PDA

View Full Version : Decision in Carmichael case



I LIKE EGGS
09-30-2005, 02:39 PM
How could this be???

Decision in Carmichael case:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/09/27/1237914-cp.html

By TARA BRAUTIGAM

LONDON, Ont. (CP) - A father who believed he was saving his 11-year-old epileptic son from a life of hell was found not criminally responsible Friday of drugging and suffocating the child after a night of video games and television.

In her ruling, the judge decided David Carmichael was a loving and caring parent, but both badly deluded and desperate when he killed his boy. "We will probably never fully understand the desperation that led David Carmichael to take (the life of) his little boy," said Ontario Superior Court Justice Helen Rady.

"He was clearly a devoted and caring parent who looked for opportunities for his son to excel."

Rady ruled that Carmichael should be sent to a medium-security psychiatric facility in Brockville, Ont., for treatment as soon as practical as both Crown and defence recommended.

Within 90 days, the Ontario Review Board will decide on any further treatment and how long he should remain there.

"I am satisfied that Mr. Carmichael poses no real threat to the public," said Rady.

"Indeed, Mr. Carmichael likely poses more of a threat to himself than to the public."

Carmichael had been charged with first-degree murder but both Crown and defence told the judge he was not criminally responsible for his actions.

Defence lawyer Philip Campbell expressed relief at the verdict.

"It brings to the conclusion a painful and extremely difficult process," he said.

Forensic psychiatrists testified during the emotional three-day trial that the 47-year-old man was suffering from a severe bout of depression and psychosis when he killed the boy.

They said Carmichael was convinced that by killing the boy, who he believed was partially brain dead, he would spare him a life of intolerable suffering and save his family from a child he saw seething with aggression to the point where he might have killed his older sister.

After his arrest, Carmichael told police his son, whose body was found at a Holiday Inn on July 31, 2004, felt everyone was laughing at him and was in a "living hell."

"There can be no question that Mr. Carmichael's beliefs were illogical, indefensible, and contrary to reality," Rady told a packed courtroom.

"Mr. Carmichael is not criminally responsible for the murder of his son because he caused Ian's death at the time when he was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of knowing that it was wrong," said Rady.

Dr. John Bradford, who examined Carmichael a month after the slaying, said the father is now conscious his actions were wrong, and he has begun grieving the loss of his son.

Over the course of the judge-only trial, Rady heard heart-wrenching testimony from a former colleague and Carmichael's twin brother Jeff, both of whom described in vivid detail the transformation of "a loving father" into a depressed, suicidal stranger.

Jeff Carmichael testified their family has a dark history of depression and suicide.

Exmortis
09-30-2005, 02:58 PM
Man... This sounds like that guy's case in Manitoba that killed his handicaped daughter out of sympathy. It might just revive the case....

Blueharp
09-30-2005, 04:12 PM
Very important point:


Forensic psychiatrists testified during the emotional three-day trial that the 47-year-old man was suffering from a severe bout of depression and psychosis when he killed the boy.

"Mr. Carmichael is not criminally responsible for the murder of his son because he caused Ian's death at the time when he was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of knowing that it was wrong,"

I don't believe the defendant in the Manitoba case was afflicted with mental illness.

However, that's not to say interest won't be revived in that case...I think it will too, although not significantly.

Dr.Dan
09-30-2005, 05:02 PM
Carmichael had been charged with first-degree murder but both Crown and defence told the judge he was not criminally responsible for his actions.
You know there's no doubt when both Crown and defence agree... He must be a very sick man :(

Rustynut
09-30-2005, 06:18 PM
Maybe this will help to open the eyes of those that are in the healthcarefield, rather than cut funding for mental health care as it has been the norm in past years.
Lots of advertising on the media for the new hospital to replace the LPH and ST Thomas, but to close two hosptials and replace it with a new smaller one that is to have only 144 beds in London and 70 beds in St. Thomas. I fear we are heading toward the American style of leaving the mentally ill on the streets to fend for themselves, there are enough out there now without the support they need.
Lfp story (http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2005/09/30/1242049-sun.html)
Maybe we only need fewer than the 300+ beds currently in service in both cities.

Walter
10-01-2005, 06:20 AM
Very important point:



"Mr. Carmichael is not criminally responsible for the murder of his son because he caused Ian's death at the time when he was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of knowing that it was wrong,"

I don't believe the defendant in the Manitoba case was afflicted with mental illness.

