Department of Justice Canada / Ministère de la Justice CanadaGovernment of Canada
Skip first menu Skip all menus
   
Français Contact us Help Search Canada Site
Justice Home Site Map Programs and Initiatives Proactive Disclosure Laws
Research and Statistics Home Page
RSD Home
Research Reports
Search Reports
Chronological Index
A-Z Index
JustResearch
Fact Sheets
Contact Us
Publications

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and the Youth Criminal Justice System: A Discussion Paper

Paul Verbrugge

October 2003


Table of Content

Endnotes

[1] Issues related to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) and criminal justice have been explored recently by a number of authors. See. J. Conry & D.K. Fast, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and the Criminal Justice System (Maple Ridge: British Columbia Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Resource Society, 2000); J. Dagher-Margosian "Representing the FAS Client in a Criminal Case" in A. Streissguth & J. Kanter, eds. The Challenge of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997) 125; R. LaDue & T. Dunne "Legal Issues and FAS" in A. Streissguth & J. Kanter, eds., The Challenge of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997) 146; K. Page "Fetal Alcohol Spectrum - The Hidden Epidemic in our Courts" (2001) 52(4) Juvenile and Family Court Journal 21.

[2] The notion that humanity has recognized the association between alcohol and birth defects for a millennia is a fallacy. The so-called historical allusions in the literature have been misconstrued; see E. Armstrong. "Diagnosing moral disorder: the discovery and evolution of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome" (1998) 42 Social Science Medicine, 2032-2034.

[3] K.L. Jones & D.W. Smith, "Recognition of the fetal alcohol syndrome in early infancy" (1973) 836 The Lancet 999.

[4] E. L. Abel, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effects. (New York: Plenum Press, 1984).

[5] Institute Of Medicine, K. Stratton, C. Howe, F. Battaglia, eds., Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: Diagnosis, Epidemiology, Prevention, and Treatment (Washington, D.C: National Academy Press, 1996).

[6] (1) FAS with confirmed maternal alcohol exposure, (2) FAS without confirmed maternal alcohol exposure; (3)Partial FAS with confirmed maternal alcohol exposure.

[7] IOM, supra note 5 at 76-77.

[8] Abel concluded that the prevalence of FAS in low SES groups was ten times greater than in high SES groups: E. Abel, "An Update on Incidence of FAS: FAS Is Not an Equal Opportunity Birth Defect" (1995) 17 Neurotoxicology and Teratology 437.

[9] P.A. May & J.P. Gossage, "Estimating the prevalence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: A Summary" (2001) 3 Alcohol Research and Health 159.

[10] R.J. Williams, F.S. Odaibo, & J.M. McGee, "Incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome in northeastern Manitoba" (1999) 90 Canadian Journal of Public Health 192.

[11] D.K. Fast, J. Conry, & C.A. Loock, "Identifying Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Among Youth in the Criminal Justice System". (1999) 20 Developmental and Behavioural Pediatrics 370.

[12] The term "cognitive" is herein used to describe the concepts of thinking, learning, memory, and attention.

[13] Abel, supra note 4 at 131.

[14] A. Streissguth et al., "Primary and Secondary Disabilities in Fetal Alcohol Syndrome" in A. Streissguth & J. Kanter, eds., The Challenge of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome: Overcoming Secondary Disabilities (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997).

[15] Assuming a population standard deviation of 15.

[16] C. Famy, A.P. Streissguth, & A.S. Unis. "Mental Illness in Adults With Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Fetal Alcohol Effects" (1998) 155 American Journal of Psychiatry, 552.

[17] This initiative would be in keeping with the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights' recommendation that the Department of Justice, in collaboration with their territorial counterparts, engage in "systematic, broad-based data collection and analysis": Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Review of the Mental Disorder Provisions of the Criminal Code (Ottawa: House of Commons, 2002) at 18 [Hereinafter The Standing Committee Report].

[18] IOM, supra note 5 at 18-19.

[19] Section 672.23(1), Criminal Code.

[20] Section 672.22, Criminal Code.

[21] Section 673.23(2), Criminal Code.

[22] R. v. Taylor (1992), 77 C.C.C. (3d) 551 (Ont.C.A.).

[23] R. v. Whittle, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 914.

