Open Access Research Article
SENTENCING MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS: A DUAL CHALLENGE OF CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINAL CORRECTION
Published Paper
Article Details
SENTENCING MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS:
A DUAL CHALLENGE OF CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINAL CORRECTION
AUTHORED BY - PRERNA SINGH[1]
Abstract
It is quite regrettable to observe
that mental illnesses are becoming more common among people worldwide,
especially in light of the quick advances occurring in practically every aspect
of society. An enormous threat to society as a whole is posed by those with
mental illnesses. However, one cannot overlook the fact that such a person is a
victim of his own mind. The proportion of mentally ill criminals has
significantly increased over time. Mental illnesses may arise from a variety of
biological, environmental, or psychological factors. The IPC's Section 84
allows mentally ill offenders to use the defence of insanity as a way out of
criminal prosecution. The idea that there is a connection between mental
illness and criminality is not new. Persons with mental illnesses frequently
exhibit aggressive, impulsive, violent, and cognitively challenged behavior.
Judiciary faces a major challenge as to what is desirable for such offenders,
either treatment or punishment. Thus, the aim of this research paper is to
assist the reader to comprehend the link between the brain and crime. One
crucial point that has to be addressed is how the court will interpret
neuroscientific evidence that is presented in court to support an accused
person’s mental health issues. What effect and influence such evidence has on a
judge’s decision is a cause for concern. It’s also important to comprehend the
options available to judges, such as treatment or punishment for mentally ill
offenders. This will make it easier for the reader to comprehend sentencing of
mentally ill offenders in the Indian purview. This research paper seeks to
examine a number of examples involving mentally ill criminals in detail. This
paper also seeks to assist the reader in comprehending the extent to which
mental illness can absolve an individual of criminal guilt.
Keywords
Expert Opinion, Insanity,
Mental Ill Offenders, Neuroscientific Evidences, Sentencing
Premise of Criminal Liability in
India: An Introduction
For establishing the
criminal accountability of offenders in India and around the world, the idea of
criminal responsibility embodied in the ancient legal maxim “actus non facit
reum nisi men sit rea” has stood the test of time. “An act of a man cannot be
punished as crime unless it is coupled with a blameworthy state of mind,"
is the literal interpretation of this maxim. The foundation of the criminal
justice system in India is this idea. It clearly stated that a person cannot be
found guilty of a crime unless the two necessary conditions—the actus reus
(physical act) and mens rea (mental element)—are met. Lord Kenyon has observed
it as a principle of natural justice.[2]
Therefore, for an act to be considered criminal, both the intent and the deed
must coincide.[3]
Criminal law is mainly concerned
with the behavior of men in society; therefore, every act of man must be backed
by operation of a man’s mental intent.[4] It
can be apprehended from the foregoing discussion that mental element is the
ultimate deciding tool which renders a person innocent or guilty. Mens rea is
the term used to describe the "guilty mind," "wrongful
intention," or "blameworthy state of mind" of an offender. It
essentially reveals the mental state of the offender at the time of the offence.[5] It
can be sufficiently inferred that the absence of mens rea (guilty or wrongful
intention) negatives the intention of a crime. No act is criminal in itself
unless it is committed with a wrongful intention (guilty mind). In Brend vs. Wood[6]
due emphasis was laid on the principle of mens rea stating that a court shall
not rule out mens rea unless backed by a statutory provision. Mens rea is the
general rule applied to all the crimes in all circumstances. It is to be proved
by the prosecution that the offence has been committed with an intention to
cause such harm or injury. However, strict liability offences are one such
exception where mens rea is immaterial in determining the guilt of the
wrongdoer. As stated by Lord Atkinson, whenever a crime is committed, the court
shall presume that the offender has the requisite knowledge and intent to
commit such wrong unless proved otherwise.[7]
This principle helps the courts to distinguish between someone who
intentionally commits a wrongful act and someone who does not commit it
wrongfully.[8] Terms
like fraudulently[9],
voluntarily[10] and
dishonestly[11] have
been used in various penal provisions in the criminal law to indicate the
guilty intention of a person while committing an offence. Furthermore a person
can be made liable of a crime if he commits that act recklessly, negligently,
purposefully or knowingly.[12]
An important question that arises is
what happens when a crime is committed without any wrongful or guilty
intention? It has been effectively dealt in Research paper IV- General
Exceptions ranging from section 76-106 of the Indian penal code. Basically this
research paper enunciates all those circumstances in which a prohibited action
may be committed without the presence of mens rea. Certain such circumstances
can be unsoundness of mind, involuntary intoxication, minor age, act done in
good faith, act done in lieu of lawful duty, and etc. In all such circumstances
the criminal responsibility of a person cannot be established because of the
non-fulfillment of one of the essential requirements of a crime i.e. mens rea.
The only issue which the court faces while deciding such matters is the
ascertainment of mental element of a person because it cannot be adjudged what
goes in the mind of a person. Thereby, if the accused is able to prove his case
falling within any one of the general exceptions, he can be exempted from
criminal liability. Indian criminal justice system is premised on the belief
that there are certain sections of people who cannot possess a guilty mind even
if they have committed a prohibited act and thereby, they cannot be punished in
the same manner as a conventional offender.[13]
Hence, absence of guilty mind can render an excuse for criminal from subsequent
liability.
