The case of Guy Turcotte and the mental impairment defense

Joined
November 16, 2011
Messages
2,006
Location
Trois-Rivières, Québec
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...hildren-will-be-released-on-bail-judge-rules/

SAINT-JEROME, Que. — A former Quebec doctor who admitted to stabbing his two children to death has been granted bail.

A judge ruled this morning that Guy Turcotte should be freed pending his new first-degree murder trial next year.

A jury found Turcotte not criminally responsible in 2011 and he was released from a psychiatric institution in December 2012. The Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the verdict last November, citing errors by the trial judge in his instructions to the jury.

The higher court ordered a new trial, leading to Turcotte’s re-arrest in late 2013.

Turcotte told the court during his bail hearing he should be freed because it is his right and that he could be of more use to society as a caregiver to some of his relatives instead of spending time in prison.

In granting bail, Quebec Superior Court Justice Andre Vincent said Turcotte does not represent a danger to society and is entitled to the presumption of innocence as he awaits the new proceedings.

Vincent did lay out several conditions for Turcotte, including keeping the peace, respecting a 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew, reporting to provincial police twice a month and continuing his psychiatric treatment.

He must also stay with his uncle, while his brother has to post a $100,000 bond. Turcotte is also prohibited from being within 100 metres of the residence of his former spouse, Isabelle Gaston, the mother of the slain children.

Vincent’s ruling angered Patrick Gaston, Isabelle’s brother.

Gaston stormed out of the courtroom when the bail decision was announced, heading straight to reporters to say he’s lost faith in the justice system.

“If you think I’m going to close my eyes or shut my mouth, today, no, I have no interest,” fumed Gaston, who was wearing a T-shirt bearing the photos of his late niece and nephew.

“Letting him go free … to the detriment of the families, the well-being of the victims, forget that,” he said. “We’re putting (first) the well-being of the accused killer, 47 stab wounds with a knife, I remind you.

“It’s perhaps spontaneous and a bit direct, what I’m telling you but … I don’t think a child killer should be allowed to walk the streets.”

The former physician stabbed his son, 5, and daughter, 3, 46 times at his Piedmont home as his marriage was falling apart, one night in February 2009. But he was found not criminally responsible at his murder trial, when a jury accepted his argument he could not recall the events and had experienced blackouts.

The controversial case made Turcotte a household name in Quebec and the verdict provoked a torrent of outrage.

There has seldom be a case where the use of mental impairment as a defense has generated so much controversy, at least in Canada.

As the news article explains, a cardiologist discovers his wife is cheating on him with a close friend, and goes in utter despair. He decided to commit suicide by drinking a windshield washing solution, and he kills his two children at knife point on that fateful evening. Later, he will say on his trial that his mental capacities were impaired and in his warped state of mind, he wanted to take his children with him so they wouldn't have to suffer his death. The prosecution instead argued that Turcotte had premeditated the murder and wanted to take his children with him out of spite for his ex-wife's betrayal. He was acquitted because the jury found him not criminally responsible and the evidence insufficient to prove his acts were premeditated. Another judge ordered a new trial which will occur in a short future due to thinking that the last judge has inadvertently mislead the jury.

I do think it's absolutely ridiculous that a child killer gets to find his freedom back so early, although according to the law, social prejudices against a convicted criminal must not conflict with his right to be free when he doesn't post a threat to society and has otherwise been acquitted and deemed mentally fit. It is a case where individual liberties are in conflict with the "greater good" or with certain social notions of justices.

This case does raise interesting questions as to what the mental impairment defense should be, and where the line should be drawn.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
2,006
Location
Trois-Rivières, Québec
This one hit some of my colleagues fairly hard. It lays ground for a number of "lesser" mental impairments. Alcohol being the obvious, but as they agreed, no judge in his right mind would actually rule not guilty due to "signs" of alcohol use. Emotional upheaval has been associated with mental impairment and has swayed a jury for reduced sentence or charges.
There are a number of "mental impairment" pleas coming down the pipe this year. The guy that chopped a passengers head off in a Greyhound bus, the Quebec/Ontario cannibal (sorry don't remember where he was from), and the guy that killed his neighbors family because they caused him mental stress.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Messages
2,871
I'm sorry but I find the Canadian court decisions in general absolutely absurd. They don't seem to want to use their teeth. We've known the Angel's control the drug trafficking in Canada for decades but the courts always like to find some sort of flaw in the technicalities to let them go. I had a teacher who had relations with my classmate since she was 12. When he was finally convicted they gave him hard time: two years. Last I saw he was teaching again at Vancouver Community College. Meanwhile, she couldn't go to our class reunion because of too many painful memories.