[24] Section 672.54(c), Criminal Code.

[25] Section 672.54(b), Criminal Code.

[26] Section 141(11), YCJA.

[27] Section 141(10), YCJA.

[28] R. v. Cooper, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149.

[29] Ibid. at para 51.

[30] Revelle v. R. (1981), 48 C.C.C. (2d) 267, (S.C.C.).

[31] R. v. D. (W.), [2001] S.J. No.70 (Sask.Prov.Ct.) [hereinafter W.D.] .

[32] R. v. D. (W. A. L.), [2002] SKPC 38 (Sask.Prov.Ct.).

[33] Ibid. at paras 62-63.

[34] R. v. J. (T.), [1999] Y.J. No. 57 (Y.Terr.Ct).

[35] Ibid. at para 18.

[36] Response to the 14th Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights: review of the Mental Disorder Provision of the Criminal Code (Ottawa: Department of Justice, 2002) [hereinafter "Government Response"].

[37]R. v. Brigham (1992), 79 C.C.C. (3d) 365 (Que. C.A.).

[38] W.D., supra note 31 at para 32.

[39] R. v. Whittle, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 914.

[40] P.J. Knoll Criminal Law Defences (Toronto: Carswell, 1988).

[41] Section 16.(2), Criminal Code.

[42] Section 16.(3), Criminal Code.

[43] R. v. F. (R.), [2002] SKPC 137 (Sask.Prov.Ct.) [herinafter R.F.].

[44] That is, contrary to the prevailing standards of society: R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303.

[45] R.F., supra note 43 para 84.

[46] J.(D.) v. Yukon Review Board, [2000] YTSC 513 (Y.Sup.Ct.).

[47] See D. Stuart., Canadian Criminal Law. A Treatise (3rd ed.) (Toronto: Carswell, 1996) at 376.

[48] American Psychiatric Association, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) Fourth Edition. (Washington: APA, 1999).

[49] T.A. Widiger, E. Corbitt, "Antisocial personality disorder.", in W.J. Livesley, ed. The DSM-IV personality disorders. (New York: Guilford, 1995) at 103.

[50] IOM, supra note 5 at 159-160.

[51] Knoll, supra note 40 at para 230.

[52] R. v. Neal. (1982), 67 C.C.C. (2d) 92 (Ont.Co.Ct.); R. v. Stuart (1981), 58 C.C.C. (2d) 203 (B.C.S.C.).

[53] R. v. Preshaw (1976), 31 C.C.C. (2d) 456 (Ont.Prov.Ct); R. v. Ludlow (1999) 136 C.C.C. (3d) 460 (B.C.C.A.).

[54] Knoll, supra note 40 at para 100.

[55] Knoll, supra note 40 at para 189.

[56] Section 220, Criminal Code.

[57] Section 221, Criminal Code.

[58] R. v. Creighton, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 3.

[59] Stuart, supra note 47.

[60] R.F., supra note 43.

[61] Section 672.59, Criminal Code.

[62] R. v. Winko, [1999] 2 SCR, 925 [hereinafter Winko].

[63] Section 672.54(b), Criminal Code.

[64] Section 672.54(c), Criminal Code.

[65] Under the YCJA the Crown must make their prima facie case on a yearly basis.

[66] R. v. J. (T.), [1998] Y.J. No. 124 (Y.T.Youth Ct.).

[67] R. v. J.(T.), [1999] Y.J. No. 57 (Y.Terr.Ct.).

[68] R. v. Demers, [2002] J.Q. no 590 (Sup.Ct.Q).

[69] R. v. Demers [2003] S.C.J. No. 58.

[70] "Government Response", supra note 36.

[71] See ss. 672.65, 672.66, 672.79, 672.8, Criminal Code.

[72] Winko, supra note 62.

[73] "Government Response" supra at note 36.

[74] R. v. Lepage, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 744.

[75] J.(D.) v. Yukon Review Board, [2000] YSTC 513 (Y.Sup.Ct).

[76] The provinces have been willing to bear the costs associated with diagnosing FASD under court ordered psychological assessments, s. 34, YCJA.

[77] R. v. M.(B), [2003] SKPC 48 (Sask.Prov.Ct.).