Hereby, it can be deduced that if a
person commits a crime under the influence of some of neurological disorder,
commonly referred to as mental disorder, then he cannot be said to have
relevant mental element for the constitution of a crime. Since, this person
lacks mens rea; he cannot be made liable for the acts committed by him under
the influence of some disorder. This further implies that such accused cannot
be punished in the same manner as the other criminals committing crime with
adequate knowledge and intention. Here comes the role of defense counsel who
has to prove the existence of such mental disorder to mitigate the
circumstances of the case. In the era of ever-growing mental issues, large
proportion of criminals are often committing crime due to some neurological
problems. However, it is pertinent to
mention that such criminals are victims of their own mind. Such criminals
cannot be corrected via conventional punishments but they require adequate and
efficient medical treatment. However, when the defence of mental illness is
raised, the case becomes even more critical and complicated. It presents the
court with a twofold dilemma pertaining to both criminal corrections and crime
prevention.
Evidence based on neuroscientific
research serves as a mitigating factor, releasing mentally ill criminals from
prosecution. This is predicated on the idea that someone with a mental illness
is incapable of developing the necessary mental purpose to justify a criminal
conduct. It is necessary to state that a person committing a crime while
suffering from a mental illness will inevitably lose control of both his body
and mind. Consequently, he lacks the capacity to comprehend the nature and
consequences of his actions, to discriminate between right and wrong, or to
recognize that his actions are illegal. Therefore, the same standards that
apply to other sane offenders are not applicable to the conviction of such
mentally unsound person. Treating this person is more necessary than punishing
them.
Relationship between Mental Disorders and Crime
Criminal mind has played
an important role in the evolution of crime since time immemorial. As has been
already discussed that mens rea is the foremost essential of crime, the absence
of which proves to be detrimental to the criminal notions. The capacity of
mental element is adversely impacted due to the presence of some mental
disorder. Mental disorders not only encourage criminal behavior but also
require adequate treatment to be dealt with. The relationship between mental
disorders (psychiatric disorders) and crime is often debated and is under
scrutiny since past few decades. This has further led to the enlargement of
scope of mental health assistance to criminals by conflating crime and mental
disorder into one aspect. There are several questions that come to the mind of
a researcher such as is there any relation between crime and mental disorder?
If yes, what are the specific types of mental illnesses that can be linked to
criminal behavior? What are the most common crimes committed by mentally
disordered individuals? Are mentally disordered individuals vulnerable to
victimization? It is popularly believed that humans suffering some mental
disorder are prone to showcase violent and aggressive behavior. As a result of
the same, they are often referred to as crazy individuals. Mental illness
affects the behavior of a person adversely and it is thereby important to
isolate such criminals from the society followed by their subsequent treatment.
However, it is pertinent to note that not all criminals are suffering some
mental disorder.[14] Eric B.
Elbogen, PhD, a psychologist and professor of psychiatry and behavioral
science, is of the opinion that mental disorder clubbed with co-occurring
substance use, adverse childhood experiences, and environmental factors leads
to criminality in mentally disordered individuals.[15]
Further Jeffrey Swanson, PhD, a medical sociologist at the Duke University
School of Medicine and a prominent researcher enunciates that it is important
to understand the various psychological disorders combined with external factor
having a bearing on the criminal behavior of a person. This will further help
the law enforcement agencies to undertake effective treatment of such
criminals.
When a person is mentally
unfit or has a behavioral disorder, it adversely impacts his cognitive faculties
of brain. Mental disorders hamper the thinking process and judgment ability of
an individual. It becomes difficult for him to differentiate between good and
bad due to their mental incapacity.[16]
People suffering from mental disorder commit wrongful acts without any
knowledge of the consequences of their actions. It has been largely observed
that individuals with mental disorder are prone to committing suicide under the
influence of depression and anxiety. Sometimes there may be certain
circumstances where a person commits suicide after killing his family members,
which again is indicative of the mental disorder prevalent in such criminal.[17]
Burari deaths in the national capital Delhi is one such glaring example of
psychological disorder associated with criminality. Conclusively, it can be deduced that mental
health of a person influences his behavior and judgment ability to a great
extent.
Treatment or Punishment: What is
Desirable for Mentally Ill Offenders?
Over time, theories of punishment
have changed. India is currently going through a reformative phase of
punishment. Justice Krishna Iyyer's statement that "Every saint has a past
and every sinner has a future" in the renowned judgment of Mohd. Giassudin v. State of A.P.[18]
effectively articulated the idea of reformative views of punishment. This
approach is based on the idea that a criminal justice system’s primary goal
should be to reform offenders who are capable of reforming themselves, rather
than punishing them at the first instance. Such is the case with mentally sick
criminals. It is reasonable to claim that individuals with mental illnesses who
commit crimes pose a threat to society as a whole in addition to being victims
of their sickness. However, it is important to note that punishing mentally ill
offenders will only make their suffering worse; instead, when these offenders
are diagnosed, they need to receive the appropriate care and treatment. To
treat mental illnesses, these criminals require psychiatric support and
appropriate mental treatment. For therapy, such inmates may also be sent to
mental health facilities or even mental asylums. On the other hand, there are
situations where a mentally ill criminal receives punishment. His situation
gets worse as a result. It has frequently been observed that the Supreme Court
has rendered important rulings in cases involving mentally ill criminals.
