Transcription
[Applause]
Proposed legislation from the federal government would see mentally ill offenders found not criminally responsible for their actions stay behind bars for longer periods. To help us examine what the new rules would mean to offenders and the public, we're joined now in Kempville, Ontario via Skype by Heidi Illingworth. She's executive director of the Canadian Resource Center for Victims of Crime. In the nation's capital, Anita Zagedi, mental health law lawyer with the Toronto firm Hiltz Zagedi. And with us here in studio, Sandy Simpson, chief of forensic psychiatry at CAMH, the Center for Addiction and Mental Health. And someone we're just going to call Roy. He's a volunteer at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health's Empowerment Council. And he's a former violent offender. And we welcome everybody, both here in the studio and in points beyond, to our discussion tonight, which we're going to start by reading a quote here from the federal justice minister, Rob Nicholson, who had this to say last month.
"We are listening to victims, as well as the provinces and territories, who are telling us that the safety of the public should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving mentally disordered accused persons. We are committed to ensuring that our laws are strong and clear enough to protect Canadians in situations where high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder pose a risk to the public."
Let's just start with those three words, "not criminally responsible." And Anita, I want to go to you first in the nation's capital. Give us some understanding of this sentence and what kinds of circumstances warrant it.
So, uh, Steve, an individual is found not criminally responsible in the event they're found to have committed the sort of *actus reus*, the action part of a criminal offense, but they're lacking the associated mental state. So, they're by virtue of mental disorder, they're not able to appreciate either the nature or consequences of their actions or of knowing that they were wrong, either in law or morally. So that's when you get, uh, found not criminally responsible. It's a verdict. It's not an acquittal, but you have been convicted of nothing.
Is that a more elegant way of saying what we used to hear in the old Perry Mason shows, "not guilty by reason of insanity?"
Same type of thing?
Yes, absolutely. In fact, that was the former designation in this country as well, the NGRI, or not guilty by reason of insanity, now known as not criminally responsible.
Okay, Heidi, to you now. How do the families that you represent feel when they hear a verdict of not criminally responsible?
Well, as you can imagine, many of them are very upset by this. Um, they fear, they're upset because, as Anita said, you know, "not criminally responsible" often, or it does mean that there is no criminal record. And, um, what is perhaps most upsetting to them is the fact that this, uh, the person who has caused, in some cases, very serious harm, in some cases taken a life, they will go to a hospital. Um, and the family will be forced to have annual review hearings, which are, uh, can be very emotionally upsetting on an annual basis to, um, you know, review how the accused is doing and, uh, if they're ready to return to the community. And, and often in cases, what we see is that offenders, uh, actually are coming back to the community much sooner than they would, um, have if they were, you know, convicted in a court of, in a court of law and given a traditional prison sentence.
Sandy Simpson, let's just get a little more information about that. Sandy Simpson, what happens to a person once the judge says you're guilty but not criminally responsible?
You become subject to an order under the provincial review board, and, uh, the review board determines whether you are detained in hospital or whether your care can, uh, be initially in the community, or how, or the rate at which you will move from being in hospital to the community. All of that, uh, progress is dependent upon the clinical state of the person and the risk that they pose to the public. But bottom line, prison is not one of the options under those circumstances.
Correct. Because, because the person has not been found to have intentionally committed the act as a culpable person. They weren't the mental, they were not mentally well at the time. They could not, uh, exercise the moral judgment that the rest of us can. And therefore, it's, uh, seen that they're in a special category of offender who should not be held responsible for their action in the same way. So they'd be sub, become subject to careful clinical oversight and, uh, review board oversight, initially with secure hospitalization, then to slow and progressive community integration.
This is not an academic discussion for Roy, who has been through this. Roy, you were once deemed to be not criminally responsible after an act of violence. And I wonder, uh, you didn't go, did you go to prison? I guess no, you wouldn't have gone to prison.
