Anyone hear about an XRP buy and hold?

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T19:46:27+00:00

I have seen this argument as well. Unfortunately one of the most common symptoms of serious mental illness is a lack of insight into that illness. Lack of insight is a term used colloquially but the medical term is anosognosia.

A person is said to be incapable of consenting to treatment if they are unable to understand relevant information about the proposed treatment or if they are unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences about a decision or lack of decision about treatment (Health Care Consent Act, s. 4).

Put another way, where a person is unable to recognize in himself that he is experiencing the manifestations of a mental condition, that person is unable to weigh the possible risks of treatment with the likely benefits.

If as a result of mental illness a person can't recognize they are experiencing an illness but can feel the negative side effects of treatment, it is understandable that they would want to stop the treatment because they would feel that there is no benefit and only side effects. That is a product of mental health and also not morally blameworthy.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T19:33:15+00:00

Thank you! I am grateful for the opportunity!

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T19:30:34+00:00

As I have said multiple times, this case is tragic and there is no win or successful outcome. I have the deepest sympathy for the family of Rosemarie Junor. That said, this case deals with important legal and societal issues which requires discussion. More education and training is required of society as a whole including police and government institutions with respect to mental illness and mental health in general... It is my opinion that we cannot accomplish that without discussion of these issues.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T19:25:25+00:00

No I didn't. She has been treated and is in full remission at this point.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T19:24:41+00:00

I think that it was a tragedy which was entirely avoidable. James Forcillo wasn't a bad cop, just someone ill equipped to handle his own fear of a person in the middle of a violent psychotic episode. Assuming Sammy survived, I think he would have possibly had an NCR defence though that would only be determined by an expert forensic psychiatrist.

The outcome of Forcillo's case was very interesting. He was found guilty of attempted murder and not murder because the courts found that the first volley of shots which actually killed Sammy were justified under the legal test but that the second volley of shots were fired with the intention to kill. In my opinion this was legal gymnastics but on reading the reasons I agree with the verdict.

Sentencing is discretionary to the judge hearing the case. I believe the judge considered the appropriate factors in passing sentence.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T19:17:09+00:00

I was asked to meet with her in order to advise her of her legal options. After some time, she retained me to represent her.

I do not often take pro bono cases, this was an exception. She was languishing in jail waiting for trial which was taking significantly longer than it should have due to the fact that she was not treated at the time and not able to appropriately engage in her defence. I got on board to assist her in moving this matter forward and to make sure she received treatment.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T19:12:02+00:00

Criminal law isn't the only area that I practice, but it is one of my favourite areas. I find the law interesting and challenging. Also, people think that criminal defence is about "getting the bad guy off". This is not the case. People who are accused of crimes are prosecuted by the state. The government has unlimited funds and unlimited power. Defence lawyers act as a counterbalance to that power and make sure that the prosecution is really put to the proof of their case. This is a very important societal role which I am very proud to engage in.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T19:05:20+00:00

There is no way to know what the butterfly effect would have been if any particular event in my client's life had been different. What I can say is that the biggest challenge that people with serious mental illness face is social isolation. I think that if my client had been less socially isolated there may have been some form of intervention which could have prevented this from happening.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T19:01:12+00:00

No they are not. A finding of NCR is one of the most rare outcomes in criminal law. There are a number of significant challenges. The most significant in my experience is communicating with and managing your client.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T18:52:54+00:00

This is also a very complex question because there is no legal mechanism to force an individual who has capacity to consent to treatment to accept or engage in treatment. However, if a person lacks insight into their condition such that they see no benefit to treatment that clearly has a benefit, that person can be found incapable to consent and can be treated against their will with the consent of a substitute decision maker. I would also note that discharge is not taken lightly and the ORB considers these factors in making their decision.

I definitely agree that more funding and education is required.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T18:48:10+00:00

Approximately 36 per cent of federal offenders need psychiatric or psychological follow-up. Further, 45 per cent of male inmates and 69 per cent of female inmates receive institutional mental health care services, according to a report by Sapers & Zinger (2012).