Unquestionably, neuroscience has altered how mens rea is determined in criminal
situations. The NHRC also advocates for mentally ill criminals to be treated in
mental hospitals and asylums rather than being imprisoned.[19]
The court uses neuroscience to help
determine if a crime was committed with mental involvement. A court of law can
prove mental illnesses or malfunctioning brain regions with the help of
neuroscientific data. Neuroscientific evidence is provided in the form of an
expert opinion under section 45 of Indian evidence legislation. These pieces of
evidence have a significant impact on a case's sentence. These pieces of
evidence typically mitigate the circumstances of a case, which affects the
judge's decision. It is undeniable that a judge must consider a number of
factors before declaring an accused person innocent or guilty. A Judge has to
go through all the circumstantial and corroborating evidences and then form an
opinion as to what shall be awarded to an offender i.e. punishment or
treatment. General rule lays down that it is legal insanity which can save a
person from criminal liability and not medical insanity, thereby it is the
discretion of the court to determine whether a person is legally insane or not.
To understand how neuroscientific evidence affects the decision making of
court, several case laws will be discussed.
Punishment is generally
inflicted on a person to create a fear in the mind to abstain that person from
committing crime. However, a grey area arises when an offender is a fearless
one. Most glaring example of fearless offenders is psychopaths. Psychopaths
seem to be sane from the outlook but they are severally mentally ill when
properly diagnosed. Psychopathy is a severe form of mental disorder. They are
unable to comprehend the nature and consequences of acts committed by them
because of mental illness and not because of guilty mind. Due to their mental
illness and infirmities in functioning of brain, violence and torturous acts
become normal for them, which they consider to be morally correct. For
instance, in Dandupalya Krishna vs. State Of Karnataka [20],
the accused claimed that he like to hear the last sounds of life draining away.
It was exciting for him to hear the gurgling sound emerging from the throat
that he slit. This is a clear case of psychopathy or mental illness as no other
sane person would like to do that. In yet another instance of Surenra Koli vs. State of U.P. and Ors[21] the accused claimed that he still had
an urge to kill even after mercilessly killing and eating the flesh of many
children. Inducing a psychopath or mentally ill offender to punishment will not
solve the problem of psychopathy as psychopaths are devoid of emotions and are
fearless. It is only in rarest of rare cases in which death penalty can be
awarded to them based on the incapability of their reformation and treatment.
Legal provisions
regarding mentally ill offenders in different countries:
United Kingdom – it is believed in English law that psychopathic wrongs are
a result of a mentally ill mind. And for this very reason, diverting a mentally
ill offender to rehabilitation center is a more logical approach then
punishment. After World War II, many new mental treatment centers were
established. One of the oldest therapeutic centers is Henderson hospital, which
has succeeded in treating such offenders to great extent.[22]
USA – USA has developed several laws dealing with mentally ill offenders or
psychopaths. For examples Sentencing Reform Act was passed in the year 1984
keeping in mind the mental state of personality disorder in sexual offenders.
Psychopathic offender law was been established in California in 1939. And
several other states in US have also made psychopath specific laws. Most of
these statues direct the state to take custody of mentally ill offenders who
are indulged in serious and horrendous crimes as they pose great threat to the
society at large.[23]
India – Indian legislation encompasses several provisions specifically dealing
with mentally ill offenders. Section 84 of the Indian penal code declares
‘unsoundness of mind’ a sufficient defense for escaping criminal liability.
Whereas section 328 of CrPC states the procedure to be followed when a person
against whom an inquiry is being held is found to be of unsound mind and
consequently is unable to defend his case. However, these provisions are
insufficient in dealing with partial delusion, irresistible impulse or the
impulsive behavior of the psychopath. People need to be made aware of mental
disorders especially psychopathy through educational means. As these persons
are mentally disordered, punishment is not a viable option for them.
Neuroscientific evidences
and challenges in sentencing:
Neuro-evidence has been
significantly less useful for determining guilt or innocence, even though it is
frequently used to contest the fundamental assumptions of voluntariness and
mental state in criminal law. Researchers, defense counsel, defendants, and
members of the press are among the people who support the use of neuro evidence
by jurors, lawyers, and judges to establish criminal guilt. On the other hand,
critics contend that because researchers have never identified a brain region
overtly showing mens rea and blame, the reliability, validity, and
psychological inferences of neuroscience in decisions are far from reality.
To ensure justice,often known as proportionate justice, it is essential for criminal legislation and
the philosophy of punishment to be proportional to the seriousness of the crime itself.Judges assess both mitigating and aggravating factors when deciding on a proportional penalty for a crime or a criminal, at the very least taking mens rea (criminal intent) and actus reus (actual actions) into account. Therefore, the claim that "I didn't do it; my brain made me do it" calls into question the seriousness of mens rea, the criminal responsibility of the offender, as well as the idea of proportional justice, during the sentencing phase.
Neuroscientific evidence is typically used in cases where offenders are up for
a severe penalty, including the death penalty, a life sentence, or a
significant prison term. Its Roper v. Simmons decision[24]
which abolished the death penalty for juvenile offenders under the age of
eighteen, who committed crimes due to developing or malfunctioning brains, is
one of the most well-known deployments of neuroscience in criminal
prosecutions. The discussion focuses on how the application of neuro-evidence
to capital sentencing judgments based on the notion of proportional justice
could and should be done. There are usually some challenges in interpreting
neuro-evidence scientifically and applying it to the penalty phase of a capital
case. The four corners of sentencing law historically have been retribution,
rehabilitation, deterrence, and disablement.
