KUALA LUMPUR – The disposal of criminal charges by the courts on account of the mental illness of accused individuals has become more prevalent in recent years, igniting debates about the effectiveness of the justice system in distinguishing genuine sufferers from those using it as a pretence to evade punishment.
Last year, Malaysia witnessed the insanity defense being used numerous times, most prominently in the case of singer Muhammad Yasin Sulaiman, who was acquitted and discharged from three drug charges.
A similar defence is also being used in the widely-publicised case of a motorcyclist who rode against traffic, causing the death of a Ducati rider, in which the accused claims to have a mental disability and has a Persons with Disabilities (OKU) card.
These cases are among those that have sparked backlash, with the public casting doubt on the integrity of the country’s judicial system. Many are now questioning whether one can get away with a crime by making similar claims.
In light of this debate, Scoop has explored how the ‘insanity’ defence has been played up in courts, and whether ‘loopholes’ existed for real criminals dodging sentences.
According to consultant forensic psychiatrist, Dr Sivakumar Appan, pleading ‘insanity’ in court does not result in lenient punishments. Conversely, he said that it often leads to punishments that are stricter than jail.
“People have a misconception that those charged with a crime get off easily by pleading ‘insanity,’ but that’s not often the case.
“The court’s disposal is quite severe, limiting one’s freedom and making it a different ‘sentence’ than going to prison,” he explained.
To enable the use of the ‘insanity’ defence, Dr Sivakumar clarified that the accused must pass a legal test certifying their mental state.
Dr Sivakumar also said the concept of insanity is not a medical one but a legal one, originating from the 1843 Daniel M’Naghten case, which established a legal test for insanity.
“Certifying someone as insane involves rigorous tests to confirm the presence of a brain-affecting disorder during the alleged offence, leading to the person being unaware of their actions.
“Forensic psychiatrists conduct interviews, examine medical records, and assess individuals in hospitals to determine legal insanity.
“Their crucial role is proving that the accused was mentally unwell during the offences, with actions linked to the illness,” he said.
Certification of ‘insanity’ in court occurs when the individual is found to be unaware of the consequences of their alleged offence, he said.
Can an individual certified as mentally ill stand trial?
Dr Sivakumar explained that there is a process for assessing whether an individual certified as insane is capable of standing trial in court. This process begins with a capacity-based assessment.
The accused must understand the charges, communicate with legal representatives, comprehend court proceedings, and distinguish between pleading guilty and not guilty, he said.
“If found fit, the trial proceeds; otherwise, if the accused can’t do any one of these things mentioned above, then it concluded that their fitness is impaired and therefore he or she can’t stand trial nor be charged,” he added.
Dr Sivakumar said if the court accepts the insanity assessment, where its disposal should include a mental health component such as the ‘not guilty verdict by reason of mental disorder’, leading to detention in a mental institution.
“You cannot subject someone who is mentally ill and may not comprehend what happens in a trial.
“The connection between one’s fitness to stand trial and the insanity concept lies in the condition that affects their mind or brain, hindering their ability to understand the events happening around them,” he explained.
Lawyer Mohamed Haniff Khatri Abdulla said that when an accused pleads guilty on the basis of insanity, then the insanity must be proven by way of a mental evaluation report by the institution or a full trial.
“There is a provision in Section 84 of the Penal Code that says a crime committed by a mentally insane person is not an offence.
“This provision is often applied together with Sections 347 and 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which gives power to the court to acquit the mentally ill accused and order them to be held at a mental institution according to the state ruler.
“Despite the fact that the accused could be acquitted under Section 347, the individual must be detained for security purposes,” he said.
Can the ‘insanity’ defence be manipulated?
On the potential manipulation of insanity assessments, both Dr Sivakumar and criminologist Kamal Affandi Hashim agreed on the possibility of deception but emphasised that medical and legal tests prevent manipulation.
They stressed the importance of comprehensive evaluations, which would challenge the ability to maintain pretense over an extended period.
“Well, if you are a habitual liar, you might be able to beat the system. But you might not be able to come up with conclusive proof.
“Someone might pretend in court. But then again, the medical test will prove one thing, but the legal test is a totally different ballgame,” Kamal said.
In conclusion, while pleading ‘insanity’ may seem like a potential escape route, the legal and medical intricacies involved make it a complex and stringent process. – January 3, 2024