That was the point I was going to make....in both cases it was a tradegy and possibly understandable what the two men were going through but then I think about the thousands of parents who have children with similar afflictions that make the same kinds of sacrifices and they make the committment to live with it....the real tradegy is that we don't dedicate enough resources to support these parents.

However, that's not to say interest won't be revived in that case...I think it will too, although not significantly...

I LIKE EGGS
10-03-2005, 09:21 AM
You know there's no doubt when both Crown and defence agree... He must be a very sick man :(

I totally disagree with this statement. I do not believe for a second that this man was unaware and criminally not responsible for his actions. How can the Crown and the Defence agree that this man was unaware of his actions when Carmichael actually gave reasons behind why he killed him.....how can this not be considered pre-meditated? AND even with several doctors saying that there was no evidence that his son would NOT live a healthy life.....he still took his son's life. He totally took his son out for a "last day on earth" outting. This sick freak knew what he was doing......Oh but one month AFTER the murder, he became "aware" of the situation and started to grieve the loss of his son? BS MAN!

I love seeing in the paper where it is stating that he was a loving father. I wonder how much love "strangling and drugging your son to death" really is?

I LIKE EGGS
10-03-2005, 09:26 AM
.That was the point I was going to make....in both cases it was a tradegy and possibly understandable what the two men were going through but then I think about the thousands of parents who have children with similar afflictions that make the same kinds of sacrifices and they make the committment to live with it....the real tradegy is that we don't dedicate enough resources to support these parents..

Walter....you give these kids up for adoption if you cannot as a parent handle the task at hand. Having an autistic child does not give you the right to kill them because you believe that their future is a not so bright one. Having children in any case of the word.......is about sacrifices. So mental illness or not these children are about commitments. If you cannot handle those commitments, there are other solutions besides sentencing your own child to death, especially when it is in your hands.

Yogi
10-03-2005, 09:18 PM
I totally disagree with this statement. I do not believe for a second that this man was unaware and criminally not responsible for his actions. How can the Crown and the Defence agree that this man was unaware of his actions when Carmichael actually gave reasons behind why he killed him.....how can this not be considered pre-meditated?
Welcome to the real world of jurisprudence.

Poeple get off on so-called "insanity pleas" all the time. This is nothing new. The prosecution's shrinks battle it out against the defense's shrinks and in the end, it's up to the judge and/or jury to decide.

Exmortis
10-03-2005, 10:07 PM
Welcome to the real world of jurisprudence.

Poeple get off on so-called "insanity pleas" all the time. This is nothing new.

People don't "get off" on insanity pleas. Have you checked the stats for 2004? Less than half of 1% of cases were successfully tried as insanity. And the person doesn't "get away with murder". They get institutionalise for years and more often that not, all their lives.

So how is that getting off or getting away with murder?

frostyone
10-04-2005, 12:06 PM
The insanity defence is seldom raised.
It's very hard to meet the requirements.
And if sucessful can result in confinement for life anyways.

There's some real misconceptions about it.
Few realize that in Canada the Crown used to raise the issue.
Over the strong objections of the defence.

In 1992 there was a Supreme court ruling involving many issues surrounding the "insanity" defence. . Swain vs, Regina
http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/1991/1991scc41.html

One of the issues was that the Crown introduced evidence for insanity over the strong objections of the defence. ( It was an assault charge)
As a result Swain was committed indefinitely under a Lieutenant-Governors warrant.

The ruling is still "fuzzy"
There have been a series of reforms since.
Many recommendations are still not in force.
It's still ongoing.

But the notion of someone "getting off" as a result is silly.
In some ways modifying the law to it's present form, which requires a "mental defect"
in addition to the earlier definitions is even more restrictive.

For all 3 parties ,the Crown, defence, and judge to agree on not guilty by reason of mental defect, indicates this must be one very ill person.

Yogi
10-04-2005, 08:07 PM
People don't "get off" on insanity pleas. Have you checked the stats for 2004? Less than half of 1% of cases were successfully tried as insanity. And the person doesn't "get away with murder". They get institutionalise for years and more often that not, all their lives.

So how is that getting off or getting away with murder?
Right you are. Wrong choice of words. What I meant by "getting off" was avoiding jail time as opposed to walking away a free man or woman.

Even though the percentage may be small, the first thing defence lawyers often opt for is for an insanity plea, regardless of whether or not the accused knew what he/she was doing.