rigorousintuition.ca

<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>SCC upholds acquittal in Que. 'trance' killing</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Updated Thu. Apr. 27 2006 11:33 AM ET, CTV.ca News Staff</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the acquittal of a Quebec woman who shot and killed her abusive, alcoholic husband while in a 'trance-like' state.<br><br>Rita Graveline, now 57, killed her husband Michael in 1999 after a 31-year marriage.<br><br>Her lawyers argued that she pulled the trigger while in a 'robotic' state brought on by years of abuse.<br><br>Two psychiatrists testified at her trial that when she killed her husband, Graveline was in a trance-like state known as 'automatism' -- brought on by suppressed rage caused by the abuse. <br><br>...<br><br>Graveline, of Luskville, Que., was finally acquitted of second-degree murder, but the Crown later argued that the two defences -- self-defence and `automatism' -- were contradictory.<br><br>The Quebec Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 ruling, overturned her acquittal and ordered a new trial, saying the judge had made mistakes in his instructions to the jury.<br><br>Graveline's lawyer, Isabelle Doray, argued that the original acquittal should stand because there was nothing wrong with the instructions.<br><br>On Thursday, the Supreme Court overturned the appeal court, leaving the original acquittal to stand.<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060427/supreme_court_canada_060427/20060427?hub=TopStories">CTV</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

Two psychiatrists claimed she had a 'condition' called 'automatism' ... ? It's purely legal term - no such psychological condition exists.<br><br>'Robot' ... 'trance' ... 'automatism' ... <br><br>It's like "dissociation" is a dirty word. C'mon, Mr Lawyer, say it with me ... d-i-s-s-o-c-i-a-t-i-o-n. It's what happens when one person tortures another. <p></p><i></i>

If a man had shot and killed his abusive, alcoholic wife while in a 'trance-like' state.<br><br>What would the verdict be?<br> <p></p><i></i>

legal definitions of mental states are not dependent on psychology/psychiatry at all. Automatism is the old common law term for insanity defense in criminal law. It means just what it is, for a lay person, namely, the person was not thinking...(unable to think right) and the other situation is acting on an uncontrollable urge ("couldnt' help it"). The law requires a professinoal recommendation that the accused is suffering from a mental illness and that's it. (and in theory, the court can acquit on the basis of insanity even in contradiction of a medical finding, namely, if all psychiatrists say the person is healthy the court can make a "legal" determination that the accused meets the requirements for insanity defense). recently, though, the judges and the system defer their discretion to mental health profs, not sure this is good at all.<br>--<br>Men who kill, usually get off the hook by "crimes of passion",namely, provocation defense, which reduces from murder to manslaughter. (murder one has to show intent and Lack of provocation) so the bias is still in favor of male murderers, and the law is promulgated in the basis of male psychology. ONly recently the law acknowledge female psychology is in "delayed response", delayed 'self defense" etc. Women don't get provoked as males do, so the entire "mens rea" definition should change, but it hasn't yet. <p></p><i></i>