Canada

Sex Criminals And The Law

MBODIED in the Criminal Code for

less than a year, the section relating

to sex psychopaths already has been found ineffective, or at least inadequate. Recent cases have underlined the urgency of revision. Accordingly, the Attorney General of Ontario has made recommendations to Chief Justice McRuer, sitting as a Royal Commission.

Clearly the statutory definition of criminal sexual psychopath needs clarification. It relates to a person who by misconduct has shown lack of power to control sexual impulses and is likely to cause injury to others. In one Ontario case, cited by Mr. Roberts, a man accused of numerous offenses was held to have shown "cunning, planning," etc., and therefore no lack of power to control his impulses. Preventive detention, provided for in the statute, has been imposed in only about 20 cases in eight years. As pointed out in these columns before, most sex crimes reveal deliberation. Surely it is not intended to put a premium upon it.

It is proposed that judges be empowered to remand sex crime suspects for medical examination, any time after arrest. The Code now provides that they

"may" hear testimony of psychiatrists. In some cases, such evidence has been given and ignored by courts on the ground that lack of control has not been shown. The Attorney General proposes that certificates by two psychiatrists shall be sufficient to commit. This is something that calls for careful study, as does the recommendation that children's evidence, though uncorroborated, be accepted. The Code now provides that unsworn evidence of young children may be given, but that no accused shail be convicted upon such evidence alone. The Ontario brief proposes that judges be required to tell juries it is not safe to convict in absence of corroboration but that they are entitled to convict if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence is correct. This would place great responsibility upon jurors in determining whether or not witnesses of tender years are demonstrating an accurate memory or only a good imagination. There is no doubt, however, that the present law is handicapped, as Mr. Roberts says, by "procedural deficiency" and that for protection of the public this should be remedied as soon as the procedural efficiency of the Royal Commission and of Parliament permits.

one