The mother of a boy allegedly lured out of an Oshawa elementary school last week by a woman with a history of child abduction says it is “unacceptable” that the accused woman was allowed back into society unsupervised.
Joanne Merlene Jones, 41, who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, is charged with kidnapping an 11-year-old boy from Village Union Public School on Thursday morning and walking him away from the school, before he broke free and ran back.
In 2006, Jones was found not criminally responsible in the abduction of 4-year-old Josiah Dejon Madurie from a Toronto shopping mall.
In January of this year, she was granted an absolute discharge by the Ontario Review Board, the quasi-judicial body that oversees offenders found not criminally responsible.
The move, buttressed by the belief that Jones posed no public threat, ended the board’s oversight of her, meaning could it no longer place her in the custody of a hospital or prohibit her from activities.
Jones’ discharge illustrates the complexity of any criminal case involving an offender with a mental illness. While public safety is paramount, people with mental illnesses have rights to liberty protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It concerns the Oshawa mother of the boy allegedly kidnapped Thursday — who cannot be named due to a publication ban on information that could identify the victim.
“I’m very disgusted,” she said. Her family is left wondering if the boy was targeted, and she and her three other children are “terrified.”
Joe Wright, spokesperson for the Ontario Review Board, says panel members perpetually ask a difficult, politically charged question: “How can we maximize the liberty for the mentally disordered person, and at the same time make sure that the public is not at risk?”
For provincial bodies seeking an answer, the Supreme Court of Canada sets out explicit standards for treatment of mentally ill people accused of a crime.
To detain or restrict the activity of a mentally ill offender, review boards must believe there is a threat to public safety. That threat must be “significant” and be supported by evidence, according to case law. Indeed, if a board can’t decide if a person poses a threat, the default is to grant a discharge, since a threat to public safety has not been proven.
In the Jones case, both the Crown and health professionals caring for Jones said she was not a danger to society.
“Everyone associated with this case thought that Jones was no longer a significant threat,” said Kent Roach, a criminal law professor at the University of Toronto who is familiar with but not connected to the case.
When granting an absolute discharge, a review board can also consider continued treatment and community involvement that may decrease the chance of another offence.
The ruling granting Jones a discharge indicated she would be referred to Whitby’s Integrated Community Access Program, connected to the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.
Susan Nakhle, spokesperson for the centre, said she could not confirm whether Jones had been participating in treatment, since she cannot comment on individual cases.
Jones was also supposed to continue volunteering in the community, says the discharge report. She was volunteering once a month at a Whitby soup kitchen, but the director said she did not know Jones, since there are about 800 volunteers a month.
In a 1999 ruling on crime and mental illness, the Supreme Court admits the system determines risk to public safety “as best it can.” But it is imperfect.
“It is unrealistic to expect absolute certainty from a regime charged with evaluating the impact of individual, human factors on future events.”
Jones appeared in an Oshawa courthouse Tuesday. Proceedings were put over until Jan. 2.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Wendy Gillis
Joanne Merlene Jones, 41, who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, is charged with kidnapping an 11-year-old boy from Village Union Public School on Thursday morning and walking him away from the school, before he broke free and ran back.
In 2006, Jones was found not criminally responsible in the abduction of 4-year-old Josiah Dejon Madurie from a Toronto shopping mall.
In January of this year, she was granted an absolute discharge by the Ontario Review Board, the quasi-judicial body that oversees offenders found not criminally responsible.
The move, buttressed by the belief that Jones posed no public threat, ended the board’s oversight of her, meaning could it no longer place her in the custody of a hospital or prohibit her from activities.
Jones’ discharge illustrates the complexity of any criminal case involving an offender with a mental illness. While public safety is paramount, people with mental illnesses have rights to liberty protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It concerns the Oshawa mother of the boy allegedly kidnapped Thursday — who cannot be named due to a publication ban on information that could identify the victim.
“I’m very disgusted,” she said. Her family is left wondering if the boy was targeted, and she and her three other children are “terrified.”
Joe Wright, spokesperson for the Ontario Review Board, says panel members perpetually ask a difficult, politically charged question: “How can we maximize the liberty for the mentally disordered person, and at the same time make sure that the public is not at risk?”
For provincial bodies seeking an answer, the Supreme Court of Canada sets out explicit standards for treatment of mentally ill people accused of a crime.
To detain or restrict the activity of a mentally ill offender, review boards must believe there is a threat to public safety. That threat must be “significant” and be supported by evidence, according to case law. Indeed, if a board can’t decide if a person poses a threat, the default is to grant a discharge, since a threat to public safety has not been proven.
In the Jones case, both the Crown and health professionals caring for Jones said she was not a danger to society.
“Everyone associated with this case thought that Jones was no longer a significant threat,” said Kent Roach, a criminal law professor at the University of Toronto who is familiar with but not connected to the case.
When granting an absolute discharge, a review board can also consider continued treatment and community involvement that may decrease the chance of another offence.
The ruling granting Jones a discharge indicated she would be referred to Whitby’s Integrated Community Access Program, connected to the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences.
Susan Nakhle, spokesperson for the centre, said she could not confirm whether Jones had been participating in treatment, since she cannot comment on individual cases.
Jones was also supposed to continue volunteering in the community, says the discharge report. She was volunteering once a month at a Whitby soup kitchen, but the director said she did not know Jones, since there are about 800 volunteers a month.
In a 1999 ruling on crime and mental illness, the Supreme Court admits the system determines risk to public safety “as best it can.” But it is imperfect.
“It is unrealistic to expect absolute certainty from a regime charged with evaluating the impact of individual, human factors on future events.”
Jones appeared in an Oshawa courthouse Tuesday. Proceedings were put over until Jan. 2.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Wendy Gillis
No comments:
Post a Comment