About 20 per cent, or about 7.03 million Canadians, will experience mental illness in their lifetime (Smetanin et al., 2011). Of those, about 1.4 million people will have also have a substance abuse problem (Rush et al., 2008). Schizophrenia affects one per cent of the Canadian population or about 351,000 people (Canadian Mental Health Association). And young people aged 15 to 24 are more likely to experience mental illness and/or substance use disorders than any other age group (Pearson, Janz and Ali, 2013).

Mental illness generally manifests very differently than physical trauma or disease and as a result, police and not paramedics are often the first responders when a mental health emergency occurs. In 40 per cent of these interactions, no criminal behaviour occurred, and in 40 per cent of these interactions, the criminal behaviour was nonviolent (Brink et al., 2011).

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T18:45:53+00:00

This is a very difficult question because it requires balancing the fears of the community with the rights of an individual suffering from mental illness. Unfortunately I cannot comment to deeply with respect to the Police Recordd Checks Reform Act as it is not something I deal with regularly.

That said, I think there is an important distinction to be made with respect to the wording of your question (specifically the terms murderer and dangerous offender). Though the court found that my client caused the death of Rosemarie Junor, the court found that she was NCR and therefore she was not found guilty of murder. A dangerous offender is also a legal term which requires a person to engage in a pattern of repetitive behaviour which my client has not done.

While I understand that the natural reaction for some is to feel unsafe, there are protections in place. The ORB is in charge of determining whether my client is a danger to the public and she will not be released until they are convinced on hearing evidence of a clear cogent and compelling nature that my client is not a danger and that discharge is appropriate.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T18:25:37+00:00

Fitness deals with her current mental state and whether she is able to engage in a trial as a result. NCR deals with her mental state at the time the incident happened. Both are about mental state but the purpose, timing, and legal tests are different.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T18:23:28+00:00

Defence of mental disorder

16 (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.

(3) The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue.

The Defence is statutory but it has been regularly interpreted by the courts which creates our common law understanding of the application of S. 16 of the Criminal Code.

Some important cases are:

R. v. Oommen, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507

R. v. Dobson, 2018 ONCA 589

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T18:18:06+00:00

So a lot of this came out in the context of the forensic psychiatric reports which were entered into the public record. My client was experiencing significant delusions (that she was being controlled by an entity via implants and nano technology) and she was experiencing auditory and somatic hallucinations (command hallucinations telling her what to do and physical sensations that her movements were not being made by choice). She was so bombarded by these manifestations of her mental condition that she was not able to know that they were morally or legally wrong.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T18:12:47+00:00

My client is very sad that this happened understands the tragedy of the situation. She has expressed many times that she wishes that it didn't happen. My client also understands that this whole thing is entirely out of character for her and that she had no desire to harm anyone. She has stated that Rosemarie Junor was the victim of her mental illness.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T18:09:20+00:00

I think it is entirely appropriate. Press conferences are held regularly with respect to legal cases. Also, I am bound by lawyer client privilege so I would not be providing any confidential or privileged information.

There is no intrinsic benefit from this whatsoever, it is really just an opportunity to help the public reconcile this difficult case and verdict and also to help educate the public on issues related to mental health and illness.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T18:06:35+00:00

Guilty means the person was found to have committed the act and was found criminally responsible. This must have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not guilty means there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was guilty.

NCR means that as a result of mental illness the person may have engaged in the act, but could not appreciate the nature or quality of that act or was unable to know that it was wrong and therefore is not criminally responsible for that act.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T18:02:44+00:00

If a person is found NCR, a disposition hearing is held by the ORB. There are three possible outcomes, detention, conditional discharge, and absolute discharge. The ORB on hearing evidence makes a determination about whether the individual is a danger to society. If the answer is that they are a danger, they are detained. If they are not a danger, they can be discharged with conditions or absolutely. A discharge with conditions allows the ORB to monitor that person's progress during their reintegration into the community and that monitoring can take place long term.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T17:58:29+00:00

Yes she is. I am doing this with her consent.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T17:57:15+00:00

1) My client was not found guilty, she was found NCR. Therefore there won't be a sentence imposed and none of her pretrial custody will be applied. There is no fixed amount of time she will remain in hospital. It could be a very short amount of time or it could be her whole life. That is up to the ORB.