I think the first problem is the courts aren't accountable to anyone. They are all appointed and there's this Canadian mentality among its bureaucrats about arguing the logical thing instead of making right decision. If they introduced elections or let politicians dismiss them maybe there'd be some justice once in awhile. The RCMP would certainly appreciate it.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,212
Location
The Uncanny Valley
Justice is done what can we say. Oh did I really mean to type that???

My best friend in the world, the one the introduced me to Ultima 3 in 1984 I found out ways sleeping with my wife of 13 years(this was years later). Guess what I didn't kill anyone, not myself(yes this is not a ghost), nor her or him. We didn't have children together so they were safe too.

And people wonder why the world is the way it is…
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
3,381
To me it shows the problem with common law, it always devolves into more and more exceptions for people's particular feelings and circumstances, and it gives so much power to judges that they tend to become the real government, since "rights and liberties" are such a broad concept and they can never resist the envy to use the considerable power invested in them and the lack of any accountability to mold the world to their likings. If you give such weight to mental impairment, because of common law you have no choice but to progressively follow it to its most extremely logical extent, and always widen its definition.

That's what happens when individual liberties are seen as something so absurdly sacred and inviolable to the detriment of everything else. I've seen it said best in a podcast: when a society is governed by individualism and emotions rather than values and traditions, suddenly every law is intolerant, every law is unconstitutional.

I think a government should be able to make a majority vote to veto Supreme court decisions, so that when the most fundamental questions are decided, they are decided by elected people, not by unaccountable and insular judges.

The Quebec jury who decided this I think was swayed on emotion because they found Guy Turcotte to me someone utterly miserable who had suffered enough. We can't know exactly since unlike in the US, juries cannot talk to the press about their decisions. I doubt it would have been the same anywhere else in North America, especially in most US states, where the mental impairment defense tends to be looked down upon and is rarely used successfully.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
2,006
Location
Trois-Rivières, Québec
I think that impairment in the sense of being schizophrenic is serious, but people like that are very well known to doctors before they get to that point. They should not be out on the streets anyway.

The temporary impairment is all BS.

I had a teacher who had relations with my classmate since she was 12. When he was finally convicted they gave him hard time: two years. Last I saw he was teaching again at Vancouver Community College. Meanwhile, she couldn't go to our class reunion because of too many painful memories.

That's despicable. UK and Canada really never punish anyone, unless they are a neonazi or something. Even in US they punish way more based on public outcry than on culpability.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
777
Or an outspoken Christian or Conservative. There are human rights tribunals regulating people's speech who have judiciary power. There is the whole Bill Whatcott saga where he was fined by a Saskatchewan human rights tribunal for distributing pro-Christian political pamphlets, and went up to the Supreme court and lost.

I definitely stand for full freedom of expression like in the US.
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
2,006
Location
Trois-Rivières, Québec
Or an outspoken Christian or Conservative. There are human rights tribunals regulating people's speech who have judiciary power. There is the whole Bill Whatcott saga where he was fined by a Saskatchewan human rights tribunal for distributing pro-Christian political pamphlets, and went up to the Supreme court and lost.

I definitely stand for full freedom of expression like in the US.

Yes, the judges seem there to enforce politics more than public safety, which is utterly sickening. It's just not worth it to spend much money on common criminals, they are no threat to the establishment.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
777
Utterly despicable. As per usual with a leftist-leaning society, the rights of children take a backseat to the whims and desires of irrational (and in this case, murderous) adults. This man should spend the rest of his life in prison for kinslaying.

That said, it should also be illegal and punishable by time in prison for a spouse to cheat on their husband/wife. I cannot imagine what it must be like to find out that your wife has betrayed you, and I imagine I would not be in a proper mental state either (although my anger would be directed towards those responsible, not innocent children).
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2010
Messages
54
Location
Tarant
I think making cheating illegal is not the way to go. There can be many reasons for it happening and it is not something that should be forbidden by law.
What if your behavior and actions are at the basis for your partner to cheat on you, would you harm yourself?
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,223
Back
Top Bottom