PSY328H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Constand Viljoen, Executive Functions, Sleepwalking
Document Summary
Case law provided guidance for fst definition: v. prichard (1836) outlined three criteria. Whether the defendant is mute of malice. Whether or not the intentionally committed the offence. Whether the defendant can plead to the indictment. Whether the defendant has sufficient cognitive capacity to understand the trial proceedings. Does the defendant actually know what"s going on. In 1992, bill c-30 changed fitness determinations in the criminal code. Before, an individual can be detained indefinitely if they did not understand the proceedings or were to pleading insanity. Section 2 stated that someone who does not understand the proceedings or why they are there is unfit for trial. If the individual is unaware of the consequences or cannot communicate with the lawyers is also unfit. This also allows the court to look good in the public eye as it makes the court seem fair. It"s not fair to attack those who are unfit. Understand the nature and object of proceedings.