I, I did. I, I, I did awaiting trial. I was detained in a detention center here in Toronto, at the West Detention Center and at the Don Jail, because at that point you had not been found NCR. I hadn't been found NCR. I was just charged, uh, with, with a crime. And so I was detained and I waited, uh, in jail, uh, until my trial effectively.
And your trial took how long?
My trial took three days, but actually it was two days. And the next morning the judge came in and gave his verdict of NCR because it was obvious in my situation at the time.
So you were only in jail for a couple days then?
Uh, no, I was in jail for 23 months.
23 months? Oh. Awaiting your trial, I guess. So you're in jail for almost two years.
Almost two years. But then it was disposed of lickety-split, obviously, uh, the trial. Yeah. I mean, the trial, there were two forensic psychiatrists that testified that I was NCR. And so the evidence was just, um, you know, it was, it was overwhelming. And so the trial lasted two days. The third day the judge came in and gave his NCR finding and, and then I was sent back to jail and I had to wait for a bed to become available in the hospital.
So how long did you have to wait?
About two months.
Two months. So you were in jail more than two years, all said and done.
Yeah. Well, it was total was 23 months. 20 months and then the trial and then about three, two, two months, two months, three months waiting for a bed having been found NCR.
Did you get any mental health treatment while you were in prison?
Well, there was a psychiatrist that would come and obviously the medication was dispensed, you know, and, and I was, I, I mean, I, um, I was, well, I mean, after the incident and after being incarcerated and being put on the right medication, I, I started to improve while I was in jail, believe it or not. Um, and so the, the pretty much the two years that I spent behind bars waiting for my trial, I had stabilized. I had no more symptoms, uh, because I, they found the right medication and the right dose. So, yeah. And in the, the jails are horrendous. They're woefully inadequate to deal with mental illness. Uh, if somebody has a, a break, if somebody has a manic episode, they just put you in segregation or the hole. It's called the hole, where they just put you in a room where you have no contact with anyone. And, uh, so thankfully I was well enough that, you know, I just put, I was put into a special needs range, they called it. People had various needs. It wasn't all psychiatric.
And once they found a place for you, though, you went to a psychiatric facility?
Once they found a bed for me, then I was transferred to, to the hospital.
For how long?
I spent about two, as an inpatient at the hospital. Uh, two years. About two years.
Was it helpful?
Very much so. Absolutely.
Um, let me do one more here, and you're going to appreciate this question. Well, let me ask, maybe you won't, but I'm going to ask you, forgiveness as we start here. When people hear, "He's not guilty because he's not considered criminally responsible," there will be a chunk of the population that will think, "Just got away with one, didn't you?" And the fact that you were improving your emotional and intellectual impairment was, was lessening while you were in jail, um, will probably encourage people to come to that conclusion. Should they come to that conclusion?
If they knew me, how I was before, when I was diagnosed in 1998 till about 2007, which was the date of the offense, people who know me and knew me wouldn't say that because they saw what this illness did to me, how it destroyed me internally, you know, and, and spread outwards where it affects not just you, but your family members. So, but I'm aware that people might think that in the community. But also a distinction to be made. I think Anita mentioned this. When someone's found NCR, it used to be "not guilty by reason of insanity," but as far as I can understand now, it's, you're NCR. You are guilty of this crime, but you're not criminally responsible. There was no criminal intent.
So, uh, what were you diagnosed with?
Bipolar disorder.
Bipolar. Uh, this is the wrong terminology, so you'll help me with this here, but, but I guess people who knew you before this incident took place would have concluded that you were clearly out of your mind. Is that right?
When this incident happened? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Obviously, um, people who knew me, I mean, you know, I mean, going way back, my family members, I was not, I'd never been in any trouble as a child. Never, never even stole a candy bar. I never had psychiatric issues until the 30s. The early 30s is when it started. Uh, and then it just deteriorated after that. So, um, so people were shocked. But, but people who knew that I was getting ill, especially my inner, you know, the inner circle of, of my family, you know, I mean, they saw how what this illness did to me and to them by extension, you know.
