For an individual to be blameworthy and criminally responsible for their actions, the accused person must have committed the actus reus and the mens rea. In the case of the accused pleading Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD), the court focuses on whether the accused had the mens rea while committing the alleged offence (Verdun-Jones, 2015). If the accused person did not know what he or she was doing was wrong, or did not appreciate the conduct or omission, the accused will not be found criminally responsible (Verdun-Jones, 2015). Overall, if the accused is found NCRMD, he or she will most likely be apprehended in the hospital, or supervised in the community to keep the citizens safe from a possible reoccurring
…show more content…
In the R v. Chaulk (1990) case they realized that the meaning of wrong in this section is a reasonable moral standard set by the community (O’Doherty, week 8, 28 Oct 2016). For the defence of NCRMD to be successful, Anastasia would have to prove that her mental disorder caused her to make a morally wrong conduct. She has to know that society views that action as morally wrong (Verdun-Jones, 2015). Another case that the court should refer to is Regina v. Oommen (1994). In this case, the court found that Oommen was normally able to distinguish right and wrong. However, his mental disorder caused him to kill his victim. The main issue is whether the mental disorder stopped Oommen from making a rational decision between right and wrong, and whether his perception stopped him from making a rational decision. He was compelled to kill his victim because of his delusions. With this in mind, Anastasia also believed that Christian was a threat to her life. The mental disorder that Anastasia possess distorted her ability to distinguish between right and wrong during her psychosis episode, which ultimately lead to her killing Christian. Therefore the accused was unable to differentiate between right and wrong during the prohibited conduct and make a rational decision because of her mental disorder. As a result, Anastasia would have to prove on the balance of …show more content…
New provisions in Criminal Code require review boards in every province and territory under section 672.38 (Criminal Code, 1992). The review board or the court determines whether the accused’s case is an absolute discharge, conditional discharge or an accused person is held in psychiatric facility under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code (Criminal Code, 2014). Absolute discharge is when the accused is found guilty but there is no conviction and no conditions. Whereas conditional discharge is when the accused is given conditions to follow (Verdun-Jones, 2015). The accused must not been a major threat to the safety of the society to be sentence with absolute discharge. Anastasia must be given the charge with the least restriction and least burdensome (O’Doherty, week 8, 28 Oct 2016). However, if Anastasia is seen as a major threat to the public, the review board or the court has two options: They may discharge the accused with certain conditions that the review board will deem mandatory, or the accused with the NCRMD, will be kept in a hospital with conditions that the review board believes is important (Verdun-Jones, 2015). In this case, Anastasia is not a major threat to society since she is responding
In the R v. Chaulk (1990) case they realized that the meaning of wrong in this section is a reasonable moral standard set by the community (O’Doherty, week 8, 28 Oct 2016). For the defence of NCRMD to be successful, Anastasia would have to prove that her mental disorder caused her to make a morally wrong conduct. She has to know that society views that action as morally wrong (Verdun-Jones, 2015). Another case that the court should refer to is Regina v. Oommen (1994). In this case, the court found that Oommen was normally able to distinguish right and wrong. However, his mental disorder caused him to kill his victim. The main issue is whether the mental disorder stopped Oommen from making a rational decision between right and wrong, and whether his perception stopped him from making a rational decision. He was compelled to kill his victim because of his delusions. With this in mind, Anastasia also believed that Christian was a threat to her life. The mental disorder that Anastasia possess distorted her ability to distinguish between right and wrong during her psychosis episode, which ultimately lead to her killing Christian. Therefore the accused was unable to differentiate between right and wrong during the prohibited conduct and make a rational decision because of her mental disorder. As a result, Anastasia would have to prove on the balance of …show more content…
New provisions in Criminal Code require review boards in every province and territory under section 672.38 (Criminal Code, 1992). The review board or the court determines whether the accused’s case is an absolute discharge, conditional discharge or an accused person is held in psychiatric facility under section 672.54 of the Criminal Code (Criminal Code, 2014). Absolute discharge is when the accused is found guilty but there is no conviction and no conditions. Whereas conditional discharge is when the accused is given conditions to follow (Verdun-Jones, 2015). The accused must not been a major threat to the safety of the society to be sentence with absolute discharge. Anastasia must be given the charge with the least restriction and least burdensome (O’Doherty, week 8, 28 Oct 2016). However, if Anastasia is seen as a major threat to the public, the review board or the court has two options: They may discharge the accused with certain conditions that the review board will deem mandatory, or the accused with the NCRMD, will be kept in a hospital with conditions that the review board believes is important (Verdun-Jones, 2015). In this case, Anastasia is not a major threat to society since she is responding