Insanity as a Defence

Insanity as a Defence Jessica Matthews - ( nc-jesmatthews) Peter Sacco Criminal Psychology II - Criminal Minds NC-PSYC1602 Niagara College July 19, 2011

"If you commit a big crime then you are crazy, and the more heinous the crime, the crazier you must be. Therefore you are not responsible, and nothing is your fault" (Noonan, 2002)

The insanity defense is a rare and very controversial subject. It is basically a defense used in court, by psychotics, to get off free with a crime they committed. In order to be found innocent using the insanity defense one must prove that he was unable to notice that his actions were wrong. Although definitions of legal insanity differ from place to place, generally a person is considered insane and is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the offence, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he or she was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his or her acts. A fairly recent case that used the insanity defense was the case of Andrea Yates. She drowned her five children in a bathtub and said that voices told her to do it. How can a person get off free for something as heinous as this? The insanity defense has been around in Canada since 1892, and is still being used to this day. There have been many people all over the world who have used insanity as a defense, to walk free from their mistake. Just like Vince Li, he was found not criminally responsible for the horrendous murder and beheading of Tim McLean on a Greyhound Bus in Manitoba. Feigning, Malingering, Factitious Disorders, and Somatoform Disorders are the four main key aspects of criminal mental health issues that are considered when professionals are asked to determine the authenticity of a criminal's supposed insanity plea. The professionals also have to decide what sort of treatment would be best to treat criminals. There are several approaches, such as: Medical, Psychotherapy, and Incarceration. When treating these criminal's, professionals need to understand and take account that there is likelihood that the criminal would repeat their criminal acts once

they were released from jail or finished treatment. The insanity defense should not be used in courts today and all people should pay for the crimes that they commit, whether they have a disease of the mind or not.

Like in the case of Andrea Yates, she drowned her five children: Noah, 7; John, 5; Paul, 3; Luke, 2; and Mary, 6 months old, in a bath tub because she was afraid of the evil that might get to them in the world today. Andrea Yates also said that voices told her to kill her children.

Andrea and her husband, Rusty decided that they were going to “live light” by living in a 350-square-foot, renovated bus. This is when Andrea's insanity began to surface because the living conditions were cramped. 7 Rusty purchased the bus from Michael Woroniecki, a travelling minister, whose religious views influenced Andrea and Rusty Yates on how to teach and raise their five children. Andrea and Rusty's family grew concern for Andrea because she took on Michael's extreme views on religion; “The role of women is derived from the sin of Eve and that bad mothers who are going to hell create bad children who will go to hell.” (Michael Woroniecki) 7

Andrea Yates had attempted suicide by taking an overdose of pills. Yates was transferred to the Methodist Hospital psychiatric unit and was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder. Once released, Andrea did not take the medication and as a result she

began to self mutilate and refused to feed her children, thus began her life spiraling downward. Andrea thought there were video cameras in the ceilings and said that the characters on television were talking to her and the children. She told Rusty about the hallucinations, yet neither of them informed Andrea's psychiatrist, Dr. Starbranch. 7

On July 20, Andrea put a knife to her neck and begged her husband to let her die. Andrea was then hospitalize for ten days and was put on different drugs, such as Haldol, which is an anti-psychotic drug. With this drug Andrea's psychotic condition immediately improved. Andrea seemed to be like her old self again. Andrea and Rusty were warned that having another baby would probably bring on more episodes of psychotic behaviour.

Rusty and Andrea moved into their own home, instead of living in the cramped renovated bus. Andrea's condition had improved so much so that she was starting to return to some of her past activities like swimming, cooking and even some socializing. At this time in Andrea Yates life she talked to Rusty and told him that she had strong hopes for the future but she still felt that life on the bus was a failure.