[78] As indicated by her other reported judgements related to FAS: R. v. D. (W.), [2001] S.J. No.70 (Sask.Prov.Ct.); R. v. K. (L.E.), [2001] SKCA 48 (Sask.Prov.Ct.); R. v. L. (M.) (2000), 187 Sask R. 195 (Sask.Prov.Ct.).

[79] R. v. Gray (2002), 169 C.C.C. (3d) 194 (B.C.Sup.Ct).

[80] R. v. Creighton, [2002] BCSC 1190 (B.C.Sup.Ct).

[81] Under s. 672.12 of the Criminal Code.

[82] See D. Paciocco & L. Stuesser, The Law of Evidence,3rd ed., (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2002) at 376.

[83] In R. v. Harris, [2002] BCCA 152, the Crown appealed a sentence where the trial judge had proceeded from her assumption that the accused had FAS. The offender subsequently received a forensic examination, which diagnosed the accused with antisocial personality disorder, but found that his condition was not related to FASD. The court ultimately held that that the trial judge had erred in assuming that the accused had FAS.

[84] R. v. T. (D.L.) (2000), 319 A.R. 29 (Alta.Prov.Ct.).

[85] Ibid. at paras 10-11.

[86] N.(S.L.), Re., [1998] CarswellSask 866 (Sask.Prov.Ct.).

[87} R. v. B.(J.A.), [2000] ABPC 141 (Alta.Prov.Ct.).

[88] See R. v. P. (S.L.) (2002), 225 Sask. R. 22 (Sask.Prov.Ct.); R. v. Jack, [2001] YKSC 55 (Y.Sup.Ct.)(functions at a much younger age); R. v. K. (D.E.), [1999] ABPC 110 (Alta.Prov.Ct.) (capacity warrants diminished accountability); R v. M. (B.), [2003] SKPC 83 (Sask.Prov.Ct.) (lack of insight into cause/effect relationship); R. v. M. (L.E.), [2001] M.J. No. 62 (Man.Prov.Ct.)(major mitigating factor); Contra R. v. J. (E.L.), [1998] Y.J. No. 19 (Y.Youth Ct.)(impulsivity related to FAS not a mitigating factor).

[89] R. v. L. (J.G.) (1996), 75 B.C.A.C. 227, (B.C.C.A).

[90] Ibid. at para 8.

[91] R. v. M. (R.B.) (1990), 54 C.C.C. (3d) 132 (B.C.C.A.).

[92] Ibid. at paras 15-16.

[93] Section 38(2)(e), YCJA.

[94] Section 42(2)(a), YCJA.

[95] Section (42(2)(b), YCJA.

[96] The principle that punishment and the promotion of welfare must be considered separately is reflected in s. 39(5) of the YCJA, which prohibits the use of custody to deliver social services to youth.

[97] Section 42(2)(d), YCJA.

[98] For example, compensation 42(2)(e), restitution 42(2)(f), pay purchasers 42(2)(g), compensation in kind 42(2)(h), community service 42(2)(i).

[99] Streissguth, supra note 14.

[100] Section 42.(2)(k), YCJA.

[101] Sections. 42.(2)(n)(o)(p)(q), YCJA.

[102] R. v. Daniels (1999), 130 B.C.A.C. 317 (B.C.C.A.).

[103] R. v. Gladue, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688.

[104] P. Gendreau, T. Little, C. Goggin "A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: what works!" (1996) 34 Criminology 575.

[105] Section 42(2)(r), YCJA.

[106] Section 94(19), YCJA.

[107] N. Bala. Youth Criminal Justice Law. (Toronto: Irwin Law, 2003) at p. 490.

[108] R. v. K. (L.E.), [2001] SKCA 48 (Sask.C.A.).

[109] Ibid. para 51.

[110] IOM, supra note 5 at p. 194.

[111] See YCJA, s. 34(1) "A youth justice court may, at any stage of the proceedings against a young person, by order require that the young person be assessed…".

[112] D. Barnhorst "Section 35-Youth Criminal Justice Act - Referral to Child Welfare Agency" (October 2003) [unpublished, contact author].

[113] See Bala, supra note 107 at 314.

[114] Barnhorst, supra note 112.

[115] Section 4(a), YCJA.

[116] Section 4(d), YCJA.

Table of Content

 

Back to Top Important Notices