Seanad debates

Wednesday, 5 May 2010

Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2010: Report and Final Stages

 

2:30 pm

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 11, line 15, to delete "(Insanity)" and substitute "(Mental Disorder)".

This is an amendment about which we had extensive debate on Committee Stage, and I am glad Senator Quinn has supported it. Senator Regan also supported it on Committee Stage. It is a more substantial issue. It is about the language we are using in this legislation and it is most unfortunate, in 2010, that we are still using the outdated and stigmatising language of insanity. I am aware the Minister of State agrees with me on that. The Minister gave a full response on Committee Stage where he said that mental disorder may not be the best substitute. I accept that. I could not think of any better wording but it is important that we move beyond the language of insanity because of the stigmatising effect and the outdated nature of that language. Perhaps "mental incapacity" would have been a better expression. I take the Minister's point that the 2006 Act uses the term "insanity" and that is the reason we have put in the related amendment No. 6, which is to ensure that in future the collective Acts on this area will be known as mental disorder Acts rather than insanity Acts.

On the civil side we have moved well away from the language of "lunatic", "insane" and so on that was used in the past. In current psychiatric practice that sort of language would never be used. It is always language of mental disorder and mental disability that is used.

I am aware this amendment is strongly supported by the prison inreach and court liaison service, the College of Psychiatry of Ireland and everyone I can think of in the mental health and advocacy fields. It is long overdue that we move away from the language of insanity in the criminal law. I accept that in the common law it is still referred to as the defence of insanity. We still use the language in the 2006 Act but we should now change it, and there is probably no disagreement about that.

I anticipate the Minister will be changing it as part of the review that will be carried out into the overall area this year but we have been waiting a long time for this change. It should have been done in 2006 as part of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act. It certainly should have been done for 2010. There is no excuse to retaining this sort of language in our modern legislation.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.