Note: The publishers of this article do not intend to trivialize or diminish the seriousness of mental health issues or illnesses. We recognize that mental health is a valid and critical aspect of overall well-being and it is not our intention to negate or invalidate the experiences of those living with mental health conditions. The discussion presented in this article is meant to address specific legal and ethical concerns regarding the misuse of mental illness as a defense in legal contexts, particularly where it may be exploited to evade accountability. We urge readers to approach this topic with mindfulness and respect for the complexities surrounding mental health.
Mental illness, if used legitimately, can save an innocent from being wrongfully put on trial; however, this area of law has also been exploited by individuals attempting to evade justice. The recent tragic Karsaz incident involving a reckless SUV driver causing the death of two innocent individuals has sparked debate about the misuse of mental illness as a defense by the so-called ‘elite’ to escape accountability for their crimes.
According to the video footage that surfaced, a person driving in an extremely negligent manner struck a motorbike from behind, leading to the instant deaths of a father and daughter on that bike. The vehicle then hit two more motorbikes, apparently causing injuries to 5 people. The defense for this action has been suggested to be mental illness. This highlights the potential misuse of mental illness as an excuse, where the primary issue may be criminal negligence, recklessness, intoxication or driving under influence.
This case raises the question of whether loopholes in the law have provided a route for offenders to escape justice. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to see people evading serious charges by claiming to be of unsound mind in Pakistan. In the recent past, the case of Zaher Jaffer started a discussion on social media about this issue. Jaffer, belonging to an influential family, was convicted of rape and murder. During the trial, Jaffer’s defense counsel attempted to use mental illness to mitigate his liability. Although the court rejected these claims, justice has not been fully served to date. This is one of the many cases where people in power have used this defense to manipulate the system.
It is imperative to analyze whether our law has been too lenient, allowing this avenue to be exploited. This article will discuss the legal framework surrounding this area of law, the loopholes that allow for its misuse and suggestions to prevent this from happening in the future.
To safeguard an individual of unsound mind, the law of Pakistan, under Section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) provides the defense of insanity, stating the following:
“Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.”
The Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), under Section 464, deals with the procedure when a person of unsound mind is accused of an offence:
“If during the inquiry or trial the magistrate holding inquiry has reasons to believe that the accused is of unsound mind. He is bound to enquire in to the facts of his unsoundness by causing the accused to be examined by the civil surgeon of the district or such other medical officer as the provincial government direct. In case he comes to an affirmative opinion as to the unsoundness of the accused, he is to record a finding to that effect and postpone further proceedings.” [1997 SCMR 239]
Loopholes and Abuse of Law
The significant loophole in this arrangement can be seen where a civil surgeon or a medical offer is appointed by the provincial government to evaluate the mental state of the accused and fitness to stand trial. This gap gives those in power the opportunity to arrange for the appointment of a favourable medical officer and produce fraudulent documents. The crime can be as serious as a murder and the shortcomings in our law allow those in power to get away with it.
The ambiguity in determining a mental disorder makes this a sensitive area and complicates matters, as it is challenging to identify if the person was of unsound mind and could not have avoided the situation. This ambiguity can lead courts to believe the accused is of unsound mind, leading to their release or postponement of trial. If the accused is forging documents or manipulating the system, this lenient approach sets a dangerous precedent for how to evade justice and get away with a crime. On the other hand, the misuse of this defense can lead to increased stigma against individuals with genuine mental health issues.
Proposed Reforms
To prevent the misuse of this defense, the procedure for determining whether an individual is of unsound mind should become more rigorous. Instead of appointing a civil surgeon or medical officer through the provincial government, the medical officer should be appointed from private medical institutions. Moreover, there should not be a solo medical officer; instead, a committee should be formed, including a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist, a legal expert and a police officer. A committee incorporating individuals from diverse professions ensures a fair evaluation and makes it more challenging to corrupt the process.
This committee should be appointed at the very beginning when an accused is charged with a crime and uses this defense.
If appropriate procedures are not adopted, people will lose faith in the justice system’s ability to protect them and hold wrongdoers accountable. The working class of the country already feels threatened by the perception that the elite can escape justice for heinous crimes. This sentiment is deep rooted, as an ordinary citizen faces harsh consequences for far lesser offences.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of CourtingTheLaw.com or any other organization with which she might be associated.
Well written and explained