March of 2000 Andrea found out that she was pregnant, mostly due to the urging of Rusty request and want of another child. Andrea stopped taking Haldol, and then her daughter Mary was born on November 30th. Andrea Yates seemed to be coping fine, despite what Dr. Starbranch told her. On March 12th, Andrea Yates father passed away, immediately

her mental state worsened. She stopped talking, refused to drink, mutilated herself, and would not feed Mary. She also read the Bible frantically. Andrea Yates returned to another hospital where she was put on Haldol for a short time, and then was told by her new doctor, Dr. Mohammed Saeed, that she should not take Haldol anymore as she is not psychotic. When Andrea Yates left the hospital she was told to think positive thoughts and to see a psychologist.

Once Andrea returned home, Rusty was leaving for work, and his mother was going to come to the house to keep an eye on Andrea and the five children. However Andrea had other ideas planned, something that she had been planning for two years. Andrea filled the bathtub up with water and started with Paul, and systematically drowned the three youngest boys, and then placed them on her bed and covered them. Mary was left floating in the tub. The last child alive was the first born, Noah. Noah ran away from Andrea Yates, after asking what was wrong with Mary. Andrea caught up with him and as he screamed she dragged him back to the tub and drowned him next to Mary's body. Andrea left Noah in the tub, dead, and brought Mary to the bed and laid her in her brother’s arms.

During Andrea's confession she explained her actions by saying that she was not a good mother and that the children were “not developing correctly” and she needed to be punished. During the last three weeks of her trial, the jury found Andrea guilty of capital murder, but instead of Andrea getting the death penalty, she will be incarcerated until

2041, when Andrea would be 77 years old, then she will be eligible for parole. However July of 2006 Andrea Yates was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity.

Insanity as a defense has been around since the thirteenth century. English common law was recognized this as the principle that one who commits a criminal act while insane should not be held criminally responsible for the act. By the reign of Edward I, “complete madness” became accepted as a defense to a criminal charge. In 1278 King Edward I order the release of a man convicted of killing his daughter because at the time of the offence the man was “suffering from madness” (Biggs, 1967) Prior to this time, the life of an insane defendant could only be saved by a pardon from the King. While Edward II was in reign, he passed the Statute De Prerogativa Regis, which gave the King jurisdiction over “idiots” and “lunatics”. (Walker, 1968, pg.25)

“Idiots” we referred as being born without understanding, which we would now refer to them as “mentally challenged”. “Lunatics” were referred to as those suffering from madness, which we would now refer to this as being “mentally ill,” which is normally acquired in later life (Biggs, 1967).

Contrary to public belief, studies have shown that the insanity defense is invoked with relative infrequency (Pasewark, Pantle, & Steadman, 1979; Pasewark, 1981) Discussion of the insanity defense inevitably leads to an examination of the basic purposes and goals of the criminal law. Normally these have been: deterrence of the offender and the rest of

society; rehabilitation of the offender; protection of society by incarceration of the offender; and retribution for society (Packer, 1968). These acknowledged targets are relevant to the judgment of the community when dealing with an insanity defense.

By the eighteenth century, the complete madness definition had evolved into the "wilde beeste test”. A criminally accused person would have to be tested, to prove the authenticity of his insanity plea. The insanity defense was available to a person who was "totally deprived of his understanding and memory so as not to know what he was doing, no more than an infant, a brute, or a wild beast" (Feigl 1995, pg.161).

By 1326, the term “absolute madness” was considered the complete defense to a criminal charge and insanity was considered grounds for mitigation of punishment (Biggs, 1967). William Lambarde, an English jurist, of the Eirenarch era, expanded on Bracton's view of the necessary mental element by introducing the concepts of an “understand will”, “freedom of choice”, and knowledge of “good and evil” (Biggs, 1967: 83-84) By now the fundamental principle that a crime consists of two necessary elements: a criminal act (actus reus) and a criminal intention (mens rea).

With the beginning of the nineteenth century came the most significant case in the field of the theory of insanity used in law. The Hadfield Case challenged the relationship between sanity and “knowledge of good and evil” (Wingo, 1974; Simon 1967) Particularly, Hadfield's Case added “insane delusions” to the “wilde beeste” test as a basis or the

insanity defense. Hadfield was a veteran and sustained severe brain damage as a result of the wounds and was discharged from the army because of insanity. During his trial, evidence revealed that Hadfield had developed a delusion that God would destroy the world but that he, Hadfield, was the saviour of all mankind. Hadfield believed that he needed to accomplish this mission in life, so he reasoned that he must sacrifice his own life, as God had Jesus Christ do. However, Hadfield believed that suicide as a mortal sin, so he decided to attempt to kill the King, knowing that killing a king was a capital crime and punishable by death. Hadfield realized that killing the King would attain his execution and, through it, his self-sacrifice.