A judge must consider a variety of factors while determining the proper
sentence in a criminal court. When all of the circumstances are taken into
account, the proportionality concept in sentencing is essential to strike a
balance between rehabilitation and punishment and to accomplish fairness and
justice.[25] Neuro-evidence raises questions about
sentencing proportionality and leniency in capital cases because it weakens the
idea of criminal responsibility. Judges and juries must consider if "the
sum of the mitigating elements is sufficiently substantial to warrant for
mercy" before deciding whether to sentence someone to death or life in
prison. It is still very likely that evidence of brain damage or malfunction
will be utilized to determine suitable penalties, especially in decisions
between the death penalty and life sentences, even though it may not be enough
to acquit an offender from criminal accountability (in the guilt phase).[26]
According to research, offenders in death penalty cases may be able to utilize
brain scans to show that their guilt is reduced as a result of mitigating
factors or their own free will. Observationally, the judges performing the test
that examined the effect of neuropsychological evidence on sentence
recommendations in death penalty hearings discovered that the frequency of
death penalty recommendations was decreased by neuropsychological evidence. The
incorporation of neuroscientific data during the sentence phase appears to have
a much greater impact than in the liability (guilt or innocence) phase.[27]
Some significant cases
concerning mentally ill offenders:
·
State of Florida v. Hoskins [28]:
In 1992, Johnny Hoskins was charged with raping and killing Dorothy Berger, a
neighbor who was 80 years old. Hoskins was the accused, according to both
eyewitness testimonies and DNA testing of the body fluids. The trial judge
rejected Hoskins' mental health expert's request for a neurological test to
provide mitigating evidence preceding the second penalty phase of his trial.
The trial court was required by the Supreme Court of Florida to order a PET
scan on Hoskins and examine the results, and because the Florida Supreme Court
ruled that there was brain abnormality after the PET scan, and sent the matter
back for a fresh penalty trial. In the new punishment procedure, the jury, by a
decision of eleven to only one, recommended death. Despite the fact that
Hoskins submitted six appeals, his death sentence was upheld in 2007. The trial
court came to the conclusion that Hoskins had a hypo-frontal lobe anomaly in
the presence of neuro-evidence, which might lead to a diminished capacity to
manage impulsivity. It could not, however, be used as a statutory mental
mitigator because it was not a "mental or emotional disorder."
Hoskins further contended that due to his brain malformation and mental age, he
lacked the mental and emotional maturity to govern his conduct. The trial court
determined that while there may have been evidence to support this claim in
connection to rape, there was unquestionably no such evidence in regard to
murder. The death penalty was deemed proportionate by the court. The use of a
brain scan in Hoskins' case had no bearing on the sentence that was ultimately
imposed.[29]
·
State of Florida v. Nelson[30]: Grady Nelson, a former county
social worker's assistant, was found guilty of first-degree murder in 2005 in
Miami-Dade County, Florida, after brutally murdering his wife 61 times and
sexually abusing his stepchildren. Even worse, Nelson left his wife's head with
a butcher knife. He was given a life sentence without the possibility of parole
by the judge. Quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG), a piece of neuroscientific
evidence presented by his defence attorney and cited as expert testimony by a
neuroscientist, played a significant element in this sentencing decision. The
brain mapping method known as QEEG converts a patient's brain wave frequencies
into a digital representation of their brain. This neuro-evidence demonstrated
Nelson's possible vulnerability to impulsivity and aggression due to a brain
abnormality or damage. Although the neuro-evidence might not make Nelson
excused or criminally irresponsible, his attorney contended that it should
lessen his punishment. The availability of neuro-evidence in Nelson's case
lessened his punishment by suggesting a brain disorder and mental incapacity,
which finally convinced the judge against voting for the death penalty.[31]
Some of the famous and relevant cases
pertaining to mentally disordered offenders and their sentencing in Indian
paradigm are discussed as under:
·
Nithari Rape case: it is one of the most gruesome crimes committed by a mentally ill
offender in India. In this the accused abducted, raped and killed children and
women. Later he mutilated the dead bodies of the victims and ate them. The rest
of the mutilated body parts were packed in a gunny bag and thrown in a drain
behind the house of his own residence. This case fell under the category of
rarest of rare cases and was sentenced to death on the basis of investigation
by a CBI court. However, in the year 2015, six years after his conviction, his
punishment was commuted to life imprisonment due to the neurological disorder
he was suffering from.[32]
This was the first case which essentially compelled the Indian legal justice
system to incorporate psychopathy within its scope.
·
State of Maharashtra vs. Sindhi Alias
Raman[33]: also called as Raman Raghav case
is one of the most well known cases involving a psychopathic offender. In this
case the distinction between medical and legal insanity was reaffirmed by the
court. It was observed that if a person is suffering from legal insanity i.e.
insanity at the time of commission of crime then he only he will be deemed to
invoke the defense of section 84 of IPC. In this very case, accuse Raman Raghu
was a psychopath who was a killer that roamed the streets of Bombay in 1960’s.
Upon trial he was diagnosed with acute schizophrenia. Thereby his sentence of
death was commuted to life imprisonment because he was incurably mentally ill.
He was found suffering from a psychosis called chronic paranoid schizophrenia
or paraphrenia meaning chronic paranoid schizophrenia plus auditory hallucinations.
He is dangerous to the society and hence certifiably insane. Though he
understood the nature of his act but he did not know what he was doing was
contrary to the law of the land. Therefore his case fell within the ambit of
section 84 IPC. And presence of mental disorder mitigated the circumstances of
his case thereby, reducing the punishment awarded to him.
·
Dayabhai Chagganbhai Thakkar vs. state of
Gujarat[34]:
in this case the plea of insanity of the person was rejected on the ground that
he was unable to prove unsoundness of mind. The extent of unsoundness of mind
has to be such that which the person is not capable of understanding the nature
or consequences of his act or does not know what he is doing is a wrongful act
or does not know that his act was contrary to law.
