Posted at 11:00 a.m.
At each criminal trial, like that of Carl Girouard in Quebec, I wonder why it is not the court that hires a group of experts to instruct the jury on the mental state of an accused? I do not trust the opinion of an expert paid by the defense to exonerate him any more than the expert of the crown to convict him. In the current system, the credibility and ethics of experts are highly questionable.
Bernard Cyr, Quebec
One says white, the other black. It is a great classic of criminal trials which often revolve around a debate between experts in order to determine whether the accused was in his right mind at the time of the crime. If he could tell right from wrong. And if he is criminally responsible for his actions.
Last week, we saw it at the trial of Carl Girouard, who brandished his saber on Halloween night in Quebec City to take the lives of two people and injure five others.
The defense psychiatrist maintained that he suffered from schizophrenia and was deliriously psychotic. But according to the Crown psychiatrist, the young man did not present a “slip” towards schizophrenia and he had no delusions or hallucinations.
Who to believe?
The two experts, however, studied the same works. They are based on the same science. But they nevertheless arrive at different conclusions… depending on the party they represent.
Of course, no one can be in the defendant’s head at the time he committed the crime, which leaves room for some interpretation, even if the experts can’t stretch the rubber band too far, otherwise they would become the laughed at by their peers.
But when two experts arrive with differing opinions, the public has reason to be skeptical of their objectivity. In some cases, this is downright controversial. Remember the trial of Guy Turcotte who stabbed his two children. The cardiologist had been found not criminally responsible during his first trial, and then went to prison after a second trial.
“It casts a lot of shadow on the credibility of the system,” considers criminal lawyer Jean-Claude Hébert.
So why would the judge not appoint a single, totally independent and impartial expert? After all, it shows in civil arbitration, which saves time and money.
The problem is that such a formula would run counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides that an accused has the right to make full and free defence. This includes the possibility of calling on the expert of one’s choice.