Luigi Mangione and the Definition of Insanity
Luigi Mangione, a 26-year-old Ivy-League-educated American, is the prime suspect in the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare’s chief executive, Brian Thompson. It is alleged that Mangione killed Thompson in Manhattan on December 4, 2024. The shooting was proceeded by a five-day manhunt that ended when Mangione was spotted by a McDonald’s employee in Altoona, Pennsylvania. He was subsequently arrested.
Mangione has been indicted on 11 charges in New York, including first-degree murder as an act of terrorism. He has pleaded not guilty. If convicted, he faces a sentence of life in prison without parole.
Mangione’s team of attorneys is now in the process of preparing their defence. Numerous strategies are available, and many are speculating on how they will proceed. One possibility would be to argue that Mangione is not guilty by reason of insanity. In this scenario, Mangione might claim that while he committed the crime, he is not responsible for his actions on account of his mental state at the time of the offence.
What is the “Not Criminally Responsible Due to Mental Disorder” Defence?
A parallel defence exists north of the border. In Canada, when a defendant is accused of a crime, they can argue that they are “not criminally responsible due to mental disorder” (previously known as the “insanity” defence).
This defence has been used in prominent criminal law cases over the years. For example, in the 2008 case of Vince Li (who now goes by Will Baker), the defendant murdered a 22-year-old man named Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus. Li maintained that he was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the act and was declared not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder.
This case, along with other cases that feature the “not criminally responsible due to mental disorder” defence, garnered much media attention in Canada and beyond. In the following blog, we will explain the basic tenets of the controversial “not criminally responsible due to mental disorder” defence.
What does Section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada say?
The “not criminally responsible due to mental disorder” defence is outlined in Section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The defence is rooted in the principle that if a person commits a crime but was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the act, they should not be declared guilty and held accountable in the ordinary sense.
Section 16 reads as follows:
Defence of mental disorder
16 (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.
Presumption
(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.
Burden of proof
(3) The burden of proof that an accused was suffering from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility is on the party that raises the issue.
What is the Test for Criminal Responsibility?
Subsection 16(1) establishes a test for criminal responsibility. This test seeks to determine whether the accused meets the following two criteria:
- Inability to appreciate the nature and quality of the act or omission: Did the accused have the cognitive capacity required to be held criminally responsible for the crime? Did the accused truly understand what they were doing?
- Inability to know that the act or omission was wrong: Did the accused have the moral capacity required to be held criminally responsible for the crime? Did they understand that what they were doing was against the law?
If the accused’s mental state prevented them from appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission, or of knowing that the act or omission was wrong, the court can declare that they were not criminally responsible for the crime in question.
Who has the Burden of Proof?
Subsections 16(2) and 16(3) deal with the burden of proof for the “not criminally responsible due to mental disorder” defence. The court’s initial presumption is that the accused is not mentally ill. The accused must present affirmative evidence that shows the existence of a mental disorder. It is not necessary, however, for the defence to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Demonstrating proof on a balance of probabilities is sufficient. This is a lower standard, wherein the accused only needs to persuade the court that their explanation is more likely than not to be true.
How Does the “Not Criminally Responsible Due to Mental Disorder” Defence Work?
Legal Process for the “Not Criminally Responsible Due to Mental Disorder” Defence
An accused who claims to be not criminally responsible due to mental disorder must affirmatively prove their case to the court. This often involves an in-depth evaluation, conducted by a psychiatrist or a psychologist, which focuses on whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence and whether they could appreciate the nature of their actions or understand that their actions were wrong.
Outcome of a “Not Criminally Responsible Due to Mental Disorder” Finding
If the defence is successfully argued and a court finds that an accused is not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, the defendant is not merely acquitted. They still must face consequences for their crime. In Ontario, if a person is convicted but designated not criminally responsible due to mental disorder, they are required to appear before a Review Board and attend a hearing. The primary goal of the hearing is to assess the defendant’s mental health status and to determine whether they can safely reintegrate into society. A Review Board hearing could lead to one of the following outcomes:
- Absolute Discharge: The accused is free to rejoin the community and is not subject to any restrictions.
- Conditional Discharge: The accused can live in the community but is subject to specific conditions. These could include reporting to a hospital, refraining from using drugs or alcohol or refraining from contacting certain individuals.
- Psychiatric Detention: If the accused continues to pose a significant risk to the public, they may be relegated to a psychiatric facility.
After rendering their decision, the Review Board reviews each case on an annual basis.
Final Thoughts on the “Not Criminally Responsible Due to Mental Disorder” Defence
The “not criminally responsible due to mental disorder” defence aims to balance public safety with the rights of mentally ill offenders. Such a balance can be difficult to reach and often leads to public scrutiny. As for Mangione, the parameters of his defence have yet to be specified. With significant evidence, he and his lawyers may choose to proceed with the insanity defence, which could bring about a more favourable sentence for the accused. But whatever the outcome, what’s certain is that the public will be keeping a close watch on his case, and the media will be covering every angle along the way.
Contact Barrison Law for Experienced Representation in Criminal Defence Matters
Since 2014, Barrison Law has provided trusted advocacy to individuals charged with a broad range of offences, from driving offences to first-degree murder charges. Our criminal defence lawyers are experienced in protecting clients’ Charter rights at all stages of a criminal proceeding, from arrest to sentencing. Our firm is renowned for providing reliable, effective courtroom representation and skilled negotiations with the Crown. To schedule a confidential consultation, please contact us online or call 905-404-1947.