And you, how do you feel now?
How do I feel? Health-wise, I feel fine. I feel, um, like I've been literally given my life back because my problem before getting in trouble was not that I was in denial and refused all medication. That was not my problem. I, I, so my, I had an issue of compliance, but it was because I didn't want to take as much as they were recommending. I thought I could handle it. I thought, you know, I can lick this. I can do it.
But you couldn't.
I couldn't. No.
Heidi, let me come to you and get some reaction on this. I'm not, not necessarily asking you to react to Roy's particular circumstances, but when victims of crime hear an example of somebody who did a crime, was found to be not criminally responsible, and now seems to have turned his life around, what's the reaction?
Well, I think that most victims would be very happy to hear that someone like Roy is doing much better. And what the families that I talk to, the individuals that I talk to on a regular basis, they are concerned about public safety. They don't want anybody else ever to be harmed in the way that they were or that their loved one was. So, um, you know, a big concern for victims is, are, is the person going to go off their medication again or be non-compliant? Um, and, you know, is that going to lead to deterioration and lead to another serious incident in the community? And do we have enough supports in the community to properly monitor these individuals and to ensure that this doesn't happen again? That's what the concerns of victims are around, um, you know, mentally ill offenders and accused.
Sandy Simpson, that seems like a very legitimate concern. How do we make sure that your profession ensures that people who have been found not criminally responsible for crimes they've committed stay on their meds?
Well, it's not only my profession, but it's the responsibility of the person as well. Uh, I guess the, uh, the, you know, the moral, uh, basis of the NCR defense is that whilst you're not held criminally responsible for your action, you are held responsible for being meticulous about your mental health henceforth. Uh, and of me and people like me to be able to develop and run systems of care that will ensure that is so. Uh, we are dealing with human systems. We're talking about risk reduction, not risk elimination. And of course, that is true with every, uh, issue of offender rehabilitation, whether that's to do with mental illness or not. We have, uh, I mean, I think in general, very good success to report. We have, uh, in terms of relativity between, uh, the, um, the risks of reoffending of someone who has a mental illness who's committed an offense versus somebody who didn't. Generally, the, the reoffending rates are about 20 to 25% of what it would be had you been held criminally responsible. So significantly less. So it's, uh, yeah, 70, 80% less than it would have been otherwise. Uh, so in general, people do very well. Of course, the reason they have offended is that they were unwell, and that is treatable. The reason other people offend is not treatable in the same way. So mentally ill offenders do much better, contingent on the quality of care they receive, clearly.
And Roy, you're staying on your meds?
Absolutely. It's not, it's, it's, I've lost too much. My family has lost too much, uh, for me to even consider, you know, going off. I paid a dear price, and so did my loved ones, and I just couldn't. Yeah, it's just not an issue with me anymore.
Anita, let me bring you back in at this point because I want to talk a bit about the, what has been at this point an annual review board situation, where somebody's case, once a year, comes before a review board. What happens at that board?
So, every year, the situation of the accused person who's NCR is reviewed by a panel of experts. You usually have a retired judge or a lawyer practicing more than 10 years, another lawyer, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a member of the public. This is the expert tribunal who, uh, review the risk of the individual that they may pose to the public at that time. And it's a treatment assessment model. So, every year, um, the risk is assessed and, um, we look at the treatment and the rehabilitation and the progress of the accused under the board. So, if the individual is no longer a significant risk to public safety, then that person may receive an absolute discharge. If they continue to pose a risk to public safety, then the options are either a discharge subject to conditions, which, um, almost always involve and include strict monitoring and reporting and compliance with rules, uh, or a detention order in a psychiatric facility setting, which may or may not have some community living privileges attached to it. The important thing to note here, though, is that our legislation, the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code, already make public safety paramount at every review board hearing. So that is the legal test under the code is that the safety of the public is to be protected. That is the paramount concern. And after that, once that's been accommodated, we look at the liberty interest and the treatment needs and the rehabilitation, uh, needs of the accused.
