Friday, October 04, 2019

Not Criminally Responsible? "I Just Floored the Pedal"

"[My client's] state of mind at the relevant time and in the days, weeks and months leading up to April 23, 2018, are expected to be the central issues at trial."
Boris Bytensky, lawyer, Alek Minassian pretrial material

"You look at the interview which happened reasonably quickly after the incident -- and he appears to be oriented as to time and space, he is not thought-disorganized, he doesn't appear to be suffering from a break with reality."
"He clearly had the ability to plan this and he had the ability to drive, which in itself indicates you're fairly well oriented. And his motivation -- although it is very difficult for us to understand it -- is not one that suggests he is suffering from voices in his head telling him to drive down the sidewalk."
"He was surprisingly lucid when he was answering questions. He does not fit in any of the classical understandings of having the most usual major mental disorder that people have when found to be NCR, which is schizophrenia."
"Of course, we don't know everything at this point. We don't know his psychological antecedents."
"What I saw there is somebody that is very angry at the world and that is not a defence in law."
"It's a responsible step to take to explore that option, because if indeed he is not criminally responsible he would not belong in the correctional system."
"I can't predict the future, but whatever facility he is in, whether it's a correctional one or a mental health one, he is going to be spending a long, long time there."
Ian Scott, Toronto defence lawyer, law professor, Western University

"It is a very snapshot moment in time [when the crime was being committed]. It is about what was going through the mind of the accused at a specific moment."
"The court has to weigh how that information relates temporally and otherwise to the mental state of the person at the time of the commission of the offence -- not how they may present at the time of the interview."
"It is a high threshold."
"The result of an NCR designation, at the end of the day, is not an acquittal. There is a very common public misunderstanding that the NCR designation is a get-out-of-jail-free card. That is not what happens."
Anita Szigeti, Toronto lawyer, president, Law and Mental Disorder Association
The 10 people killed in the attack were, from top left: Sohe Chung, 22, Renuka Amarasingha, 45, Andrea Bradden, 33, Dorothy Sewell, 80, Geraldine Brady, 83; from bottom left, Munir Najjar, 85, Anne Marie D'Amico, 30, Ji Hun Kim, 22, Betty Forsyth, 94, and Chul Min (Eddie) Kang, 45. (Ben Shannon/CBC)

He outright killed ten people, by ramming them with a lethal weapon, a rental van. Another sixteen people were injured in last year's van attack. Alek Minassian planned the attack, and meant to kill as many people as he could manage to. He was angry, angry with the world, angry with women who failed to appreciate his gentlemanly qualities, angry with the stupid men that those women who ignored him flocked to. He had online contacts with other men who were similarly angry that they too were unable to attract the attention of young women. They named themselves the 'incels'.

And they planned their revenge on a world where women chose men other than themselves, ignoble men, as opposed to the gentleman-like behaviour of the 'involuntary celibates' group like themselves. They would take their revenge by selecting a random group of victims to pay the price of their psychological agony created by a baffling biological selection system where women are attracted to certain types of men with typical masculine attributes, while leaving the intellectually choice and female-respecting men in high dudgeon, deprived of the emotional and physical comfort of partnerships.

Above all, stressed Alek Minassian, he was a 'gentleman'. That gentleman is a destroyer of lives. Deliberately targeting strangers to pacify his inner rage at being left behind. So he rented a van for the specific purpose of using it as a battering ram, targeting a busy street crowded with pedestrians. He is proud of his exploit, satisfied that he succeeded in what he set out to do. He would have preferred, however, to have taken a greater toll. Regret? certainly not! Any compunction over killing people? Perish the thought.
Alek Minassian, 25, of Richmond Hill, arrested after he drove a van into pedestrians.

He had what he felt was a good reason for committing what society considers a shocking atrocity and what he feels is due vengeance on that society condemning him. And he may yet get the last laugh. In an interview with police directly after the dreadful event, he was clear in informing his interrogator that the result of the van-ramming pleased him greatly. "I feel like I accomplished my mission", he responded when asked how he felt afterward. Oh, and just incidentally, he is pleading "not guilty", and will so declare in February of 2020 when the trial is scheduled to commence.

As for guilty or not, trial judge Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy's pretrial ruling noted that the identity of Minassian as the van driver in the attack is not at issue, and nor has the man's lawyer disputed the admissibility into evidence at trial of his client's detailed confession to police. He killed and wanted to kill greater numbers, but is pleased with the outcome, and would do it all again given the opportunity. But guilty? Why would he be seen to be guilty of committing an act killing perfect strangers nominated by him to represent the very society that had so horribly harmed him?

Last week the video of his interrogation was released. It was seen and weighed by experts in the field of criminal law and psychiatry. Minassian had informed Detective Rob Thomas that the van attack was planned by him and committed as part of a larger, "incel rebellion". Video statements, personal history and psychiatric assessments -- according to Anita Szigeti who focuses on mental health and the law, and who spoke in a general scope -- can all be useful in guiding the court to decide whether the accused in such a case qualifies to be designated NCR.

It would be difficult to argue, using the same logic and viewing the calm statements from the accused, that anyone sufficiently aroused in anger and planning to exact revenge, can claim to be themselves not criminally responsible, since the state of rage rendered them incapable of viewing their intention as a grievous assault on public safety and security. All crimes of passion, then, could be absorbed into the NCR net. How high is that threshold?