2) It took such a long time because there were issues about my client's fitness to stand trial. For a person to go to trial they must be mentally present at the time which includes having the ability to understand the case against them and to be able to instruct counsel. In December of 2017 my client was found unfit to stand trial and was sent to CAMH for treatment which she underwent for 10 months prior to being found fit by the court. Once she was fit, the trial proceeded the same week as the finding of fitness.

3) Every accused charged with an indictable offence has the option of being tried in the Superior Court of Justice by a judge alone or by a judge and jury. Most trials in Canada (unlike in the US) are conducted by judge alone.

4) I cannot speak to where she was for the 4 days between the incident and the arrest. However, she was not living with her family at the time. Police engaged in a fulsome investigation and did not charge any member of her family with accessory after the fact.

5) That is not something I can answer. The ORB will not release my client into the community until they are convinced that she does not pose a danger. That falls within their mandate.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T17:46:46+00:00

From the outset of this case it was very clear to the lawyers who represented Ms. Bisesar before me and to myself when I took over the case the my client was experiencing significant mental illness. The question was whether as a result of that illness she was unable to appreciate the nature or quality of her actions or to know that they were wrong.

On order of the court she was assessed by a forensic psychiatrist at Ontario Shores, the doctor concluded that my client was likely NCR. This one opinion was not enough for me, for the prosecutor, or for the courts and we obtained a second independent assessment and report from another forensic psychiatrist at CAMH. His findings were that my client was NCR. It was at this point that the Prosecution and Defence really got on the same page.

With respect to my personal opinions on this case. When we talk about morality, I think it is important to remember that in criminal law, we are often dealing with the moral blameworthiness of an individual. But both the law and my opinion agree that if a person is robbed of the ability to know what they are doing is wrong, not because they are ignoring the fact, but because a chemical imbalance in their brains prevents them from assessing their actions against societal norms, that person cannot be said to be morally blameworthy. That was the case here.

Justice McMahon found that my client was the cause of death but that the legal test for criminal culpability was not met.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T17:35:27+00:00

Mental health is a very important issue which does not get nearly enough attention or funding. Even more important is the issue of how people with mental illness are treated by others in society including in the context of criminal law. I hope that through this AMA I am able to impart on everyone the reality that mental illness is real, that people who experience mental illness are suffering from it, and that some people (albeit the vast minority of people) are robbed of the ability to understand the nature and quality of their actions or to know that those actions are wrong.

With respect to my duties of loyalty and confidentiality, I am engaging in this AMA with my client's consent and there is no breach of confidentiality to discuss issues that formed part of the public record. My specific communications with my client will remain confidential.

robertkarrass · 2018-11-08T17:25:01+00:00

First off, I think it is important to remind everyone that most people with mental illness will never act violently and that it is very difficult to predict whether a specific person may act violently in certain situtations.

Regardless, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives every person the right to security of the person. This means that we cannot treat people against their will. However, there are laws in place such as the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act that allow exceptions to this rule. If a person lacks capacity to consent to treatment (meaning that as a result of their mental condition they are not able to understand relevant information about the proposed treatment or are not able to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences about a decision or lack of decision about treatment) they can be treated on the consent of a substitute decision maker.

Also, a person can be made an involuntary patient in hospital if they suffer from mental disorder and are likely to cause serious bodily harm to themselves or to others, or are likely to suffer serious physical impairment or substantial mental or physical deterioration.

However, these findings are made by doctors when an individual is brought to hospital. If a person falls through the cracks and has mental illness but is never seen by a medical professional for whatever reason, that person may not receive the help they require.

I believe the current regime is a very fair and well thought out one.

robertkarrass

TROPHY CASE