During the Hadfield Case, it was argued passionately against the notion of total insanity as follows: “Delusions where there is no frenzy or raving madness, is the true character of insanity...I must convince you, not only that the unhappy prisoner was a lunatic, within my own definition of lunacy, but that the act in question was the immediate offspring of disease” (Handfield's Case, 27 How. St. Tr. 1282 (1800)).

The Handfield Case was considered a landmark because it was an outright rejection of two concepts previously applied by the Courts, because: it denied that a criminal Defendant must be totally insane before he could be acquitted, and; it severed the relationship between insanity and the ability to distinguish “good from evil” or “right from wrong” (Wingo, 1974; Simon, 1967).

Canada has strict adherence to the narrowness of the McNaughtan Rules with its primary focus on “cognitive impairment” both were unsuccessful in their insanity pleas and were subsequently executed (Verdun-Jones, 1980).

In 1892, the McNaughtan Rules were preserved as permanent legislation when the Canadian government authorized the Criminal Code. The specific clause for the defense of insanity is articulated in section 16 of the Canadian Criminal Code reads as follows: " 16. (1) No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of an act done or omitted by him when labouring under natural imbecility, or disease of the mind, to such an extent as to render him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission, and of knowing that such an act or omission was wrong. (2) A person labouring under specific delusions, but in other respects same, shall not be acquitted on the ground of insanity, under the provisions hereinafter contained, unless the delusions caused him to believe in the existence of some state of things which, if it existed, would justify or excuse his act or omission. (3) Every one shall be presumed to be same at the time of doing or omitting to do any act until the contrary is proved. "

Since the McNaughtan Case there have been many criminals who have tried to get away with using “insanity” as a defense. Thanks to the Canadian Criminal Code and our legislation, only those who really seem to have a disease of the mind, and can be proven that they are criminally insane, will be put into a care facility to serve their time.

“Persons who are found not criminally responsible but who continue to pose a danger to the community may be kept in a locked institution for the rest of their lives.” 6 This was stated by Justice John Scurfield at Vince Li's sentencing. Vince Li is a 40 year old man who

stabbed, beheaded and cannibalized Tim McLean while riding a Greyhound Canada bus. Vince Li was found to not be criminally responsible for the murder and has been placed in secure psychiatric facility where he will receive treatment.

Vince Li was born in China in 1968. He had his Bachelor of Science in Computers, and Li worked as a computer software engineer in Beijing from 1994-1998. Li immigrated to Canada in 2001, and was considered a Canadian citizen in 2006. Vince Li worked at menial jobs in Winnipeg to support his wife, Anna. At the jobs that Vince Li had, it seemed that he was a hard worker, and caused no trouble.

Four weeks before the murder, Vince Li was fired from his job at Walmart because of a “disagreement” with other employees. Shortly before the incident, Li asked for time off from his delivery job to go to Winnipeg for a job interview. At midnight on July 28th 2008, Vince Li boarded a Greyhound bus that was headed to Winnipeg. When Vince Li got on the bus which had Tim McLean on it, Li was very calm and seemed “normal” to those around him. Once Tim McLean was asleep with his headphones in his ears, Vince Li took out his knife and tabled Tim McLean several times in the throat and neck, eventually beheading Tim McLean. During the trial Vince Li pleaded that he was not criminally responsible. This means that he accepted that the offence occurred but he claimed that he was unable to form the necessary mental elements, also known as mens rea. Despite not having any documented history of mental illness before the killing, Vince Li was diagnosed as having schizophrenia.

The psychiatrist said that Vince Li attacked Tim McLean because God's voice told him that McLean was a force of evil and was about to execute him.

