Seanad debates

Thursday, 8 April 2004

Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed).

 

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

In the neighbouring jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, the verdict given in such cases is "not guilty by reason of insanity". This conveys to ordinary people what is meant and we cannot be too precious about language. The ordinary Josephine and Joe Soap on the street will understand that an individual has been found not guilty by reason of insanity. It is better to stick to that particular description. In 30 years time, the term may be considered outdated or relevant to a different age. However, it conveys an appropriate meaning and is easily understood.

I do not see why the tribunals, established to decide whether mentally ill people have been appropriately committed and properly detained in the context of the civil law governing mental health, should be brought into play in this particular measure. What is needed is a body that will deal specifically with the decisions that must be made concerning people who have been acquitted of serious crimes on the grounds of mental incapacity. It is important that a dedicated body that specialises in that function should be established. I see no advantage to marrying the Bill to the Mental Health Act.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.