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.

Schoenborn Verdict not a Crowd Pleaser

(Aired on February 23, 2010)

The decision yesterday by Mr. Justice Robert Powers to find Allan Schoenborn not criminally responsible for the death of his three children will not be a popular one. Indeed, many do not comprehend how a man could be found guilty of killing his children, understood the gravity of what he was doing, and yet somehow didn't have the capacity to understand whether it was morally right or wrong.

That he had some kind of mental issues I don't think anyone will dispute. What the general public is concerned about is- do those issues excuse him from jail time? Prosecutor Glenn Kelt might have put it best when he said our justice system doesn't punish people who are sufficiently mentally ill and aren't responsible for their actions.

If we knew that Schoenborn was going to be in a psychiatric facility for a long, long time, and getting treatment for his illness, we might be more satisfied. But most of us don't understand the complexities of treating the mentally ill, how the psychiatric facilities work, and we have this feeling that somehow, after a short period of time, someone will declare Schoenborn suddenly "cured" and he will walk back into society.

Mental illness is a tough thing to diagnose, and it is even tougher to treat. Many psychiatrists who testified at Schoenborn's trial indicated that it will be tough to treat him. It is not an easy decision to take. And many will see it as unfair. But in our justice system, and in a democracy, we have to place some faith in those who make those judgments. Taking on the office of judge involves taking on a grave, and yes, oppressive responsibility. I believe that Justice Powers gave a lot of thought to his decision, weighed everything thoroughly, and made what he felt was the right decision. And, in the end, that's what democracy is all about.

We don't agree with all the decisions, but in the end, we have to have faith that, after weighing all the evidence, the right decision was made. Having said that, I wonder if Darcie Clarke, the mother of the three slain children, can find peace with the judge's decision. I hardly think so.