Li was remanded to the Selkirk Mental Health Centre. Due to this horrific attack, not only is the family of Tim McLean seeking a lawsuit against Vince Li and the Greyhound, but two passengers have filed as well. The McLean family will have to go through the loss of their son, every year, because Vince Li was ordered to be tested every year, during treatment. If Vince Li becomes “sane” he will have to be sentenced again for the murder of Tim McLean. “If we want to keep crime coming down, we need to instill trust in our criminal justice system” (Bill Clinton 1993 – 2001)

During criminal cases, professionals are often brought in to determine the authenticity of a criminal's supposed insanity. In order to determine the authenticity, the practitioners need to look at the complete history of the criminal, or even the case study of the individual's life and their behaviours. Most real mental health disorders don't develop over night.

Feigning, Malingering, Factitious Disorders, and Somatoform disorders, are all key aspects of criminal mental health issues that need to be considered. When someone is “feigning” it means that they are pretending, or even falsifying something to avoid responsibility. For example: if a person has a chance to gain money from

an insurance claim, they might fake an injury or even an illness to get whatever they see is desirable at the time. On the other hand, one could attempt to avoid responsibility for a murder by claiming they were insane at the time.

Malingering is almost the same as feigning, except people use it for a longer people of time. For example: Say someone was in a car accident, but only had a sprained ankle. The victim would them fake the pain and anguish over a longer period of time to perhaps collect insurance, or even for pity.

Unlike feigning and malingering, Factitious Disorders, is an actual mental disorder where the symptoms of a physical or mental illness are deliberately induced or simulated to get attention or sympathy. This is best noticed in Munchausen Syndrome. A person who is considered to have a Factitious disorder is considered to be not mentally sane, however they are the ones who are consciously creating their own symptoms. A good example of Factitious Disorder is Genene Jones, from San Antonio, Texas. In 1981, she was the nurse who murdered an estimate of sixteen babies. She was only charged with one killing. Each time when the baby was found dead, Jones was found wailing, singing and cradling the corpse. Genene Jones attempted to overdose on drugs several times, but only took enough that would be found alive. She also left suicide notes but never killed herself. Some of the physical symptoms associated with Munchausen Syndrome include muscle weakness, abdominal pains and breathing problems.

Somatoform disorders represent a group of disorders characterized by physical symptoms suggesting a medical disorder. However, somatoform disorders represent a psychiatric condition because the physical symptoms present in the disorder cannot be fully explained by a medical disorder, substance use, or another mental disorder. Somatoform disorder physical complaints challenge medical providers who must distinguish between a physical and psychiatric source for the patient's complaints. Often, the medical symptoms patients experience may be from both medical and a psychiatric illnesses. Anxiety disorders and mood disorders commonly produce physical symptoms. These physical symptoms can dramatically improve with successful treatment of the anxiety or mood disorder.

Specific somatoform disorders have 5 categories within itself: (1) Somatization Disorder, (2) Conversion Disorder, (3) Pain Disorder, (4) Hypochondriasis, and (5) Body Dysmorphic Disorder. Below is a pie chart that shows Somatoform Diagnoses in a series of university hospital psychiatric consultations. An example of somatoform disorder is: “Ms. J is a 37-year-old woman who presents to the emergency department with abdominal pain. She reports that she has suffered from chronic pain since her adolescence. She has a history of multiple abdominal surgeries, the most recent was for pain felt due to adhesions. These operations have failed to reduce her complaints of pain. Her physical examination, vital signs, and laboratory examination, including CBC, urinalysis, and chemistry profile, are within normal limits. She is referred back to her primary care physician. Ms. J's primary care physician has followed her for many years and has made the diagnosis of somatization disorder. The treatment plan includes regular frequent visits to monitor her chronic pain complaints. Use of medication with addictive potential is restricted. Physical symptoms are monitored with limited use of invasive diagnostic

procedures. Outpatient visits focus on identifying sources of stress and encouraging healthy coping mechanisms.” (Yates, 2010)

Once it has been determined what sort of sentencing the criminal shall get, the next part that needs to be focused on is; rehabilitation. There are several approaches that can be used to treat criminals, but the most common are: medical, psychotherapy, and incarceration.

