A story that needs to be read

The shocking death of Tim McLean last summer has generated the predictable torrent of blood lust on the part of the general public (check the comments section of pretty much any news story on the case). Given that climate, the Winnipeg Free Press is to be commended for running this story about the history and application of the legal finding of "not criminally responsible". Of course, many of the people leaving comments continue to decry the possibility of such a verdict:

Yes, the mentally ill definitely need treatment. However they also deserve some form of punishment to allow justice for the victim(s) and protection of society... at least keep them away from society for a couple years.

The whole idea of punishment makes sense given the premise that the person punished was aware, in some capacity, that they were doing a bad thing, and therefore needs to be taught a lesson. But the whole point of a verdict of "not criminally responsible" is that the court is convinced that the accused did not have that awareness, and that therefore punishment is not the appropriate approach to the problem. It is not a denial of the existence of a problem, simply the recognition that the problem at hand is a different sort of problem than the criminal justice system is designed to deal with.

And what the heck does the above poster mean by "to allow justice for the victim"? Now "protection of society" I can understand, and many (perhaps even most) people found to be "not criminally responsible" do need to be kept away from the public. But "justice for the victim"? Excuse me, but the guy is dead. He ain't coming back, no matter how much you torture and torment the killer. Unfortunately, a public raised on daily doses of CSI and Law and Order is very easy to whip up into a bloodthirsty frenzy when the discussion turns to crime.