NCJ Number
81326
Journal
Canadian Criminology Forum Volume: 3 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1981) Pages: 146-157
Date Published
1981
Length
12 pages
Annotation
Findings and implications are presented from a study that examined the validity of civil libertarian arguments about the nature and consequences of psychiatric remands in Canada.
Abstract
Criticisms of the psychiatric remand are that (1) persons are judged on anticipated acts of violence rather than the alleged offense; (2) the accused is deprived of the right to private confidence in the psychiatric assessment; (3) the remand for observation is initiated as a legal strategy to elevate the sentence; (4) the stigmatization incurred from the psychiatric examination is unnecessary and possibly prejudicial to the accused; and (5) the psychiatric remand circumvents some other traditional legal safeguards, such as time to prepare a defense, the right to a speedy trial, and judgment solely on the basis of innocence or guilt. To test some of these arguments, inpatients of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry who were admitted for pretrial (n=26) or presentence assessments (n=11) were interviewed from October 1977 to May 1978. The results indicate that the vast majority of alleged offenders actively participated in initiating their remands and favored their assessments. Typically, the patients felt their assessments would help their cases. Although most did not welcome the delay of trial or sentence, they felt the delay would be beneficial. There was no general perception that their rights had been infringed on by the remand for psychiatric assessment. Limitations of this study are noted, and suggestions for further research are offered. Tabular data are provided and 18 references are listed.