Rethinking mental health in Malaysia's justice system
Mental illness and criminal responsibility are often discussed as though a psychiatric diagnosis provides an automatic escape from criminal liability.
Malaysia's justice system has long debated how mental illness influences criminal responsibility. Section 84 of the Penal Code complicates the insanity defence by requiring a higher legal standard than merely being diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder. This legal standard distinguishes between medical insanity, which examines whether the accused was suffering at the time of the offence, and legal insanity, which demands total cognitive incapability to understand wrongdoing. The Federal Court has affirmed this two-stage approach.
Despite this, an individual with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or severe depression could still be convicted if evidence shows they retained cognitive awareness during the crime. Courts do not base their decisions on psychiatric reports alone; they evaluate medical evidence alongside the accused's conduct before, during, and after the event.
For instance, Syahmie Hassan's conviction was upheld despite a history of depression and bipolar disorder evidence, as his actions demonstrated an understanding of the nature and wrongfulness of his actions.
Distinguishing Section 84 from a defendant's fitness to stand trial is also crucial. Under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if a court suspects an accused is unfit to participate in their defence due to mental state, the proceedings pause for psychiatric evaluation. If declared unfit, the trial is postponed for treatment. This concerns the individual's present capacity to participate in court proceedings, while Section 84 scrutinises cognitive state at the time of the crime.
For those who fall short of the strict legal insanity standard, Malaysia currently faces conventional criminal prosecution and imprisonment. However, such individuals often face penal facilities ill-equipped to provide necessary psychiatric care. Establishing a specialised forensic mental health court could integrate public safety and accountability with structured clinical treatment.
Like Canada's system for offenders found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD), Malaysia could adopt a mechanism ensuring acquittal leads to structured psychiatric treatment, supervision, and regular re-assessment rather than indefinite institutionalisation.
Meanwhile, for offenders with severe mental illness but not meeting the Section 84 threshold, courts could mandate psychiatric treatment and clinical supervision directly into sentencing. This approach would balance justice with modern psychiatric realities.
Written by urgent.news from New Straits Times's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
