Is pleading insanity a way to avoid legal punishment?

[MALAYSIA] In the realm of criminal law, few concepts are as misunderstood and controversial as the insanity defense. Often sensationalized in media and popular culture, the notion of "pleading insanity" to escape legal punishment has captured public imagination and sparked heated debates. But does this legal strategy truly offer a get-out-of-jail-free card for criminals? Let's delve into the intricacies of the insanity defense and explore its real-world applications and consequences.

What Is the Insanity Defense?

The insanity defense is a legal concept that allows defendants to argue that they should not be held criminally responsible for their actions due to severe mental illness or cognitive impairment at the time of the offense. It's important to note that this is a legal concept, not a medical one, and its application varies across jurisdictions.

Prof Datuk Dr Andrew Mohanraj, a consultant psychiatrist and president of the Malaysian Mental Health Association, explains, "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."

The Legal Framework: McNaughten Rule and Beyond

Many jurisdictions, including Malaysia, base their insanity defense on the McNaughten Rule, which originated from an 1843 English case. This rule states that a defendant can be excused from criminal responsibility if they suffer from a "defect of reason, from a disease of the mind," leading them to not understand the nature and quality of their act or not know that what they were doing was wrong.

In Malaysia, Section 84 of the Penal Code incorporates this principle: "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."

Burden of Proof and Psychiatric Evaluation

Contrary to popular belief, successfully pleading insanity is not an easy feat. The burden of proof lies with the defense to establish the presence of a mental disorder at the time of the offense. This typically involves rigorous psychiatric evaluations and expert testimony from forensic psychiatrists.

Dr. Mohanraj emphasizes, "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."

Misconceptions About the Insanity Defense

One of the most common misconceptions is that individuals who successfully plead insanity simply walk free. In reality, the consequences can be quite different and, in some cases, more prolonged than traditional sentencing.

Qualified Acquittal and Psychiatric Care

A successful insanity defense typically results in a qualified acquittal. This means that while the defendant is not found guilty in the traditional sense, they are not simply released back into society. Instead, they are often committed to psychiatric care facilities for treatment and monitoring.

As senior lawyer Fahri Azzat points out, "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."

Potential for Longer Confinement

Interestingly, being found not guilty by reason of insanity can sometimes result in longer periods of confinement than a standard guilty verdict. Dr. Mohanraj notes, "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."

The Role of Mental Illness in Criminal Behavior

It's crucial to understand that having a mental illness does not automatically predispose an individual to criminal behavior. Dr. Mohanraj clarifies, "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."

However, severe mental impairment, such as psychosis, can interfere with an individual's ability to understand the consequences of their actions or distinguish right from wrong, thus affecting their legal culpability.

Recent Cases and Their Implications

To better understand how the insanity defense works in practice, let's look at some recent cases:

In one case, a defendant diagnosed with schizophrenia was found not to understand the nature of his act when he killed his victim. The court accepted his insanity defense and committed him to psychiatric care rather than prison.

In another case, a man who killed his children claimed he was suffering from a severe mental disorder. However, after forensic evaluations, the court ruled against the insanity defense, finding that he understood his actions and knew they were wrong.

In early 2024, Mohamad Safiq Rosli, charged under Malaysia's anti-stalking law, was acquitted but ordered to be held for treatment at Hospital Bahagia Ulu Kinta in Perak.

These cases illustrate the careful deliberation required in court to balance justice and compassion.

Challenges and Considerations

Timing of Mental Incapacity

An important consideration in insanity defense cases is the timing of the mental incapacity. Dr. Mohanraj emphasizes, "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."

Voluntarily Induced States

It's also crucial to note that the insanity defense does not apply to voluntarily induced states of mind. As Dr. Mohanraj points out, "Insanity does not include 'drunkenness, conditions of intense passion and other transient states attributable either to the fault or nature of man'."

Public Perception and Stigma

Public misconceptions about the insanity defense can lead to stigma, affecting both individuals with genuine mental health issues and broader community perceptions of mental illness. Responsible media coverage plays a vital role in shaping public understanding of mental illness, legal accountability, and the role of mental health professionals in the judicial process.

Balancing Justice and Compassion

The insanity defense represents a delicate balance in the criminal justice system between punishing wrongdoing and recognizing the impact of severe mental illness on an individual's actions and culpability.

Dr. Mohanraj concludes, "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."

In answering the question, "Does pleading insanity mean you can escape legal punishment?", we can conclude that while the insanity defense may provide an alternative to traditional incarceration, it does not offer an escape from consequences. Instead, it ensures that individuals with severe mental illnesses receive appropriate treatment and monitoring, often for extended periods.

The insanity defense remains a complex and controversial aspect of criminal law, requiring careful consideration of medical evidence, legal principles, and societal concerns. As our understanding of mental health continues to evolve, so too must our approach to balancing justice, public safety, and compassion in the legal system.