Abstract
The statutory test of criminal responsibility in Canada is a modified version of the M'Naghten Rules. There are many critics of this test. In 1956, a Royal Commission (by a 3:2 majority) recommended no change in the essential part of the Canadian test of criminal responsibility.
It is generally accepted that there should be some test to determine criminal responsibility. Too much time is spent, however, in arguments about what that test should be. Even the new, so-called 'enlightened' tests are meeting criticism.
It would be wiser for the time being to focus our attention on the vital problem of what to do with the person once the issue of criminal responsibility has been tried—a problem far more important. Sending those acquitted on account of insanity to mental hospitals might not in every case be the proper thing to do. Likewise, sending those who are convicted to prison. In practice, it is the application of the test of criminal responsibility which determines the place of confinement. This should not be the case. Other criteria should be used. Constant arguments dealing with what is the most desirable test of criminal responsibility merely prolong the neglect of the more pressing issues. It is now time to act, channelling our energies in the proper direction.