·
Hari Singh Gond vs. State of M.P[35]: in this
case the accused beat the deceased Hari Lal with sticks and then put the house
on fire due to which the deceased also died. During the trial accused pleaded
defense of insanity which was rejected by the Hon’ble court on the premise that
mere unusual behavior of a person arising out of anger and exaggerated opinion
does not amount to unsoundness of mind. Thereby the conviction of the accused
was upheld by the court.
·
Ashiruddin vs. the king[36]: in this very decision the accused
killed his own five year old son under a delusion caused by a dream. The
accused has dreamt that certain divine spirit has guided him to sacrifice life
of his own son of five year. The next morning he took him to the mosque and
killed his own son by slitting his throat. The accused then went to his uncle
to explain the entire incident to him. In this case the third element of
insanity was established that he did not know what he was doing is wrong as he
was laboring under delusion of a dream. Thereby he was granted defense of
unsoundness of mind on being mentally insane at the time of commission of
crime.
·
Dandupalya Krishna case: it was
another important case of the criminal being a psychopath. Dandupalya Krishna
was the leader of the dreaded Dandupalya gang which operated across Karnataka
and Andhra Pradesh from 1995 to 1999. They killed at least 42 people in an
inhumane manner, with crowbars and other weapons. However, due to the severe
kind of untreatable mental disorder, all the members were sentenced to death.[37]
·
Darbara Singh case[38]: Darbara Singh was a pedophilic
serial killer who killed many people across Kapurthala to Jalandhar. By the
year 2004, he had killed nearly 25 people mostly children. He was a psychopathic
offender who expressed no remorse of his crime. However, his psychopathic
disorder was not a result of a mental illness rather it was a consequence of
his anger and grudge against migrant labors. Thereby, he was sentenced to
capital punishment.
·
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ahmadulla[39]: in this case the accused murdered
his mother in law by managing to enter her room at night and severing her head
with a knife. He then hid the object of weapon in an underground cell and hid
the torch in a cash box. Upon trial he pleaded defense of unsoundness of mind.
His examination was done by medical practitioners and it was found out the he
was epileptic two years before the incident. The apex court observed that to
avail the defense of unsoundness of mind, legal insanity at the time of
commission of crime must be proved. But in the present cases the circumstances
and the medical evidence produced were unable to establish that the accused was
suffering from a mental disorder i.e. epileptic seizure at the time of actual
commission of offence. Thereby, the court sentenced him while rejecting the
defense of insanity.
·
Accused ‘X’ vs. State of Maharashtra[40]: recently in
this landmark judgment passed by the apex court, it was held that mental
illness is a fairground to escape death penalty in India. This decision was
passed in April 2019 consisting of a bench of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan
M. Shantanagoudar, and Justice Indira Banerjee. This judgment is related to a
convict who raped and murdered two minors in the year 1999. His case fell under the category of rarest of rare case and he was
sentenced to death. However, after taking his mental health into consideration
his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. The
bench also instructed the State to ensure a proper and efficient mental
healthcare system for him.[41] He was diagnosed of the mental illness
after he was convicted of the offence. And the bench acknowledged that prison
is a difficult place for survival of a mentally ill patient. Involuntary
solitude, overcrowding, lack of contact with family, no privacy and inadequacy
of health facilities, degrade the mental health of the prisoners day by day.
This case came under the purview of section 20(1) of MHCA 2017 that provides
the right to live with dignity to mentally ill patients. The bench stated that
all humans possess a few inherent capacities even those for whom these
capacities may not exist any longer due to reasons like disability or senility.
In the event of an occurrence of such a disability, the individual may no
longer understand the consequences of his actions and execution of such a
person would lower the majesty of the law.[42]To
avoid the misuses of the judgment the apex court formed several guidelines and
safeguards some of which are state as under-
·
A mentally ill person has to satisfy test of severity
to save him from aggravated punishments.
·
It also noted that since India is under an
International obligation of not executing a mentally ill person, therefore, it
has to resort to other means of lighter punishments.
·
The Court identified the scope for misuse, cautioned
against, “Utilization of this dicta as a ruse to escape the gallows by pleading
such defense even if such ailment is not of grave severity”.
·
Assessment of mental illness and disorder shall be
done by qualified doctors and medical practitioners. And accordingly accurate
neuroscientific techniques shall be used in the process.
·
The burden of proof shall lie on the accused.
·
There must be ample evidence indicative of symptoms of
mental illness.
·
The prosecution may submit counter evidence to refute
the claim of the accused.
