"Not criminally responsible", ergo "not a criminal"?

ImaginaryDay2 said:

A news report stated that a Nova Scotia man who was found 'not criminally responsible' in te 2017 death of his wife will receive her life insurance policy payout. The judge stated this in his ruling:



It was argued by the mother of the deceased that the couple's son should receive the payout (he was named alternate beneficiary).

What is your 'take' on the of the criminality of the man's actions even though being found "not criminally responsible"? Does that lead to a logical conclusion that he is "not a criminal"? I'm not inclined to agree with the conclusion.

Click to expand...

I would say that being "not criminally responsible" simply means that you committed a crime but cannot be held responsible for it because of some circumstance or other. When you get the kind of situation in which a mercy killing is legally considered to be murder it's not entirely unreasonable for a court to argue that the person who is technically guilty is no threat to society so there is no public protection angle to consider, and they have already suffered more than enough because of whatever led to the mercy killing, so there's no punishment angle to consider.

I think that allowing someone to collect a life insurance policy from a person they killed, however justified the killing may be considered to be, sets a precedent that could be very dangerous. At the same time the very nature of the things that are technically serious crimes but practically are perhaps best regarded as not being crimes have a great potential to take place in scenarios where the person who is technically the victim of the crime (i.e. the person killed) would have wanted their killer to benefit from a life insurance policy or similar.

How to allow the wishes of the deceased to be honored without creating a situation in which a disgruntled person pressures their sick/ailing/frail/whatever spouse or other family member into agreeing to be subjected to a "mercy killing" is the $64,000 question.

I'm not a lawyer....

Does "not criminally responsible" = guilty, you done it, we just can't knock you with it cuz of some technicality? IF so, if it means "you are guilty" then yeah, I don't think the one declared guilty should benefit financially from the crime (especially life insurance for killing someone).

BUT if "not criminally responsible" = not guilty (which is how I'd read it; that is what those words mean) then not guilty is not guilty. And yes, as such, he is entitled to the insurance.

Josiah said:

I'm not a lawyer....

Does "not criminally responsible" = guilty, you done it, we just can't knock you with it cuz of some technicality? IF so, if it means "you are guilty" then yeah, I don't think the one declared guilty should benefit financially from the crime (especially life insurance for killing someone).

BUT if "not criminally responsible" = not guilty (which is how I'd read it; that is what those words mean) then not guilty is not guilty. And yes, as such, he is entitled to the insurance.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that's the crux of the question. If "not criminally responsible" means "didn't do it" that's a very different proposition from the idea that "not criminally responsible" means "did it but can't be held responsible for some reason". That reason might be diminished responsibility, provocation, whatever, but in the latter scenario the accused did the deed but for some reason isn't being criminally punished for it.

ImaginaryDay2 said:

This is how I understood the situation. The man was experiencing a schizophrenic episode and the mother had left the home the day before, but returned to the home the day she was killed. So "not criminally responsible" would apply due to mental condition. Perhaps the judge meant that in the context of the statute he is not to be considered a criminal.

Click to expand...

... in THAT case, I'd likely hold him as unaccountable and agree with how this was handled.