If a criminal has a personality disorder, most professionals would recommend that they go through counseling and even take a prescriptive drug to help them. Depending on how far the disorder is, like Antisocial Personality, then incarceration is the best recommendation that could be made.

If a criminal has anxiety disorders, then they would most likely be prescribed an antianxiety drug that would help them function better. If a criminal had a psychotic disorder like schizophrenia, and anti-psychotic drug would be used to reduce or even eliminate the delusions and voices leading to the violent behaviours.

If a criminal is dependent on drugs or alcohol there are twelve step programs, detox centers, treatments centers anti-abuse and counseling programs that seem to work best for these types of criminals. Also for people who have ADD and ADHD, most professionals would have them take daily medication, and would also recommend counseling. It has been said that Ritalin, which is a drug used to control hyperactivity, works well with people who have

ADD and ADHD because it helps them control their outbursts and aggression.

In almost any circumstance a doctor would most-likely prescribe some sort of drug for a patient to take. There are Psychoactive drugs which are mainly given to those who have schizophrenia. Professionals dealing with these types of criminals may also use sedatives to help calm and sedate the criminal, if need be. If a criminal is suffering from depression or even anxiety, some professionals may consider using anti-depressants or monoamine oxidase inhibitors. These are used to make an individual feel less depressed and give them an ability to function at higher levels and feel more positive. Although when it comes to males that seem to have a lot of aggression, professionals may decide to try an anti-androgen drug which will reduce the testosterone levels, in hope that it will reduce the libido in males which leads to sexual gratification. If the libido did not reduce enough, for a rapist or even molester the next best thing would be to do a chemical castration. A Chemical castration is basically cutting off a male's testicles without actually removing them.

When dealing with psychotherapy three main categories that are explored. The first category is; Cognitive-Behavioural, which means reality therapy. Through this type of therapy, criminals are taught new ways for behaving appropriately. Two of the most common methods of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy used are : Aversion techniques and Reinforcement Techniques.

Aversion techniques is giving a criminal a negative stimulus and paring it with a negative punishment. The best example of this would to give a pedophile a child porn picture and as they get aroused, give them an electric shock.

Reinforcement techniques are giving a criminal a positive reward when they show positive behaviour. Using the same type of example, in order for the pedophile to get a positive reward or praise, he would have to get aroused by looking at a provocative picture of adult women. Both types techniques would work, it just depends on the type of criminal it was being used for. The second category is group therapy. Group Therapy allows individuals with the same type of experiences, behaviours and qualities, to discuss their past and work on their future behaviours. This type of therapy is normally used with people who need to fix their anger management, and also people who are alcoholics.

The third category is using the psychoanalytical model. This model gets the criminal to take the repressed childhood memories and traumas and re-open them and resolve them with the help of a therapist. The psychoanalytical model allows criminals to deal with the issues by having them transferred onto the therapist. Some therapists will also use hypnosis and free-association to help the patients.

The next type of rehabilitation is, incarceration. Having a criminal incarcerated helps the individual from committing further crimes because they are locked away. It also helps

the victims, families, and society to know that the criminal will serve his punishment in jail. Having a criminal incarcerated is supposed to help them and teach them to learn to not commit crimes.

There is always a possibility that a criminal will return to their criminal careers once they are released from jail or finished treatment. The number of repeat offenders in Canada is nearly four times as high as the official figure issued by the federal government. “The federal Correctional Service of Canada, which operates 54 prisons nationwide, proudly claims that the rate for criminals incarcerated in its institutions is only 10 per cent.” (Baglole, 2004)

While the figure seems impressive, it excludes some important criteria: The 10 per cent refers only to the number of convicted criminals who return to a federal prison within two years of being released into society. It does not include people who return to a provincial jail within two years of leaving federal custody. It also does not include people who return to any prison after being back in society for three years or longer.