And oh, that other little factoid, that accused held not criminally responsible are confined in psychiatric wards and hospitals, placed on drug protocols to control their mental illness, and invariably remain incarcerated for far shorter periods to protect the public, than those found guilty of crimes they commit and imprisoned. Even though psychiatrist reports deem them likely to re-offend should they not commit to their medications or other causes, they are given early release back into society. And society must live with that.

Minassian carried out the attack in a busy area of Yonge Street on April 23, 2018. (Aaron Vincent Elkaim/The Canadian Press)

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Islamist Terrorism as Mental Illness

"It is clear from the reasons of the board and the conduct of the hearing that the board carefully considered all of the required factors in making its disposition regarding the limited indirect supervision privilege and made no error of law. Its decision was not unreasonable."
"The limited extension of indirectly supervised access only to the local college shows that the board was extending only a very limited privilege, both geographically and in terms of time away, that reflected its concern for public safety but balanced with the need to facilitate Mr. Ali's reintegration into society."
Ontario Court of Appeal

The appeal court says the Ontario Review Board considered all the required factors last year in granting Ayanle Hassan Ali permission to attend Mohawk College unaccompanied while he continues to be held at a secure Hamilton hospital. (Toronto Police Service)















"The trial judge was wrong to conclude that section 83.2 (of the Criminal Code) is directed only at associative conduct and is not intended to capture terrorist activity carried out by a ‘lone wolf."
"Parliament’s true purpose was to prevent and punish ‘terrorist activity’ — acts of serious violence committed for a political, religious or ideological purpose, with the intention of intimidating the public."
"Terrorist activity can be committed as readily by an individual — a lone wolf — as it can be by a larger group."
"The trial judge’s approach would erase the distinction between lone wolf terrorists and ordinary criminals."
"Lone wolf terrorists are a serious problem in Canada and abroad, and their recent ‘successes’ may inspire others. In many ways, they are harder to detect and interdict than larger groups. By their solitary nature, lone actors tend to evade the traditional means (e.g. informants, intercepted communications) by which other terrorism plots come to police attention."
"It is dangerous to deprive police and prosecutors of the full array of tools…to investigate and prosecute them."
Crown attorneys documents filed before the Court of Appeal

"While at the scene, the accused stated ‘Allah told me to do this. Allah told me to come here and kill people."
"[He was] unresponsive [with police]."
"I want to be very, very, very careful, when it comes to the national security piece, that we don’t go through that Islamophobia nonsense."
"I don’t want this [to be] categorizing of a large group of people. That would be very unfair and very inaccurate."
Toronto Police Chief Mark Saunders
What is supremely accurate is that 27-year-old Ayanle Hassan Ali entered a military recruitment centre in Toronto in March of 2016, a large knife in hand, taking everyone present by surprise by launching an attack on those present, succeeding in wounding three people before he was overpowered and then subdued, and taken into custody. His intention was not anything but to inflict lethal wounds on those he targeted. He rampaged on behalf of Islamist terrorism.

To describe it as anything less given his actions and accompanying words is to shiver and shake at the prospect of being labelled "Islamophobic".

Charged with attempted murder, assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon, along with a charge of carrying a weapon for the benefit of a terrorist group, he was found by an Ontario judge last year to be culpable, but yet not responsible, because of mental illness. Ali carried out the attack, acknowledged the judge, based on his extremist beliefs which were precipitated by mental illness. And in carrying out the attack, the judge also asserted that the man was not in fact acting on behalf of or for the benefit of a terrorist group.

It was, evidently, his mentally injured mind that was at fault. And that, it seems, could be corrected with tender loving care. He has been ensconced in a highly restricted hospital ward. And the Ontario Review Board annually evaluating the status of anyone pronounced to be not criminally responsible to stand trial for criminal offences as a result of suffering mental illness, in their assessment of this man found him a continuing and significant threat to the public, that it would be best for him to remain where he was, in that restricted hospital ward.

And then they more or less reversed their reservation about his threat status by recommending that he be granted increasing privileges. Permission to travel throughout the hospital and grounds as a first step, accompanied by staff. After which an approved companion could accompany him, and then he would graduate to roaming about unaccompanied. Assuming that nothing untoward would occur, Ali could continue the trajectory toward normalization into the community to continue his education by attending Mohawk College.

It was the opinion of the three-judge appeal panel to state it was "not unreasonable" for the board to have banned Ali from military facilities or centres despite the Crown sought more restrictive measures; a prohibition from his having any contact anywhere with military personnel. This was Ali's first annual review, leaving the prosecutors shaking their heads in disbelief at the liberalization of privileges; unreasonable in their view and based on no past record indicating he would be capable of good behaviour.

Yet the Appeal Court appears satisfied that it has more than adequately addressed the issue of public safety. Cleared on the terrorism elements of the original charges, found not criminally responsible on the lesser offences at trial, he is free to get on with his life as though the commission of a terrorist act is of no moment whatever. “I have a license to kill, I have a green light to kill. One soldier is all it takes, just one", reads Ali's diary.

Ayanle Hassan Ali arrives in a police car at a Toronto courthouse on March 15, 2016. (Chris Young/The Canadian Press)

Labels: , ,

Follow @rheytah Tweet