The recent A.P.A. Statement on the Insanity Defence is a document important to all psychiatrists and medico-legal professionals in North America. Its contents are reviewed and contrasted with current Canadian practice on the insanity defence, as well as the proposals of the Mental Disorder Project of the Canadian Department of Justice. The American Psychiatric Association's proposal on the definition of mental disorder is contrasted with the current practice. It is also suggested that the proposal of the Mental Disorder Project to change the disposition of insanity acquittees will lead to difficulties similar to those which provoked the current crisis in the United States.
References
1.
Department of Justice.Draft report of the mental disorder project.Criminal Law Review, May, 1984.
2.
American Psychiatric Association Statement on the Insanity Defence.Am J Psychiatry1983; 140: 681–688.
3.
Criminal Code of Canada, Section 16.
4.
NigelWalker. Crime and insanity in England.Edinburgh: University Press, 1968.
5.
Verdun-JonesS.N.The evolution of the defences of insanity and automatism in Canada from 1843 to 1979: a saga of judicial reluctance to sever the umbilical cord to the mother country?.U.B.C. Law Review1979-80; 14: 1–73.
6.
SparksR.F.“Diminished responsibility” In: Theory and practice.The Modern Law Review1964; 27: 9–34.
7.
DellS., SmithA.Change in the sentencing of diminished responsibility homicides.Br J Psychiatry1983; 142: 20–34.
8.
HuckabeeH.M.Lawyers, psychiatrists and criminal law: cooperation or chaos?Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1980.
9.
Criminal Code of Canada, Section 542(2).
10.
Criminal Code of Canada, Section 547.
11.
Law Reform Commission of Canada: Report on Mental Disorder in the Criminal Process, Ottawa, 1976.
12.
PerrI.N.President's message: The most beneficial alternative: a counterpoint to the least restrictive alternative.Bull Am Acad Psychiatr Law1978; 6(4): 4–7.
13.
Regina v. Leech, 21 C.R.N.S. 1.
14.
Regina v. Craig, 2 W.W.R., 1975, 314.
15.
Royal Commission on Capital Punishment (1949–53), London, H.M.S.O.
16.
BonnieR.J.The moral basis of the insanity defense.American Bar Association Journal1983; 69: 194–197.
17.
BayneD.B.Automatism and provocation in Canadian case Law.31 C.R.N.S., 1975, 257.
18.
Regina v. Rabey, 37 C.C.C. (2d), 1977, 461.
19.
Cooper v. The Queen, 51 C.C.C. (2d) (S.C.C. 1980).
20.
Kjeldsen v. The Queen, 64 C.C.C. (2d) 161 (S.C.C. 1981).