If the number of convicted criminals who return to a federal or a provincial jail within two years of leaving federal custody is included, the rate of repeat offenders increases by almost four times, Leaving Canada with a 37 per cent chance that those once convicted will be in custody again within their two years out of jail.

There could be many reasons why a criminal will return to their criminal life. Some of the reasons are: social learning, psychoanalytical explanation, identity, interest, excitement, and careers. When you look at “social learning” criminal's will returned to their criminal lives because it is what they know best. It is what they have learned over the years, and it has become their way of life. If you take a look at “psychoanalytical explanation” you will see that normally the criminal had a bad childhood or trauma that occurred. Which the criminal still feels that he has unfinished business from the past that needs resolution. The next reason for returning to crime is; identity. This is all about what the criminal thinks and feels, the criminal will act in that manner, and given time, will become that person. This type of “identity” gives a person a sense of power or control over their lives. A criminal could go back into their past crime life because it holds a certain “interest” to them. Some individuals, like pedophiles, just prefer being a pedophile because it is in the sexual preference. Then again some criminals enjoy the excitement running from the law gives. This type of “excitement” lets them live for the rush and thrill of committing crimes, and keeps them from being bored. And lastly, some criminals will make crime their career. For example; prostitution; drugs; these are all ways how a criminal can make their living and generate finances.

The insanity defense is a very controversial subject. It is a defense used in court, by psychotics, to get off free with a crime they committed. Although the definition of legal insanity differs from place to place, the general opinion is; a person is considered insane and is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the offence, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, he or she was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his or her acts. Andrea Yates, and Vince Li, both committed murder, both plead insanity, and both got away with it. The insanity defense has been around in Canada since 1892, and is still being used to this day, but why are we not more strict with the rule to plead insanity? There have been many people all over the world who have used insanity as a defense, to walk free from their mistake. Some of these people don't get away with it because they seem to be missing some key aspects when it comes to criminal mental health issues. Professionals have to decide what treatment would be best to treat criminals. Not only would the professionals treat the criminals they would have to teach them that it is and would be wrong to become a repeat offender once they were released from jail or finished treatment. Therefore the insanity defense should not be used in courts today and all people should pay for the crimes that they commit, whether they have a disease of the mind or not.

As disgusting as it is to see people get away with murder, it really makes you think about all the other people who did commit murder and were not of sound mind. Should they be forgiven to? An insanity plea is a poor excuse for serious lawbreaking, and should have no bearing on punishment. The majority of criminal cases, especially murder trials, an insanity plea is

merely a defense strategy aimed at delivering guilty defendants from the death penalty or serving time in prison. Defendants fake mental illness, and their attorneys use this loophole as a way to confuse jurors with complicated and questionable psychiatric evaluations. Most defendants who are found not guilty by reason of insanity are released from mental hospitals years, if not decades, earlier than they would be had they served a prison sentences. The insanity defense ensures that criminals can avoid the punishment that fits their crimes. There is no doubt that Andrea Yates is insane. She was diagnosed as being psychotic, but there should be a line where people cannot plea insanity. If she was really afraid of what the world might do to her children she should have took it upon herself to better prepare her children for the real world instead of taking them from it. I personally feel no remorse for this Andrea Yates. What she did was despicable! How can one person pick up their child lay them in a bathtub, and drown them? I feel horrible knowing that there are these types of people out there. I am sure that no body's life is perfect, mine included, but I know that for a fact that if I felt that I was going to harm one of my children, I would seek help. Andrea Yates family should have seen the help that was needed. I personally think that after Andrea Yates had gone to the hospital multiple times for attempted suicide, that a social worker should have came into the home and either took the kids for good, or for time being while Andrea got better. I have had my own personal experiences dealing with social workers, and know that if they felt that there was something wrong in the home that they would take the children out of that home. I think that if Andrea Yates was to have

