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

[ImaginaryDay2]

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:

"There is a public policy rule which says criminals should not be permitted to benefit from their crimes," Edwards wrote. "That public policy rule has no application to this case. Richard has been found to be not criminally responsible. He is not a criminal."
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...gets-her-life-insurance/ar-BBZ1RV7?li=AAggNb9

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.

 

[Lamb]

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.

That's an amazing life insurance policy since he was charged with murder even though not criminally responsible. My life insurance policy doesn't cover murder from what I remember? It's been 30 years so maybe I'm wrong?

I think the judge was wrong to not give the son the money. The man committed a crime even though he was mentally ill and should not have benefited from it at all.

 

[tango]

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.

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.

 

[Josiah]

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.

 

[tango]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Josiah]

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.

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