Amendments to the criminal code of canada: Impact on inpatient psychiatric remands

Smith, J. David; Grant, Faye

doi:10.1080/09585189308407984

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Grant reported similar findings for British Columbia: the new 5-day remands accounted for only one-third ofthe pretrial admissions for fitness assessments (9).…”

supporting

confidence: 63%

The Canadian Criminal Code Provisions for Mentally Disordered Offenders: A Survey of Experiences, Attitudes, and Knowledge

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O n February 4, 1992, the Criminal Code provisions governing mentally disordered offenders changed significantly. New legislation changed the practice of forensic psychiatry in Canada by redefining the ways in which offenders with mental illness are to be assessed and treated. The amendments generated procedural changes to laws pertaining to the pretrial examination of an accused, as well as to the events following a verdict of "unfit to stand trial" or "not criminally responsible on account ofmental disorder." (For a review of the amendments, see 1-5.) Despite the substantial amendments, the anticipated effects of the new legislation have not been observed (6,7). For example, in evaluating the effects of the criminal code provisions in Alberta, 1 year before and 1 year after they were amended, Arboleda-Florez and others reported that the change in legislation had not succeeded in reducing the actual duration ofassessments from 30 days to 5 days (8 Grant reported similar findings for British Columbia: the new 5-day remands accounted for only one-third ofthe pretrial admissions for fitness assessments (9).One explanation for the low impact of the criminal code amendments is that those working with mentally disordered offenders may be unaware of them or their implications for practice. This study surveyed criminal lawyers and forensic psychiatrists to gather information on their knowledge of, experiences with, and attitudes toward the Criminal Code provisions regarding mentally disordered offenders. We hoped to learn why amending those provisions had so little impact on practice patterns. Methodology Study Design and InstrumentA survey design was used and 2 questionnaires were developed, 1 for lawyers and 1 for psychiatrists. The content of the questionnaires was identical, and only the wording for questions about background and experience (for example, area of interest for lawyers versus subspecialty for psychiatrists) or the population being served (for example, clients for lawyers versus patients for psychiatrists) was modified.The questionnaires were divided into 3 sections: demographics and experiences, attitudes, and knowledge. Twelve questions were designed to measure global knowledge rather than

show abstract

“…Grant reported similar findings for British Columbia: the new 5-day remands accounted for only one-third ofthe pretrial admissions for fitness assessments (9).…”

supporting

confidence: 63%

The Canadian Criminal Code Provisions for Mentally Disordered Offenders: A Survey of Experiences, Attitudes, and Knowledge

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, while only 43% of the NGRI cohort did not have previous contact with the forensic psychiatric system, 68.5% of the NCRMD cohort did not have contact with the forensic system prior to their NCRMD adjudication (23). In addition, the results suggest that the post-1992 forensic psychiatric system is serving a segment of the population that may not fit within the traditional mental health and criminal justice systems (9,25). This assertion is supported by the fact that a large number of persons in the NCRMD cohort have had previous involvement with the criminal justice and mental health systems prior to coming into contact with the forensic psychiatric system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Several studies have examined how the implementation of Bill C-30 has affected Canada's forensic psychiatric system, most of which have concentrated on issues surrounding forensic psychiatric assessments (that is, fitness and criminal responsibility). In general, studies have found that the number of psychiatric assessments decreased immediately after the amendments to the Criminal Code were proclaimed into force but then increased 2 and 3 years afterwards (9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14). Even though certain provisions contained in Bill C-30 were intended to reduce the amount of time that a defendant is remanded for a forensic psychiatric assessment, growing evidence suggests that these particular provisions have not achieved their desired effect (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%