Okay, couple of follow-ups, Anita. Number one, I think I heard you say that almost everybody on that review board is a professional, except for the one member of the public. Does the member of the public have to have any particular understanding or expertise in crime?
Not, not that I know of. Most of the public members are professionals of one sort or another, albeit that they're not necessarily psychiatrists, psychologists, or lawyers. They're likely a different kind of professional. But it's important to have a member of the public on the, on the review board panel, and that individual brings a healthy dose of common sense, I find, to these hearings. And they build their expertise by sitting on these hearings and looking at the situation of the individuals.
Okay. And would there be an audience permitted at these hearings? I'm obviously thinking here about whether there would be friends or family of, uh, the person who has been the victim of crime. Would they be permitted into this hearing?
So, the hearings are entirely open to the public. They're very, very small, rarely room for closing it to the public, but they're generally open. Victims are notified now annually. They're notified when a person comes in as an NCR accused. They're notified of their right to file victim impact statements. They have the right annually now, as a result of amendments in 2006, to present a fresh victim impact statement any way they wish. They can do it orally. They can read it out. They can send in a letter, and they are, uh, notified of every hearing if they wish to participate, and they can receive the disposition order if they wish to continue to receive all that.
And one more follow-up, if I can, because every time you say something interesting, it prompts another question in my head. I know that, uh, part of the Conservative government's plan here is to change these hearings from every year to every three years. And I'm wondering if you could tell us what you feel the impact of that would be.
You know, for, for the life of me, I can't account for the, the wisdom of that kind of proposal. I find it, uh, very ill-conceived. For one thing, the effect of something like that would be risk-enhancing to the community. It would not, uh, result in reducing risk to the community. If we left someone for three years without the review board's oversight about their treatment and their rehabilitation, then we're missing an opportunity to really fine-tune all that and to keep an eye on risk. So, if you only come out once every three years, and you happen to come out in the third year and the person's doing terrific, we're going to discharge the person because they, they don't pose a risk. Meanwhile, if we had a better sense of how things were going along, we might know that they're likely to have a relapse to substance use. You know, maybe they cycle through that. I mean, it just makes no sense to me. Plus, you can't leave someone languishing detained without increasing their privileges if they are progressing and being rehabilitated. So, I'm not sure I understand the impetus for that kind of proposal. To me, it's a lose-lose situation for the victims, the public, and the accused.
Well, the explanation, uh, Heidi, given by the federal government has been that they were taking the concerns of victims and their families into account, and they thought it was, uh, too hard on victims' families to have to come to these hearings every year. They preferred every three years as a, uh, kind of a nod to victims that this is hard for them to do. And Heidi Illingworth, let me get your view on whether or not you prefer the three-year or the one-year review in these cases.
Well, I guess, um, I appreciate that the government is taking into account the views and concerns and representations of victims, and they are trying to reflect that into the federal, provincial, and territorial laws and policies and procedures, as they're required to by the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Um, but, you know, I, I think their intent is to try to bring better balance to the system, but, um, I'm not sure. I guess we don't know exactly what the law is going to, or the proposed changes are going to look like yet. And, um, practically speaking, um, I understand the importance of reviewing, uh, having a review on a yearly basis to be, uh, you know, to allow the experts to update, uh, the review board about medications and progress and, and concerns, anything like that. But, um, you know, it is very difficult on victims to have to go through an annual hearing. And, uh, you know, in our opinion, we have to do a better job in this country of, um, you know, bringing balance to the system and having, you know, justice not just being about what do we do, treat them, but also, you know, what happens to the victim and how do we return them to a productive and safe place and healthy living circumstances as well.
