Sanity and insanity: the legal implications of mental state

Sanity and insanity from the point of view of law

Sanity and insanity are key concepts in criminal law that determine whether a person is capable of being held criminally responsible for their actions. Sanity means that the individual was capable of recognizing the wrongfulness of the act and controlling his or her actions at the time the act was committed. It is generally presumed that everyone is sane unless proven otherwise.

In contrast, insanity is a condition in which an individual cannot be held criminally responsible because, due to mental disorder, he was unable to recognize the wrongfulness of his actions or to control his conduct at the time of the act. This condition must be proven on the basis of a professional psychiatric assessment. If a person is found to be insane, placement in a psychiatric facility usually follows instead of a traditional prison sentence.

The determination of insanity then leads to a modification of the sentence, including the punishment and any treatment decision. A finding of diminished insanity, where the individual’s mental capacity is only partially impaired, may lead to a reduction in sentence because the court recognizes that the conduct was not fully within the offender’s control. All of these aspects have a profound effect on the decisions of the courts and on the lives of the individuals involved.

How insanity manifests itself in legal practice

Stories from practice show the impact that mental state can have on individuals’ individual fates. A few years ago we were approached by Mr Vladislav, whose mother, in a fit brought on by schizophrenia, had seriously injured her neighbour and threatened him with a gun. In the past, she had been given this diagnosis with the proviso that she be allowed outpatient treatment. However, following this incident, criminal proceedings were conducted and, following a court decision, Mr Vladislav’s mother was placed in a psychiatric hospital, which enabled her to receive the necessary medical care. A prison sentence would not have been appropriate here, despite the seriousness of her actions, given the established lack of cognitive ability.

A partial loss of cognitive or control capacity is not sufficient to extinguish criminal responsibility, but may be taken into account in determining the amount of the sentence. Similarly, the court took into account conduct in the extremes of emotion in which Mr. Peter caused grievous bodily harm to a man who raped his girlfriend. Mr Peter was therefore not suffering from any mental illness, but the resulting affect had a significant impact on his actions. In court, this led to a lower sentence.

Each case must therefore be assessed individually in terms of the assessment of cognitive and control capacities.

Assessment of sanity: how is it carried out?

The assessment of sanity is a key step to help determine whether the offender was capable of understanding his actions and controlling his behaviour at the time of the offence. The process begins when the court orders a psychiatric evaluation. This examination is conducted by a clinical psychiatrist who assesses the defendant’s mental state through interviews, observations and testing.

The psychiatrist examines various aspects of the defendant’s mental health, including family history, the presence of symptoms of mental illness at the time of the offense, and the defendant’s ability to understand the consequences of his or her actions. Particular attention is paid to whether the mental disorder may have significantly affected the accused’s behaviour.

The distinction between temporary mental incapacity, for example caused by acute intoxication, and permanent mental disorder is also an important factor . The results of the assessment can significantly influence the decision on criminal responsibility, ranging from a possible acquittal on grounds of insanity to an order for treatment in a psychiatric hospital instead of a prison sentence.

Extreme emotion or insanity?

As we have indicated above, the line between acting under the influence of extreme emotions and insanity is crucial for the assessment of criminal responsibility. Insanity, defined as a condition in which an individual is unable to recognize the wrongfulness of his or her actions or to control his or her behavior due to mental disorder, is clearly defined in the law. In contrast, acting in a state of extreme emotion, such as hysterical fits, may be assessed as an act of full or reduced sanity, depending on the particular circumstances.

In assessing whether extreme emotions lead to unusual behaviour, courts consider whether the offender’s conduct was in a state that prevented him from fully controlling his behaviour or fully understanding its consequences. The boundary between extreme emotions and insanity is assessed on the basis of expert reports, where psychiatrists and psychologists evaluate the overall mental state of the accused and his ability to react appropriately to situations.

In practice, this line is often ambiguous and each case requires an individual approach.

The relationship between insanity and drunkenness

Insanity and drunkenness are two distinct conditions, but in a legal context they can be interrelated. Drunkenness alone does not automatically imply insanity. The commission of offences under the influence of alcohol is very common and usually has no bearing on the assessment of insanity.

A specific case arises where the state of intoxication is so severe that it leads to a significant reduction or loss of the ability to influence one’s own behaviour and to understand the consequences of one’s actions. The Criminal Code addresses these situations through the special offence of ‘drunkenness’. The provision relating to this offence provides that “Whoever, by ingesting or administering an addictive substance, brings himself, even negligently, into a state of insanity in which he commits an otherwise criminal act, shall be punished by imprisonment for three to ten years; however, if he commits an otherwise criminal act for which the law prescribes a lighter penalty, he shall be punished by that lighter penalty.” The offence of drunkenness can be considered from the court’s point of view if at least one of the components of the offender’s conduct (recognition or control) was practically extinct at the time of the offence.

However, this legal assessment would not arise in a case where the offender deliberately puts himself into a state of drunkenness in order, for example, to give himself the courage to commit the offence. If he speaks of the offence or prepares for it even before he becomes drunk, that fact does not disqualify him and does not lead to a different assessment of his criminal liability from the normal state.

If the offender culpably puts himself in a state of drunkenness, he also cannot absolve himself from liability in the case of negligent crimes. He is therefore fully responsible for them.

The situation would be quite different if someone poured alcohol on the offender without his knowledge (for example, with the understanding that it was non-alcoholic beer) or forcibly intoxicated him against his will. In such a situation, if the insanity of the person committing the offence were established, then he would not be liable for the offence.