Law Fails to Stop Con Criminal
As reported in the Toronto Star a Stock fraudster racks up 105 convictions but the law seems unable to do anything preventing Mr. Mitton from committing more con crimes.
"It doesn't matter how many times a judge or securities regulator convicts him, the diminutive, blue-eyed fraud artist would get out of jail or prison and make an immediate comeback in crime ...
Mitton, a 48-year-old father of three, finally paid for the latest one in a downtown courtroom last week after pleading guilty to fraud and money laundering in the case of an obscure penny stock called Pender International Inc. A judge sentenced him to a seven-year prison term and slapped him with a $2.6 million restitution order.
The plea and sentence raised his conviction count to 105 over a 30-year career in fraud, fraud and more fraud. It has added to his legacy as one of Canada's most notorious swindlers."
Is it because of Canada's notoriously lax fraud laws that Mitton keeps committing con crimes? Does he simply make a rational calculation about the chances of getting caught? Faced with our weak enforcement system, is the temptation just too much?
"He's a psychotic financial predator," adds a blunt Steve Wilson, a former executive director of the B.C. commission. He may have tried to go straight, but I believe his mentality won't permit him."Even after it has cost him dearly, he keeps coming back. It indicates he suffers from a medical condition. I don't believe he can tell right from wrong. He needs help." (my emphasis)
Wilson is on to something here. At law, we don't imprison individuals who are suffering from mental disorders which prevent them form discerning right from wrong, a defence available to the accused which must satisfy the M'Naghten Rules.
From the Wikipedia article, "The disease of the mind must have given rise to a defect of reason which had one of two consequences: either (a) the defendant did not know the nature and quality of his act, or (b) he did not know his act was wrong. Thus, the requirement is that the defendant's power to reason is impaired in a substantial way."
Robert Hare and Paul Babiak in their book Snakes in Suits argue that psychopaths suffer from a personality disorder which makes them "without conscience and incapable of empathy, guilt, or loyalty to anyone but themselves." Without conscience and incapable of guilt. Sounds like our boy Mitton, alright. (I have to be very careful here because I am not capable of a professional diagnosis, and Hare makes it quite clear that it is very dangerous to make this diagnosis without a full evaluation.)
But suppose that Mitton was a diagnosised psychotic. Wouldn't the Crown have a duty to determine whether he was fit to stand trial? Even if he appeared normal, sane, and in control does Mitton suffer from some disease of the mind which prevents him from being capable of appreciating that his act was wrong? Personally,I would like to see every con criminal's score on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and a finding that high scores fit the McNaghten test. Con criminals are deterred by jail, they need to be treated like other mentally ill criminals.