Understood. Roy, you're, I presume, a guy who's been through this, right? These annual review hearings, how many did you have to date?
I think I've had, I should know this, but four, I think, four. Four or five. We're going on five. Something to that. Anyway, how, just put us in the room. What happens there?
It looks exactly like this. I, as Anita mentioned, it's a tight boardroom. It's not as vast as this room, but there's a long table like this. And so you'll have the chairman sitting where you're sitting, and then you'll have the board members all lined up on that side, and then we will come in and sit ourselves down there. We meaning you and myself and my lawyer.
You have a lawyer?
Who happens to be Anita. So anyway, uh, so we'll sit across from the table, and then there'll be the crown, crown representative. The crown, at, I don't know if it's an attorney. The crown's represented, and the hospital is represented at, at the, at the OB. And then if there's anyone, uh, who wants to come, like any, any victims, or they can come and they'll sit on the fringes, uh, in the room so that they can. And then they just proceed, then, you know, you're, they ask you questions. Um, they don't ask me any questions directly. What'll happen is there's a hospital report that the doctor has prepared, and everyone on the board will have read it and will have a copy of it. So, basically, um, they will look at that report, which has the, the all the recommendations that the hospital is making and, and your progress or, uh, and so forth, and, and then they will question, uh, the doctor, you know, they'll question the doctor about certain things of the report, maybe that they want clarified, or, and that's pretty much it. So that, and then, and then they'll just, uh, they'll, you know, then you won't know the decision until like a couple weeks later.
But this is basically the moment where you have to impress a group of your fellow citizens that you're okay to go back into the community. How do you do that?
Actually, Steve, the way I looked at it, it's not that actual moment because for me, it's every day. For me, it's like, I know what I need to do to stay well. So, for me, if I know that I'm staying on track and I'm staying on course every day of my life, doing what I need to do to take care of myself, and I'm getting the help I need in the hospital, even out. So when I go to that board, it's almost like, you know, it's like, I mean, it's a crude analogy, but when you studied for an exam and you studied so well, you started studying months in advance. So when, when the day of comes, you just, you know, you've done your work. I mean, and my work happens to be taking care of myself to make sure that I never ever get that sick again. And so, whereas I go in, I don't have much anxiety at these, at these hearings, um, because, like I said, I, I just, I, the onus is on me to do the work.
Do you have to keep going back to more?
Yeah. Yeah. I'm still, I'm still, uh, I mean, it's the last one is where you get your absolute discharge. That's, you're not at that point. I'm not there yet. There's a conditional discharge and, and then there's, I'm living in the community. Um, but, you know, I, I haven't been given either yet. So, I'll be having at least two more.
What are the conditions that you have to uphold?
Well, I mean, there's, there's, um, when I was first released, I've been out in the community for a year. When I was first released, I had to come in, uh, every day, like every single day, to the hospital to pick up my medicine, take it there in front, in front of the, uh, the people, and then go home. So over, you know, and then as the year goes on, uh, and I get more involved in, in things, activities, even work or what have you, uh, outside of the hospital, then they, they begin to cut it back. So at the moment, it's just, uh, Monday to Thursday, I need to just go pick up my medicine. I take it home now and take it at home with me at night. Meet with my worker if I go in, meet with my doctor, uh, every two, three weeks, you know, check in with my doctor. Those are basically the things that, that, uh, I'm doing at the moment.
Okay, let me ask Anita Zigi. Do you think this process works?