·
These guidelines are merely advisory in nature and not
binding mandatorily on any court. The court may use its own discretion
at the time of sentencing a mentally ill accused.[43]
Deplorable State Of Offenders
Suffering Neurological Disorders in Prisons
The Prisons Act 1894 and
the statistics of Indian prisons reveal that mental health and mental disorders
have been largely ignored by the government authorities especially prisons in
India. As per the records of NCRB on number of mentally ill offenders in
prisons, it was believed that there were negligible mentally ill offenders in
prisons. But it is unfortunate to note that it is not true. It is far from
reality. Human Right Law Network Report shows that there are a huge number of
mentally ill offenders in Indian prisons who are being treated in a very
inhumane way.[44] This
portion of the research paper will seek to see what the state of mentally ill
offenders in India is and how far the judicial pronouncements have been made to
their resort.[45]
Legal stance of
mentally ill offender in India:
A mentally ill person is
a one for whom an order under section 27 of Mental Health Act, 1978 (MHA) is
made to detain him or remove him from a jail and send him to a psychiatric
treatment or mental asylum for treatment. Such an order is made against a
prisoner when he is out of control and exhibits conditions of severe mental
dysfunctions.[46]
Mentally ill offenders can be categorized into two i.e. offenders who are
accused of an offence and are undergoing trial and offenders under section 27
of MHA. These can situation where a law enforcement officer believes that a
person is a potential threat to the society by reason of being mentally ill and
thereby detains him. Section 328 of CrPC, 1973 makes provision for trying an
accused that is mentally unsound. The procedure states that if a judge has a
reason to believe that a person is of unsound mind and is not capable of
defending his case then he shall direct a medical practitioner to examine such
person. The court then tries the facts of unsoundness of mind and further
proceedings are postponed.[47]
After satisfaction that a person is of unsound mind, the court can order his
release irrespective of the fact whether the offence is bailable or not,
provided that the court is assured that he will be taken care of and will pose
no harm to others in society.[48]
But if there is no one to take care of such mentally ill offender or if his
release is not possible, the court will direct him to custody that it deems
safe for the accused.[49]
When such person is send to the custody of prisons in the name of safe custody,
they are technically thrown into a Bermuda triangle where there is negligible
hope of reformation and rehabilitation as health is ignored there.[50]
However, Prisons Act encompasses provisions for maintenance of mental and
physical health of prisoners and regular visits of medical practitioners is
ensured.[51]
Clearly, there is hardly any implementation of these provisions seen in real
life.
Judicial interventions
In
the landmark case of Mrs. Veens Sethi vs.
state of Bihar[52],
it was noted that 16 mentally offenders were languishing in the Hazaribagh
central jail for over 25 years. All of them were accused under section 302 of
IPC and they were rotting in jail due to overcrowding in mental asylums. They
kept rotting in the prisons as the court never received a report of their
mental health which the
SP of jail was supposed to declare. Some of them were supposed to be brought
before court for resumption of trial but they were neglected. So keeping in
view the poor administration of mental health in prisons by jail
administration, these prisoners were released and the prison administration was
strongly condemned. This case is a good example of how the court has endeavored
towards reforming mentally ill offenders. In another case of Rama Murthy vs.
State of Karnataka[53],
Rama Murthy (accused) wrote letter to the CJ of Bangalore High court regarding
the grievances of prisoners. The main grievance was mental patients were made
to stay in jails even when they were in urgent need of medical assistance. The
court decided that in case of mentally ill patients, NIMHANS authorities must
be there to treat them as mental patients unless they become normal and they
shall not be referred back to prisons.
Further in the year 1989,
in the case of Sheela Barse vs. Union of India serious question about illegal
detention of non-criminal mentally ill patients was questioned. As a result
government appointed Gopal Subramanium was appointed to make a report of
mentally ill prisoners in jails. It is unfortunate to mention that the research
and studies revealed that many prisoners were kept in prisons on the pretext of
being mentally ill.[54]
This judgment provided sufficient safeguard for non-criminal mentally ill
patients however, it did not provide any significant relied to criminal
offenders having mental illness.[55]
Thus there was negligible change in the conditions of mentally ill patients in
prisons. NHRC Issued its Annual
Report for the year 1994-95which discussed in detail the deplorable
conditions of prisoners by visiting over-crowded prisons like Tihar in Delhi as
well as underutilized ones like the open prison in Hyderabad. The report
described the condition of mentally ill offenders as heart-rending. Also it was
observed that no efforts were made to maintain their well being. To improve the
situation, special arrangements for mentally ill prisoners are to be arranged.
It was the first time that the concerns of mentally ill offenders were taken
into consideration. Recently, NHRC, in
its National Seminar on Prison
Reforms, 2014 identified certain issues relating to mentally ill
offenders and made recommendations for the same. It aimed at recognizing rights
of mentally ill offenders. The implementation is still to be carried out.[56]
Guidelines for mentally
ill prisoners:
It was Charanjit Singh vs. State and Ors[57]
which led to the formation of guidelines for mentally ill prisoners in India. A
petition was filed stating the deplorable mental condition of Charanjit. His
trial was put on hold when he was found of unsound mind and due to lack of
surety he was sent to prison in the name of safe custody. However, being in prison worsened his
condition. In this judgment it was observed that when a person is suffering
from a chronic mental disorder then the chances of his reformation are very
less and thus trial can never be resumed. Moreover if he is left to die in
prison then it will be a complete violation of right to life under Article 21
of COI.
As
enunciated in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India[58]
right to life includes right to live with human dignity. Thereby, relying on
the facts of the case and article 21, court ordered release of Charanjit and
directed NHRC to make suitable guidelines. The NHRC recommendations are quite exhaustive and if
implemented would bring a revolutionary change in the current manner of
handling mentally ill prisoners.
Critical Evaluation of
Neuroscientific Evidences
·
Despite
the promising and rapidly growing relationship between neuroscience and law,
there are several important methodological warnings with Neurotechnologies and
their potential effects on the law. There are several methods of brain imaging
and numerous ways to use them presented and understood. For example, PET scans
use radioactive tracers to detect blood concentrations in different brain
regions which are associated with brain functions; An electroencephalogram
(EEG) analyses event-related potentials (ERP) to estimate the brain processes
underlying perceptual, cognitive, and motor activities; a functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) scan finds changes in the brain's hemodynamic
characteristics that are frequently brought on by performing particular mental
tasks. There is a famous instance of neuroscientists "fishing" for
findings, though it is uncommon. There may be further cases that have gone
undiscovered or unreported.[59]
·
Neurotechnologies'
dependability can also be endangered by poor experimental design, poor execution,
incorrect interpretation, and other issues. The fact that brain images are the
result of a process within a process must always be kept in mind.
