As the mother of Zachary Lawrence Antidormi, who was murdered in 1997 at the age of 2 ½ by someone who was found “not criminally responsible,” I am a victim.

As a practising psychologist, I am a mental health professional.

And as a victim and a mental health professional, I do not support the federal government’s attempts, through Bill C-54, to create a new “high-risk designation” for some people found not criminally responsible by reason of mental illness.

Bill C-54 is stigmatizing, punitive and does not reflect an accurate understanding of serious mental illness. The creation of a high-risk category, based on the brutality of the crime, for example, is not founded in any evidence. Although the bill targets individuals found “not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder” (NCRMD), not one mental health organization was consulted in the drafting of the bill.

Brutality of the crime does not determine risk, but drawing attention to it does perpetuate the myth that people with mental illness are violent. Yet the government, in promoting Bill C-54 and trying to gain the support of Canadians, has focused on very high-profile cases, where the acts committed by those found not criminally responsible are brutal and heinous.

As a victim whose son was brutally and heinously murdered, I know only too well the impact of such acts. But as a psychologist, I also know that such acts are a minority.

I also know that Bill C-54 would not have protected my son. It is simply misleading for the government, or supporters of Bill C-54, to suggest otherwise.

My family was not protected, but our lack of protection was not due to flaws in current NCR legislation. Rather, we were left unprotected by a mental health system that is not working and has many gaps. Bill C-54 would not have protected my family, but an improved mental health system might have.

I find myself repeatedly asking: why target individuals after the crime is committed, rather than directing more attention to preventing such crimes in the first place?

Understanding Zachary’s murder was not easy for me, even as a psychologist. Understanding mental illness is complicated and, for victims such as myself, there is a strong need to hold someone accountable for the murder of their loved ones. The “lock ’em up and throw away the key” approach, however, has a vengeful nature and points the finger in the wrong direction. It does not reflect any attempt to understand the complexity of mental illness. Until the government directs its efforts at improving the mental health system, rather than creating a bill like C-54 which will not protect Canadians, we are no better off.

I had hoped that in listening to questions and answers posed to witnesses before the standing committee studying Bill C-54 that I would have learned exactly how the government justifies its claim that the bill will enhance public safety. I did not, however, come away with an answer to this question. Nor can any of the supporters of the bill answer the question directly. That is because the proposed legislation is ill-informed and not evidence-based.

As a victim, I would have more confidence in a bill that deals with individuals found NCRMD if I knew it had been crafted with input from the mental health community. Politicians, with all due respect, are not mental health experts. It would only seem logical that in order to determine what factors might best define or determine risk, professionals in the mental health field, with knowledge and expertise related to mental illness and risk assessment, would be consulted. They weren’t.

The current NCR legislation appears to be working, with recidivism rates of NCR accused lower than persons found criminally responsible and managed by the corrections system. Furthermore, lengthening the one-year review to up to three years for the high-risk accused is punitive, not rehabilitative. In my experience, the review boards — which review cases annually and determine the level of security for those found not criminally responsible — work very hard to balance public safety with the rights of those with mental illness.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

If the government insists on making changes to current legislation affecting people found not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder — despite evidence that the current system is working well — it is not too late to take time to consult with the mental health community in order to create a bill that will actually work to maximize public safety and not further stigmatize the vast majority of people with mental disorders who are not violent and who pose no threat to anyone but themselves.