I think it does, Steve. I think it's a very carefully thought-out response to a Supreme Court decision in 1991 or thereabouts called Swain, which found that there's a real constitutional problem with just locking away the mentally ill and throwing away the key once, uh, um, they've been involved in criminal justice. So, so this is the measured and constitutionally compliant response to that. Every year, a group of experts comes and independently assesses the progress an accused has made under the board's jurisdiction with the assistance of expert forensic psychiatrists and the team. I think it does work. I think the individuals who, um, are, are involved with the index offenses and subsequently get an NCR verdict, those individuals had almost all of the time not been through the forensic psychiatric system. So I think it's, it's the case that reoffending is extremely rare once you receive an absolute discharge from, from these provincial, uh, tribunals. That means that an expert panel has found that you no longer pose a significant risk to public safety. So I think the system does work. If anything, it tends to keep within the system for too long. Individuals who had they been convicted of a very minor offense, uh, would have been out on time served, you know, years before. It errs on the side of caution. It's a very conservative process, and there's a, a frustration around that. But in terms of keeping public safety, uh, paramount, it, it absolutely does work, and, and there's really ought not to be, uh, cause for alarm associated with that.
Let me get another view. Heidi Illingworth, do you think the current system works for victims and their families?
Well, you know, it's, it's working, I guess, um, fairly well. Uh, for the most part, we, you know, the complaints that we hear are about the annual reviews and how emotionally difficult those are, how they're revictimizing. I would like to have a justice system in this country where revictimizing victims wasn't part of the process. Um, but like I said, I think it's about balance, and perhaps there's some things that can be improved upon. You know, at my agency, we often, or we will attend review board hearings for, um, individuals who are too frightened to go, individuals who have serious safety concerns. Um, and we work with other family members who have, who, who their offender was declared NCR and, and they have reoffended. Um, so, you know, I don't think the system is absolutely perfect. Um, improvements can always be made, and hopefully victims can continue to have a voice in that.
Sandy Simpson, in your view, does this process work and does it need the changes that the Conservative government of Canada is suggesting?
In generally, in general, it does work. Yes, I think in general, in terms of re, helping people rehabilitate and be cautious and thoughtful about public risk, yes, I think it does. Uh, is it perfect? No. Uh, is, as Heidi just said, are we constantly in the need of refining and developing our systems to make them work better? Yes, I think we do. Does the sort of reform that the government is proposing contribute to that? I have real trouble seeing how it would.
How come?
Part of the difficulty is we don't know precisely what it is they are proposing because all we've had is a few statements. We haven't seen any draft legislation that's coming in January, they say.
Right. Well, it'll be, that'll be helpful. We can have a more substantial debate then, uh, I think, in terms of helping people rehabilitate with, uh, with the overriding, uh, requirement of public safety that is clear in law and practice currently. So it is hard for me to see how this is a risk-related reform. It seems more to be about, uh, who does this work for, and I think, uh, Heidi's comments about it not necessarily working for victims need to be thought about. Uh, abandoning the annual review is not the right answer to that question.
You think every three years is a mistake?
I do. We do need to be cognizant of the feelings of, uh, and the impact of all of this on, on victims. Clearly, some of these, uh, offenses we're talking about are, you know, appalling human tragedies for everybody concerned. And how one gets over and heals that is a slow and complex process. And that refers to both the person who's perpetrated the act and the victims who have been the victims of those actions. Uh, and that reg, you know, occurs regardless of whether the person is criminally responsible or not. So I don't think the answer to the problems for victims is in making it harder for the person to reform themselves. But there is maybe a piece missing in how we manage processes of restorative justice and helping victims heal through this process.
But do you have any problem with the Conservative government coming out, coming out and saying, "Our first priority is to make sure that the victims of crime are the top priority?"
Uh, well, there's a balance. I think, as Heidi said, there's a balance between the need of the offender to reform and of the victim's, uh, trauma and grief and suffering to be acknowledged. Both of those things are important.
Okay, let's play, I want to play some tape here. This is Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator for Canada. He's been on this program in the past talking about some of the issues we're referring to today. Roll tape, please.
Crime and criminal justice has always been a political football, and I guess if I had some, uh, some control over that, I'd want to dial back the, uh, the rhetoric on that a bit. Uh, our correctional service has a very difficult job to do. Our criminal justice system is a very complex system. Um, that job is not made easier. That complexity is not reduced when you, when you overlay it with all kinds of political rhetoric.
