Being found not guilty in court due to insanity does not mean the defendant is just set free; instead, they are usually committed to mental health facilities, like Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta, for the appropriate psychiatric treatment. — Filepic
I am compelled to write about mental illness and criminal responsibility as several readers of this column have shown interest in the matter.
Recent related events in the country even caused the Health Minister to express worry that crimes committed by individuals with mental health issues could lead to inadequate justice for victims and their families.
He was particularly concerned about individuals using the “mental health card” to lower the level of culpability or to be absolved of a crime.
While mental health conditions can influence thoughts, emotions and behaviours, it is important to note that not all individuals with mental illnesses are predisposed to violence or criminal behaviour.
The contribution of people with mental illness to overall rates of violence is negligibly tiny, but it is somehow exaggerated in our minds.
Those suffering from schizophrenia and bipolar disorders are more likely to be attacked, raped or robbed than the general population.
Persons with mental illness who exhibit violence are usually those who suffer a relapse because of not taking their medications.
It could also be due to the use of alcohol and illegal substances as a means of coping with their situation, as opposed to the recreational use of alcohol or drugs in a person without a mental illness.
However, severe mental impairment, such as psychosis, may interfere with understanding the consequences of actions or distinguishing right from wrong, thus affecting the person’s legal culpability.
A guilty mind
In criminal law, mens rea (Latin for “guilty mind”) is a fundamental principle that refers to a person’s mental state when committing a crime.
The prosecution must establish that the accused had both mens rea (intent or knowledge of wrongdoing) and actus reus (the physical act) to prove guilt.
Mental illness can impact a person’s mens rea by impairing their ability to form intent or fully comprehend their actions’ consequences.
In cases of severe mental illness, an individual may not be fully aware of the nature of their actions or may have delusions that distort reality.
This is where the insanity defence can come into play.
Malaysia’s Penal Code incorporates the McNaughten Rule – a legal standard for insanity originating from an 1843 English case.
According to this rule, a defendant can be excused from criminal responsibility if they are suffering from a “defect of reason, from a disease of the mind”, leading them to not understand the nature and quality of the act or not know that what they were doing was wrong.
Section 84 of the Code states: “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”
The burden of proof lies on the defence to establish the presence of a mental disorder at the time of the offence.
Emphasising the role of psychiatric assessments in distinguishing genuine mental health conditions from malingering can help address public concerns regarding feigned mental illness in legal cases.
Forensic psychiatrists, who can assess mental state through structured evaluations, background checks and psychological testing, provide the necessary credibility of claims in court, reassuring the public about the integrity of the legal system.
Balancing justice and compassion
There was a case where the defendant, diagnosed with schizophrenia, was found not to understand the nature of his act when he killed his victim.
The court accepted his insanity defence and committed him to psychiatric care rather than a prison sentence.
This case serves as an example of how the legal system can show compassion towards individuals with severe mental illness, ensuring they receive the appropriate care and treatment.
In another case, a man was convicted of killing his children.
His defence claimed he was suffering from a severe mental disorder at the time.
The court eventually ruled against the insanity defence after forensic evaluations indicated he understood his actions and knew they were wrong.
Early this year (2024), Mohamad Safiq Rosli became the first person to be charged under Malaysia’s anti-stalking law for stalking a woman for eight years.
He was acquitted and discharged by a Magistrate’s Court on Jan 17.
However, he was ordered to be held for treatment at Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta in Perak.
ALSO READ: Court orders stalker to be admitted to Hospital Bahagia
Admitting those found to be mentally unsound to mental institutions for a crime could see the accused being warded longer than the sentence stipulated in law as rigorous treatment could take years.
These cases illustrate the careful deliberation required in court to balance justice and compassion.
While an insanity defence can absolve someone of legal responsibility, it is not accepted lightly.
It requires rigorous psychiatric evaluation and convincing proof that the accused could not comprehend their actions or distinguish right from wrong due to severe mental impairment.
This process ensures that the legal system is fair and considerate, considering the complexities of mental illness while being cautious in avoiding misuse of the insanity defence.
The judge’s decision
Uppermost in our minds should be the fact that cognitive incapacity must be present when the offence is committed.
It is not admissible if insanity seized the accused before and after the event.
Merely being diagnosed with a mental illness cannot be considered mitigating circumstances by the court.
The unsoundness of the mind should also not have been voluntarily induced.
Insanity does not include “drunkenness, conditions of intense passion and other transient states attributable either to the fault or nature of man”.
In his online writings, senior lawyer and author of From the Bar Stool Fahri Azzat points out that insanity is a factual finding to be made by the judge.
A report from a psychiatrist only tends to prove it; it does not absolutely prove it.
The law is concerned only with legal insanity, not medical insanity.
Whether the accused was insane when he committed the offence is to be decided not only by considering the clinical evidence, but also by his conduct surrounding the event.
The judge is obliged to consider the whole sequence of events, which is crucial to determining whether the accused was insane when he committed the offence.
Fahri also highlights that successful defence of insanity means that the accused will get a qualified acquittal and that such defence embodies a fundamental maxim of criminal law: that an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention.
Although an accused may be perceived to go “scot free”, he does not enjoy liberty.
Often, he will be held at the Ruler’s pleasure in a mental health facility, to be treated and assessed from time to time for signs of improvement to his mental condition.
This process ensures that individuals who are acquitted on the grounds of insanity are not released into society without appropriate treatment and monitoring.
Public misconceptions about using insanity as a defence can lead to stigma, affecting both individuals with genuine mental health issues and broader community perceptions of mental illness.
Responsible media coverage too is vital in shaping public understanding of mental illness, legal accountability, and how mental health professionals can ensure accurate assessments as part of the judicial process.
It is hopeful that our justice system, which is the fountain of fairness and mercy, should take a balanced approach that upholds justice while offering compassionate understanding for those genuinely impacted by mental illness.
Clear legal guidelines and robust forensic assessments can reduce scepticism and weigh the public’s need for justice with the rights of individuals facing mental health challenges.
Prof Datuk Dr Andrew Mohanraj is a consultant psychiatrist, the Malaysian Mental Health Association president and Taylor’s University Impact Lab on Mental Health & Wellbeing director. For more information, email starhealth@thestar.com.my. The information provided is for educational and communication purposes only, and it should not be construed as personal medical advice. The Star does not give any warranty on accuracy, completeness, functionality, usefulness or other assurances as to the content appearing in this column. The Star disclaims all responsibility for any losses, damage to property or personal injury suffered directly or indirectly from reliance on such information.
