of a criminal act, it would not be possible for the prosecution to prove whether the person had entered into a state of temporary insanity or was still in their normal state of mind.
The laws should permit judges to sentence people who are temporarily insane because as it is the insanity is temporary and for most of the time someone has the capability to judge the rightfulness or wrongfulness of their conduct. In addition, there are issues with the “Dangerously mentally Disordered Accused” DMDA persons who under the provisions of Bill C-30 are said to face special conditions that they need to face prosecution and sentencing on grounds that they caused serious crimes such as murder or serious bodily harm for which life sentence may be imposed. There are numerous instances of temporary insanity that can cause people to commit such crimes. In addition, many of the crimes such as infanticide and mercy killings when investigated further prove to be murder cases where the defendant is liable to life sentence. In order to ensure the fairness of the law and to avoid segregating cases and persons and levels of insanity or the period within which one is insane (permanent or temporary) then temporary insanity ought to be the first issue outlawed as defense against prosecution or incarceration.
The Canadian law unlike that of many other countries has used numerous terms that bring about inconsistencies. In 1882, the Canadian department of Justice which formed a review for criminal law stated that the mental disorder provisions were rife with omissions, inconsistencies, ambiguities, arbitrariness, and a general lack of clarity, direction and guidance. As such the laws set forth a criminal code in consideration of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, set out numerous conditions that are subject to abuse as was the issue with the infamous Spanos case. One of the most classic cases of temporary insanity in which the court ruled for the accused to face the law was the R.v. Spanos, 2001 B.C.C.A 34. In this case, the defendant was judged not to suffer from severe mental illness or temporary insanity to the level permissible to allow for the accused not to face judgment. It was judged that mere absent mindedness and forgetfulness cannot be use as sufficient grounds to exempt him from prosecution.
There are numerous counterarguments to the issue of people with mental illness facing judgment because there needs to be proof that indeed someone had the capability to male decisions but chose to make the wrong ones and this is what constitutes criminal culpability. However, due to the many instances where the law maybe abused there needs to be strict measures to prevent people from hiding behind the veil of temporary insanity for them to avoid facing the law. The nature of temporary insanity is such that it can be difficult to establish whether or not the person was in the right state of mind or had lapsed into insanity when premeditating to commit a crime. As such, temporary insanity ought not to be used as defense in criminal cases.
References
Covey, R. (n.d.). Temporary Insanity: The Strange Life And Times Of The Perfect Defense . Retrieved June 7, 2016, from http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/covey.pdf
Fersch, E., & Fersch, E. L. (2005). Thinking about the Insanity Defense: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions with Case Examples. iUniverse, 2005.
Moran, J. E., & Wright, D. (2006). Mental Health and Canadian Society: Historical Perspectives. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP, 14 Aug 2006.
Nathanson, P., & Young, K. K. (2006). Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men. McGill-Queen's Press - MQUP.
ProQuest. (2007). Certain Tendencies in Canadian Cinema: Temporary Insanity and the National Tax-shelter Masquerade.
seattletimes.com. (1999, September 4). Criminal-insane plea is different in Canada. Retrieved June 6, 2016, from http://www.moniqueishikawa.com/story19990904b.htm