Determining precisely when and what data should be collected, as well as how the data should be evaluated and presented, involves a number of decisions and stages.There is a lot of possibility for technical and statistical errors and misunderstandings. Therefore, it is possible that complicated neurotechnologies are not trustworthy, generally applicable, or repeatable.The psychological inference of neuroimages, specifically whether the brain image may be used to infer one's mens rea and actus reus in legal circumstances, is another key area of concern. First off, brain images cannot communicate for themselves in terms of importance and reasoning.[60]
·
Neuro-images
do not reveal specific results; rather, they merely reveal brain activations
for particular tasks. Many different parts of the brain are involved in a wide
range of functions. Violence and brain abnormalities may not necessarily cause
one another because there are other possible explanations.[61]
·
It
might be challenging and very variable to pinpoint brain anatomical
abnormalities, dysfunction, and dysfunctional connections. Finally, the
significance of brain pictures is neither clear nor obvious. Its psychological
importance can be inferred based on both the expert analysis and the particular
court situation. The brains of individuals do alter throughout time and respond
to events. Furthermore, during the interval between a crime and an arrest, some
brain areas may develop abnormalities in their structure or functionality. It
is unclear how to ensure that criminal activity involves the same attitude or
brain injury, which complicates strong conclusions and psychological relevance.[62]
·
The
use of neuroscience in the courtroom has, will, and ought to change depending
on the situation. 126 Neuro-evidence, including fMRI, EEG, qEEG, PET scans, and
other forms, has been recognized as a mitigating element in sentence judgments
over the past ten years. More advanced brain imaging techniques are now
available, but using them in court presents challenges for prosecutors and
judges. The standards for admissibility, suitable interpretations, appropriate
visual displays, and potential mitigating effects on verdicts and judges are
all difficult, ambiguous issues that call for more careful assessments.[63]
·
These
evidences can be over persuasive and can be lead to misinterpretation by judges
in the absence of due processes and procedures.
Conclusion
In the foregoing research
paper, the researcher has put light on several cases where the decision of the
court influence by medical evidence produced to prove neurological disorder in
an accused. It is an indisputable fact that neuroscientific evidences fall
within the category of medical evidence. And they are produced by defense
counsel to prove faulty function of brain of an accused by the defense counsel.
In Indian this kind of evidence is produced in relation to defense of insanity and
is admitted under section 45 of the Indian evidence law. Indian evidence law
does not provide any guidelines for judges to follow in matters of mentally
disordered offenders and appreciation of related crime. Indian law does put a
restriction of compelled subjection of a person to neuroscientific techniques
but it does not provide any mandatory guideline as to the sentencing policy in
such cases. Since Indian society is undergoing a reformative stage it is
pertinent to note that the main aim of judges is the rehabilitation and
reformation of criminal rather than punishment. Yet punishment cannot be done
away with in unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, this research paper has
discussed several judgments pertaining to mentally ill offenders. This research
paper has also sought to give requisite knowledge about the deplorable state of
mentally ill offenders in prisons. This research paper as a whole gives an
insight into the sentencing policy followed by judges in matters of
neurologically ill offenders.
[1] Advocate, District and Sessions
Court, Amritsar, Punjab.
[2] 6th edition, K D Gaur, Indian
Penal Code 107, (Universal law
publication, Gurgaon, 2018).
[3] Fowler vs. Padget, (1789) 7 TR 509.
[4] 6th edition, K D Gaur, Indian
Penal Code 108, (Universal law
publication, Gurgaon, 2018).
[5] Paul H. Robinson, Mens Rea, NELLCO Legal Scholarship Repository,
Scholarship at Penn Law (2003),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4986600_Mens_Rea.
[6] Brend vs. Wood, (1946) 62 TLR 462.
[7] 6th edition, K D Gaur, Indian
Penal Code 109, (Universal law publication, Gurgaon, 2018).
[8] Sapna
Jain, Mens
Rea – An Important Element to Criminal Law, International Journal of Advanced Legal Research (IJALR), (2020), https://www.ijalr.in/2020/10/mens-rea-important-element-to-criminal.html.
[9] Indian Penal Code,1860, S. 25, No.
45, Act of Parliament, 1860 (India).
[10] Indian Penal Code,1860, S. 39, No.
45, Act of Parliament, 1860 (India).
[11] Indian Penal Code,1860, S. 24, No.
45, Act of Parliament, 1860 (India).
[12] Sapna
Jain, Mens Rea – An Important Element to
Criminal Law, International Journal of Advanced Legal Research (IJALR),
(2020),
https://www.ijalr.in/2020/10/mens-rea-important-element-to-criminal.html.
[13] Sapna
Jain, Mens Rea – An Important Element to
Criminal Law, International Journal of Advanced Legal Research (IJALR),
(2020), https://www.ijalr.in/2020/10/mens-rea-important-element-to-criminal.html.
[14] Noman Ghiasi, et al., Psychiatric
Illness and Criminality,
National Library of Medicine (10 Mar. 2024, 01:00 PM) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537064/#:~:text=Certain%20psychiatric%20conditions%20do%20increase,or%20have%20long%2Dstanding%20paranoia.
[15] Tori DeAngelis, Mental illness and violence: Debunking
myths, addressing realities, American Psychological Association (10 Mar. 2024, 01:15 PM), https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/04/ce-mental-illness.
[16] Michael.J. Rosen &
BrentTeasdale, Mental illness and crime,
Wiley Online Library (10 Mar. 2024, 01:20 PM), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118519639.wbecpx092.
