Mansfield Mela

Author: Mansfield Mela

Dr. Mansfield Mela (here) is an academic forensic psychiatrist in the University of Saskatchewan and a founder of the forensic subspecialty in Canada. He is also a consultant psychiatrist at the Regional Psychiatric Center in Saskatoon and runs an outpatient clinic for mentally disordered offenders. As an expert he has been called upon to testify on various aspects of the interface of law and psychiatry. He is an associate faculty member of the College of Law and teaches medical and law undergraduate and post graduate students. He is a member of the Saskatchewan Review Board and a member of the Saskatchewan Physician Health program. He is the head of the interdisciplinary research team made of academic professional in the area of forensic mental health in the University of Saskatchewan. His area of research is the medico-legal implications of cognitive disorder specifically fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and ADHD. His research interests and focus of contribution include the role of forgiveness in reducing criminal activity, clozapine and increased functioning and therapeutic jurisprudence. He is currently conducting a major systematic review of the impact of prenatal substance exposure on criminality.

By: Glen Luther, Q.C. and Dr. Mansfield Mela

PDF Version: Mental Illness and Sentencing: Blaming the Mentally Ill for their Lack of Cooperation with Inadequate Treatment in R v Maier

Case Commented On: R v Maier, 2015 ABCA 59

Mental illness presents a difficult issue for the sentencing judge. The Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 requires that in sentencing an accused a court must apply the fundamental principle of sentencing, contained in s. 718.1, which requires that:

A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

In sentencing a mentally ill offender who has been convicted of an offence a judge must decide on the degree of responsibility of the offender and balance that against the gravity of the offence. It is clear of course that many mentally ill individuals are in fact guilty of the offence they committed as the provisions of s.16 of the Code relating to criminal responsibility are very narrow and exempt only the rare individual from being seen as having committed their crime. How then do we sentence the guilty but mentally ill offender and how do we decide how responsible they are for the offending behaviour?