As the defence of Not Criminally Responsible becomes commonly known and used, more concerns are raised by the victims of crimes, which leads to a debate over the public safety and rights of those who have mental disorder. The purpose of NCR defence is to protect the rights of people who commit the crimes while suffering from a mental disease, they should not be punished for their acts if they are incapable of knowing what they did was wrong. In order to be found not criminally responsible, one needs to have enough evidence to prove the insanity, so the successful rate of NCR defence is not high. Also the research data shows the reoffending rate of people that were found NCR is even lower than those who went through the general penal system. From this it can be concluded that the NCR defence is appropriate in Canadian society. Opponents have raised many points as to why the option of NCR should not exist. Some argue that the NCR defence goes against the public safety since some offenders can be released back to the street without paying for their acts. A certain amount of NCR offenders resume their normal lives without any supervision at all. (Theodore) Those who place high value on equality, especially the victims and their families, believe that every individual should be treated the same in front of the law regardless of their mental status. Many victims were outraged as they believe whoever committed the crime should take the responsibility. An example is Carol Delley, whose son Tim Mclean was killed by Vincent Li, she said, “This man ate my child’s eyes and ripped him to shreds on a bus, and they’re going to say he’s not responsible?” (Theodore) Furthermore, some insist that the NCR defence does not fulfill the sentencing principles such as denunciation and general deterrence. However, it makes these arguments seem insignificant when taking into account the benefits from the NCR defence, thus the comparison suggests that the Canadian Government should not remove the NCR defence. When considering the mental capacity of the accused, it is obvious that no person should be responsible for an act made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or of knowing that it was wrong. (Government of Canada) Taking the case of Vincent Li (R. v. Li 2008), who decapitated the passenger Tim Mclean who was sitting next to him on a bus on July 30, 2008. He has committed a horrible act, certainly there would be opposition to his freedom due to the sympathy for the innocent victim and his family. However, it is clear that Li has a mental disorder, and he should receive treatments instead of being punished for his illness. People like this deserve a second opportunity, it is not their intention to kill someone, they themselves are suffering from it at the same time. Therefore they should have the rights to get medical attention and to be forgiven by the public. People argue that some offenders would just use NCR to escape the sentence, without knowing that it is not very easy to make the decision. In order for the defence to be successful, the accused must be able to show that there is an existence of a mental disorder, which leads to an incapacity defined in the Criminal Code and was present at the time of the event. (Kostman) Expert diagnosis is always required, which means that one cannot simply fake the insanity. For example, A psychiatrist needs to assess the person’s psychiatric records, mental status examination, psychological testing, etc. Taking the case of Francis Proulx (R. v. Proulx 2008), who murdered a female aide in 2008, and argued he was not criminally responsible during the trial. However, in the end he was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without chance of parole for 25 years. Also, in Luka Magnotta’s case (R. v. Magnotta 2014), the
