Is NCR a Way Out?

(Aired on April 21, 2010)

I have issues with the law that allows judges to find persons not criminally responsible for their actions. I made mention of this during the days following the conviction of Allan Schoenborn on charges of first-degree murder in the deaths of his three children in Merritt. It is a decision that makes me wonder whether this is a fair decision. I understand the reasons for it, but the fact is, if it can lead to someone being out on the streets in a shorter period of time than if they were found criminally responsible, I have trouble. Keep a person like that in a facility as opposed to prison, where they can be treated. But there have to be restrictions, and I don't have enough faith in the review board to ease my mind.

Another story this week has me equally concerned. A mentally ill Edmonton woman was shot by police after trying to stab an officer with a steak knife. The woman was apparently psychotic, under the influence of alcohol and Valium at the time, and somehow this means she can be found not criminally responsible. Because a person cannot appreciate the nature of their actions doesn't mean they shouldn't be contained, and be considered a danger to the public. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it with me. If they are let out because someone says they are no longer a danger, who's to say they couldn't go and do exactly the same thing again? If they're psychotic now and can commit an offence, what happens when they're psychotic next time?

Sometimes the explanation of the law makes sense, but it practice it often doesn't. Here's a case in point.

Doesn't matter whether they're criminally responsible at all. To me, the difference should be the place where they are held, not whether or not there's a chance they could be out on the street in six months.