Anita Zigetti, let me get you in, and we'll have a little bit of a conversation on this. I don't think anybody approves of overt politicizing of crime for political purposes. I think everybody's agreed on that. However, let's also, um, let's also put it out there. There have been some horrific cases that are, because of how unusual they are, that have been in the headlines. I think the one everybody knows about is this Vince Lee fellow, who was on a Greyhound bus and just lost it. Ended up killing and decapitating a victim on a bus ride. There's the case in the Shonberg case in British Columbia, where a father just, I don't know if you're, are you allowed to use the expression "out of his mind," but he was, he was just out of his mind. He just went and killed three of his own kids. These were both acts committed by people suffering from schizophrenia. Vince Lee is now getting limited passes back into the community. I guess the question is, can you appreciate how people would be really quite deeply concerned about these incidents without thinking that they're somehow politicizing the event by being concerned about them?
So, I agree, Steve. You know, it's, it's always a problem when, um, public opinion and politicians focus on one, two, or three cases when Ontario's review board alone will hold 1,800 hearings a year. There's at least 1,500, probably 1,800 accused who come before the board annually. In Ontario alone, it's probably 5,000 or more across the country. And, uh, most of the index offenses that bring these individuals into the NCR stream are extremely minor in nature. These, these tragedies, uh, that you've referenced are tragedies of epic proportions. There's no doubt that for the families of those who've died, for those victims of the offense, these are atrocious human tragedies. The, the human cost is enormous. But one thing I want to be clear about, though, is in my view, the individual who, uh, committed the, the index offense is also an equally a victim, because these things are things that happened to them, right? They didn't, they didn't mean to do this. So when they sort of wake to it and realize what they've done, that's an enormous tragedy for that victim of the circumstance as well, and it's something that they live with every day. And the fact of the matter is that these individuals were not well. It, it wasn't them who, uh, who's responsible for this, this action. And they will get better. So there's no utility to keeping someone behind bars, quote unquote, or or locked up, once they are no longer, uh, a risk and once they get better. So as people get better, you know, principles of sentencing do not apply here. It's not about deterrence. It's not about punishment. It's about assessment, treatment, reintegration, and rehabilitation. And we have to all just understand that this individual, by definition, is not responsible. So yes, there are some horrific tragedies, uh, and it's awful for everyone involved. And as a society, we need to just work together to make sure that people are able to get better and to be safely reintegrated. There's, there's no value added in punishing these individuals for something that they simply didn't do. Understand?
Let me, let me follow up with Roy. I don't know how much reading of the newspaper you now do or watching television and seeing politicians give speeches on this, but you know that, uh, I can't think of too many politicians who lost vote promise, lost votes promising to get tough on criminals. Now, as Anita just said, in your case and in others, you were judged to be not criminally responsible. So it is a somewhat different circumstance, but, uh, can you appreciate how much, uh, angst, uh, there is out there about all of this?
I can absolutely. Uh, and I, I have been very concerned about what I'm hearing from the federal government.
What concerns you?
What concerns me is so much of it. Um, you know, three years for a hearing. Uh, the system, where are they going to, logistically, the system is already plugged up. There's people waiting in jail. There's people waiting on units that they shouldn't be on. They're not getting proper treatment because there's no beds. So if you extend people's stay in these hospitals for three years before a hearing, I mean, you, they're going to have to build more hospitals, and where are they going to get the money? So there's all that. But, but what troubles me about what the government is proposing is the way they're wording it. And the way they're wording it is like you've got victims on this side, and then you've got the perpetrators, and the mentally ill perpetrators, you know, on this side. So you've got this spectrum. It's like left versus right. When in actual fact, it's not like that at all. I think it's been mentioned today by some, it's, it's we're all victims. So instead of being, it's not polar opposites, you know. I believe victims need to be safe and feel safe. Uh, and so, and, and so it's not an issue of us versus them, because ultimately, a better, a better analogy is, is, we're, we're two sides of the same coin.
