Mental Illness and Law of Evidence

Mental Illness and Law of Evidence
Name
Course
Institution
Date
Introduction
The following discussion attempts to provide an understanding of mental illness and how it relates to the law of evidence as it is provided within Ontario Statutes, Canada. There is no doubt that every aspect of law aims at maintaining order within a given society, institution, or nation. It is important that every aspect of individual actions is guided by principles of laws. Laws are governing directives that attempt to ensure harmonious existence within the society. There are so many arms or forms of regulating bodies, law in respect to the various forms of conflicts and disharmonies that exist (Paciocco & Stuesser, 2011). One such arm or form of law is the evidence law. The following discussion provides an in-depth analysis of evidence law whilst trying to relate the same with mental illness. An overview of law of evidence forms part of this paper other than the main analysis. Two cases are discussed in respect to mental illness and law of evidence. A concluding remark winds up the major points of the paper.
Overview of Law of Evidence
According to Paciocco and Stuesser (2011), law of evidence refers to a body of regulations that govern proof of existence of fact before a court during the trial process. Law of evidence may be guided by provincial and federal legislation where Canada Evidence Act is usually applied when the latter is involved. According Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty courtesy of evidence given by the prosecutor. Evidence of prosecution may be obtained from witnesses under oath, documented evidence, and exhibition whilst ensuring that the rule of relevance is adhered to as provided for by various legislations (Paciocco & Stuesser, 2011). The rule of relevance determines the admissibility of evidence within criminal cases. Through the rule of relevance, any information capable of establishing guilt or innocence of the accused is usually admitted as evidence towards the case at hand. In most cases, statements made outside the court, unless they are made by the accused are not admissible hence not regarded as evidence.
There have been recent developments within the law of evidence amongst different states and provinces in Canada. Such developments have been necessitated by differences in the laws of evidence amongst provinces between as applicable in federal and provincial courts (Paciocco & Stuesser, 2011). Despite developing contrary recommendations to LRCC, the Ontario Law Reform Commission has proposed various changes in the law of evidence in a bid to having universality with respect to practice across federal and provincial courts. Reforming law of evidence is an effective way of ensuring that all the federal and provincial courts within Canada apply and practice the same aspects of law of evidence (Paciocco & Stuesser, 2011). Law of evidence is an important aspect with regards to identifying the guilt or innocence in the accused persons whilst undergoing trials. However, there are different groups of people treated differently under the law of evidence.
Mental Illness
Undisputable, mental illness is a significant issue within the global public health. In most cases, mental illness does not only affect the victims but also the people who stay with and around the victims. Every aspect of the community, society, or nation is significantly affected by mental illness (Paciocco & Stuesser, 2011). Different issues with respect to subjecting an accused to trail arise in the event that there are facts of mental illness. The criminal laws of Canada provide for the defense of mental disorder also known as the defense of mental illness. The defense of mental illness as provided by laws in Canada is usually regarded as legal defense by excuse. In this perspective, Paciocco and Stuesser (2011) claim that defendants may argue that at the time of committing a crime they were not mentally sound. The law of evidence confirms that when it is established that at the point of committing a crime the defendant was mentally unsound then he/she cannot be held criminally liable for br...