Talk:Mental disorder defence

vs. insanity article

I know the creation of this article may prove to be controversial as it mirrors the insanity article, however, I feel strongly that the title of "insanity" is not appropriate. The insanity title has been, or is in the process of being, phrased-out by several countries including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. The new title was chosen very deliberately not to use the word "insanity" thus it would be misleading to put it under the old heading. I would suggest reserving the "mental disorder" title for describing those countries' use of the defence while keeping "insanity" for the US (and any other countries still using the title) verison of the article. --PullUpYourSocks 18:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been incorporated into the combined Mental Disorder (Insanity) Defense page --Kidsankyran —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose merger of the two articles. The defence of not criminally responsible in Canada was created by Parliament precisely because the Supreme Court ruled that the old common law rules relating to insanity were contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "Not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder" in Canada is not just a different name from the old common law insanity defence, and the two articels should not be merged. The comments from Pull Up Your Socks are just as relevant today as when he made them 10 years ago. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, I find the re-naming of this article to facilitate the merger very presumptuous, when you have just today proposed the merger. Having set it up for discussion, you have to let people comment on the proposal before you start to implement it.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also customary to add comments to Talk pages in chronological order, so I think your comment on this issue should have followed the 10 year old post from Pull Up Your Socks explaining why there is a need for a separate article. I have moved your post from earlier today to follow his post accordingly. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the two defenses are related and anyone searching for the term "insanity defense" would appreciate a worldwide view on the topic in one article. The only difference relates to common or statutory law, which can be explained in the introduction of the merged article. It makes little sense to have this article as a separate topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidsankyran (talk • contribs) 02:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no other objection since my response from the original respondent or others, this merge has been put through

Chaulk overruled

The Chaulk case was overruled by the Supreme Court. In Canada, "wrong" includes both legally wrong as well as morally wrong: R. v. Swain (SCC), I believe.