[17] Mohammad Zaheer Moqimy, Mental disorder and commission of crime:
analysis of legal position in India, 4(6) International journal of law
management and humanities 1152-1161, https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Mental-Disorder-and-Commission-of-Crime.pdf.
[18] Mohd. Giassudin vs. State of A.P,
(1977) 3 SCC 287.
[19] nhrc.nic.in, https://nhrc.nic.in/press-release/nhrc-directs-states-ensure-mentally-ill-persons-are-not-jailed-under-any-circumstances
(last visited 29 Mar. 2024).
[20] Krishna @ Dandupalya Krishna vs. State Of Karnataka on 18 July, 2018.
[21] Surenra Koli vs. State of U.P. and
Ors, Criminal Appeal No(S). 2227 OF 2010.
[22] Vedant Saxena, Should psychopaths be subjected to therapy
or punishment, iPleaders Blog (12
Mar. 2024, 03:30PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/psychopaths-therapy-not-punished/.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
[25] Yu Du,The Application of Neuroscience Evidence on Court Sentencing Decisions: Suggesting a Guideline for Neuro-Evidence, 18(2) Seattle
Journal for Social Justice, https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol18/iss2/19.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Hoskins v. State, 702 So. 2d 202,
203–204 (Fla. 1997).
[29] Yu Du,The Application of Neuroscience Evidence on Court Sentencing Decisions: Suggesting a Guideline for Neuro-Evidence, 18(2) Seattle
Journal for Social Justice, https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol18/iss2/19.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Yu Du,The Application of Neuroscience Evidence on Court Sentencing Decisions: Suggesting a Guideline for Neuro-Evidence, 18(2) Seattle
Journal for Social Justice, https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol18/iss2/19.
[32] Surenra Koli vs. State of U.P. and
Ors, Criminal Appeal No(S). 2227 OF 2010.
[33] State Of Maharashtra vs. Sindhi Alias Raman, (1987) 89 BOMLR 423.
[34] Dayabhai Chagganbhai Thakkar vs. state of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563.
[35] Hari Singh Gond vs. State of M.P, AIR 2009 SC 31.
[36] Ashiruddin vs. The king, AIR 1949
Cal 182.
[37] Vedant Saxena, Should psychopaths be subjected to therapy
or punishment, iPleaders Blog (12
Mar. 2024, 03:30PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/psychopaths-therapy-not-punished/.
[38] Darbara Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 24 September, 2018.
[39] State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Ahmadulla, AIR 1961 SC 990.
[40] Accused ‘X’ vs. State of
Maharashtra, RP (CRIMINAL) NO. 301 OF 2008.
[41] Vedant Saxena, Should psychopaths be subjected to therapy
or punishment, iPleaders Blog (12
Mar. 2024, 03:30PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/psychopaths-therapy-not-punished/.
[42] Vedant Saxena, Should psychopaths be subjected to therapy
or punishment, iPleaders Blog (12
Mar. 2024, 03:30PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/psychopaths-therapy-not-punished/.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Rashika Bhardwaj & Prasoon, Mentally Ill Prisoners &
their Rights, The Criminal Law Blog (12 Mar. 2024, 04:35PM), https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com/2020/09/10/mentally-ill-prisoners-their-rights/#:~:text=This%20is%20because%20the%20people,this%20section%20of%20the%20society.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Mental Health Act, 1987, S. 27,
No. 14, Act of Parliament,1987.
[47] The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, S.329, No.02, Act of Parliament, 1974.
[48] The Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, S.330, No.02, Act of Parliament, 1974.
[49] Rashika Bhardwaj & Prasoon, Mentally Ill Prisoners &
their Rights, The Criminal Law Blog (12 Mar. 2024, 04:35PM), https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com/2020/09/10/mentally-ill-prisoners-their-rights/#:~:text=This%20is%20because%20the%20people,this%20section%20of%20the%20society.
[50] Ibid.
[51] The Prisons Act, 1894, S.37, No.9,
Act of Parliament, 1894.
[52] Mrs. Veens Sethi vs. state of
Bihar, AIR
1983 SC 339.
[53] Rama Murthy vs. State of Karnataka,
AIR 1996 SC 150.
[54] Sheela Barse vs. Union
of India, WP (Crl.) No. 237 of 1989.
[55] Rashika Bhardwaj & Prasoon, Mentally Ill Prisoners &
their Rights, The Criminal Law Blog (12 Mar. 2024, 04:35PM), https://criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com/2020/09/10/mentally-ill-prisoners-their-rights/#:~:text=This%20is%20because%20the%20people,this%20section%20of%20the%20society.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Charanjit Singh vs. State and Ors on 4 March, 2005.
[58] Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India,
AIR 1978 SC 597.
[59] Yu Du,The Application of Neuroscience Evidence on Court Sentencing Decisions: Suggesting a Guideline for Neuro-Evidence, 18(2) Seattle
Journal for Social Justice, https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol18/iss2/19.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Yu Du,The Application of Neuroscience Evidence on Court Sentencing Decisions: Suggesting a Guideline for Neuro-Evidence, 18(2) Seattle
Journal for Social Justice, https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol18/iss2/19.
[62] Yu Du,The Application of Neuroscience Evidence on Court Sentencing Decisions: Suggesting a Guideline for Neuro-Evidence, 18(2) Seattle
Journal for Social Justice, https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol18/iss2/19.
[63] Ibid.
Article Information
SENTENCING MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS: A DUAL CHALLENGE OF CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINAL CORRECTION
Authors: PRERNA SINGH
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/17
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.