And that coin is mental illness. It's in our interest, all of our interests, to make sure that guys like Roy, when he was in trouble, get on the right medicine and have their mental health issues dealt with and get better. Is that happening adequately right now?
Yeah. The best solution is good care, and that's what everybody should be advocating for. Uh, and that's good care, fundamentally, in the community, adequately resourced, with the right sort of care and support, the right sort of housing, the right sort of civil mental health law. That happening. Uh, there are gaps in all of those things. There are issues of design there, and I think that it is the resourcing of general mental health services that's probably the most important thing, as well as making sure that we're picking people up who need care, who are in prison and before the courts and other places, and getting them the care that they need.
Heidi Illingworth, admittedly, we're still a month or more away from actually seeing language from the federal government on this, an actual proposed piece of legislation, but do you think there is a way out there to satisfy the needs of victims and their families while at the same time, um, upholding the rights of offenders and making sure that their mental health problems are attended to?
Well, yeah, and, and that's the key that I've said a couple of times is balance. And of course, victims don't want, uh, accused persons to come back into the community and cause any more harm. They want people to be treated, and, you know, they want to prevent any sort of victimization from reoccurring. So, um, you know, I agree that, uh, looking at the system that we have now in place and make, making sure that it's working the best that it can, it's important, uh, and definitely I think there's areas that we need to improve upon, um, you know, within the community and supervision, um, but, yeah, it's always, you know, we don't want to, uh, make this an "us," a victims versus offenders, mentally ill sort of a mindset. We need to make sure that we're doing what works best to ensure the safety of Canadians.
Understood. Sandy, let me ask you this. I think everybody's familiar with the case of Ashley Smith, this young girl, teenage girl, who killed herself while she was in detention, clearly suffering from mental illness. Uh, the inquest is still ongoing into her death. So we don't want to come to any conclusions about this yet. But so far, uh, what's revealing about how the mentally ill are treated in detention?
If you look at that case, uh, perhaps her case isn't the best to look for people with mental illness. She was a very troubled, uh, young girl growing up, a teenager whose troubles continued in prison, and where the prison, and she got stuck in a, a malign relationship of acting out of self-harm that neither knew how to control. And that speaks to, uh, you know, the absence of, of adequate, uh, gradations of facilities within prisons and the adequate linkage and support of mental health services around her.
Anita, let me hear from you on that. I'm down to my last minute, I'm afraid, but your view on this.
Uh, I think Ashley Smith will show us that no good comes out of having people with mental health issues in a detention setting. What she needed was support and treatment and assistance. And what she got was, uh, the opposite of that. The end result was people standing around watching her kill herself. So clearly, we've got to do better by people in a detention setting. We've got to get them out of there and get them help.
Well, speaking of which, Roy, let me give you the last 30 seconds. How you doing these days?
I'm doing fine. I'm doing fine, thank you. I'm, uh, I've literally gotten my life back. People who knew me 10 years ago, you know, myself included, I, I'd lost all faith and all hope that there was such a thing called recovery. And yet, here I am today. And so, um, the system works. It's not perfect, like Dr. Simpson mentioned, but, um, it, and so, you know, I'm, I'm just happy that that it worked, and I wish it would work for others, and I wish that the government would, uh, be a little more cautious, uh, in going forward with this plan.
Let me thank all of you for coming in tonight and helping us with this very difficult subject. Anita Zagetti from the law firm Hiltz Zagedi, she's been in Ottawa. Heidi Illingworth, the Canadian Resource Center for Victims of Crime, via Skype in Kempville, Ontario. Sandy Simpson from CAMH. And Roy from the Empowerment Council. He's a volunteer at CAMH. Thanks so much, everybody.
Support Ontario's public television. Donate at tvo.org.