another child, the same events would happen again. This lady needs to be locked up for good, she completely insane! I am enraged that the "insanity plea" has ever been raised in courts. Those who commit a crime should be held responsible for the crime no matter what the consequence. I do believe we can have moments where we lapse into a false judgment but that does not mean insanity is the case. People should stand up and take the repercussions of their irresponsibility. I also believe that Vince Li is unpredictably dangerous. Vince Li has schizophrenia which means to me at anytime, anywhere he could all of a sudden have a psychotic break and possibly cause another life to end. The young man that Vince Li brutally murdered never got to have a proper goodbye. He couldn't have an open casket at his funeral. He was chopped up, and so disfigured to the point where no one would be able to recognize who he was. It was the human rights of Tim McLean that were violated. What makes it right to have Vince Li's rights to be considered more important? Canada needs to build a separate facility to house criminally insane offenders. A very secure facility with fenced and monitored outdoor area where they can receive as much time outside as treatment requires them to receive. A facility where they are detrained for the rest of their natural lives. The “patient” will receive humane treatment and the public's safety will be protected. If the insane individual commits a very violent murder, that murderer insane, or not should never be free to repeat that behaviour. A life for a life.

Vince Li murdered Tim McLean . . . he may not be psychologically accountable but he is still criminally responsible. He still committed the crime of murder and he needs to be held responsible for that. The whole issue of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) needs to be looked into and change by the politicians who have the power to do it.

It is time that this world finally see's crime as crime, not the person behind it. No matter how small or how big the crime is, the person who commits the crime should take responsibility and pay their dues.

References
(1991, January 25). R. v. Ratti, [1991] S.C.R. 68. Judgements of the Supreme Court of Canada. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://scc.lexum.org/en/1991/1991scr168/1991scr1-68.html (2008). Insanity Defence. The Free Dictionary . Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Insanity+Defense (2009, March 5). Greyhound bus killer found not criminally responsible. CBC News Canada. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2009/03/05/mb-li-verdict.html Argent, V. (1978). Counter-Revolutionary Panic and the Treatment of the Insane: 1800. Study More. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://studymore.org.uk/1800.htm#1Treason Baglole, J. (2004, November 06). Repeat Offender Rate Four Times Higher than Reported. Vancouver Sun. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://www.primetimecrime.com/Recent/Courts/Sun%20Repeat%20offender.htm Biggs, J. (1967). The Guilty Mind: Psychiatry and the Law of Homicide. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press. Feigl (1005). Insanity Defense - History. Other Free Encyclopedias. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://law.jrank.org/pages/7664/Insanity-Defense-History.html">Insanity Defense - History Montaldo, C. The Trial of Andrea Yates. About.com. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/yates_trial.htm News Staff (2009, March 5). Vince Li not criminally responsible for beheading. CTV News. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20090304/bus_verdict_090305/ Noonan, P. (2002, July 27). Quotes of the Day: July 2002. Bartleby.com. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://www.bartleby.com/quotations/072002.html Packer, H. (1968). The Limits of the Criminal Law. Stanford: Standford Press. Pasewark, R. A. (1981). Insanity Plea: A Review of the Research Literature, The Journal of Psychiatry and Law. Pasewark, R. A., Pantle, M. L., & Steadman, H. J. (1979). The Insanity Plea in New York

Skate, 1965 - 1976. New York : New York State Bar Journal. Perez, M. (2006, March 28). Women used Insanity Defense in similar case. Ocala. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://www.ocala.com/article/20060326/NEWS/203260397? p=2&tc=pg Pilon, M. (2002, January 22). Mental Disorder and Canadian Criminal Law. Government of Canada. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/CollectionR/LoPBdP/BP/prb9922-e.htm Simon, R. J. (1967). The Jury and the Defense of Insanity. Boston: Little Brown and Company. Verdun-Jones, , & Simon, N. (1979). The Insanity Defence since Schwarts V. R. First Steps along the Road Towards Rationalization of Canadian Policy?. (3rd ed.). Walker, N. (1968). Crime and Insanity in England. volume one: The Historical Perspective. Edinburgh: University Press. Wingo, H. (1974). Squaring McNaghten with Precedent - An Historical Note. South Carolina Law Review. Yates, W. R. (2010, July 15). Somatoform Disorders. Medscape Reference. Retrieved July 19, 2011, from http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/294908-overview