![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe criminal case of Richard Kachkar, who went on a spree with a snowplow in January 2011 that saw Toronto police officer Ryan Russell killed, came to an end when a jury came to the conclusion that Kachkar was not criminally responsible on the grounds of mental disorder. Understandably, his survivors are unhappy.
I'm not of the opinion that the purpose of the criminal justice system should be to deliver closure to survivors of violent crime, at least not to the point where it's elevated above the basic principle of doing justice. The evidence presented in court that Kachkar was psychotic at the time of the episode was convincing, both the anecdotal reports of his actions and multiple assessments by psychiatrists. A jury decided fairly. The terms of Kachkar's detention, which will see him kept in detention until such time as it is safe for him to reenter society--if ever--strike me as sufficiently stringent.
The case speaks to the weakness of Canada in the realms of the mentally ill and their interactions of society. Unfortunately, it's likely to be used in ways that won't make things better.
C-54 is not a solution.
Kachkar ran barefoot from the Good Shepherd homeless shelter on Queen St. E. and stole an idling snowplow from in front of a Regent Park Tim Hortons, taking it on a demented joyride and killing the promising officer.
Early Wednesday afternoon, a jury of six men and six women found Kachkar, 46, not criminally responsible by way of mental illness for Russell’s death.
The jury had begun deliberating Monday afternoon.
As the six men and six women filed into the courtroom at around 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, Christine Russell bent forward, looking down. She held the same position after the verdict was delivered, and didn’t rise as the jury left.
[. . .]
Outside court, Russell told reporters there is “zero closure” for her family, as they will have to go each year to Kachkar’s ORB hearings, “for the rest of my life.”
“We’re heartbroken. I believe that Ryan deserved a lot better than this. He was killed in the line of duty. Nothing changes that,” she said.
She addressed some remarks to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “I know you’re listening,” she said, adding she will advocate hard for his government’s Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, which will create a high risk offender designation, imposing restrictions on people who have committed violent crimes, among other reforms.
I'm not of the opinion that the purpose of the criminal justice system should be to deliver closure to survivors of violent crime, at least not to the point where it's elevated above the basic principle of doing justice. The evidence presented in court that Kachkar was psychotic at the time of the episode was convincing, both the anecdotal reports of his actions and multiple assessments by psychiatrists. A jury decided fairly. The terms of Kachkar's detention, which will see him kept in detention until such time as it is safe for him to reenter society--if ever--strike me as sufficiently stringent.
The case speaks to the weakness of Canada in the realms of the mentally ill and their interactions of society. Unfortunately, it's likely to be used in ways that won't make things better.
Sgt. Russell’s widow, Christine, said she was “heartbroken” by the verdict, which will see Mr. Kachkar detained and treated in a hospital instead of receiving a jail sentence, and she challenged the government to take action.
“I believe Ryan deserved better than this,” she told reporters. “Stephen Harper, I know you’re listening.”
“And there is something out there called Bill C-54 that’s trying to amend some of the not criminally responsible rights. I’m going to advocate for that very hard.”
The bill would allow a judge to designate someone found not criminally responsible for a crime as “high risk” if the judge determines there is a significant threat to the public. The designation would increase the time between reviews of the individual’s detention and prevent the person from being considered for release at all until a judge revokes the “high risk” status. The individual would have very limited opportunities to leave custody on a temporary pass.
[. . .]
Forensic psychologists and mental-health experts say the review boards that consider whether to release someone found not criminally responsible for a crime already consider public safety carefully. And they worry the legislation promotes an erroneous view of the risk that a mentally ill individual who commits a crime will re-offend after treatment.
Research suggests there is very limited risk that someone found not criminally responsible will go on to commit another crime.
C-54 is not a solution.
