According to Science…
A mad person is simply someone who has a disability, and this disability is the abnormal functioning of the human brain. Insanity is therefore a particular state of a person’s life, where his or her actions and inactions commensurate with his madness, i.e. the person is unconscious of the rightfulness or wrongfulness of what he or she does.
Although a person is clinically diagnosed as mad, Science recognizes that there are points / seconds / minutes / hours / stages (the ‘lucid period‘) of the person’s life where the person can be said to be conscious of whatever he or she does or fails to do. Thus, at this stage the otherwise insane person is scientifically said to be sane.
Therefore, although the person is generally identified by the society as mad, scientifically this person becomes conscious or sane of his or her actions at some stages of his or her life.
According to Law…
A mad person is simply an insane person, who is recognized by law as being unable to understand the law and its requirements. In law generally, a person who is clinically diagnosed as mad, is legally incapable of entering into a valid contact and incapable of committing a criminal offense. This is so, because an insane person is deemed by law as unable to understand the rudiments of the contract and unable to understand the wrongfulness of his or her actions which may have amounted to the crime.
The law however creates situations where an insane person can be said to have entered into a valid contract or said to have committed a crime. These exceptions created by law are to help prevent mad persons from intentionally undertaking wrongful acts, or being contracted to commit crimes, under the guise of their madness, when in fact and in reality they were very conscious of their actions at the point when those wrongful acts were undertaken.
Where there is scientific evidence before the Courts that a person, who has killed another person, is mad or insane, the presumption is that the person cannot be held criminally liable or convicted on guilt, because in the eyes of the law the person does not have the mind or the capacity to understand that what he or she is a crime.
However, where there is further evidence before the Courts, that looking at the circumstances surrounding the killing, the mad person can reasonably be said to have understood whatever he or she did at the time of the killing, then the law and the courts will find this person, though mad, guilty of the criminal offence of Murder (Intentional Killing) or Manslaughter (Unintentional or Negligent Killing) depending on the facts before the Courts.
In effect, for a mad person to be guilty of a crime:
1. There should be evidence before the Courts that the person is mad; and
2. There should be evidence before the Courts that the mad person at the time of the killing understood perfectly what he or she was doing.
This issue is very disturbing and needs proper legal address, thank you for the education.
My question on this matter is what the punishment can be and who is to be punished, because I think whether she is mad or not she has to be punished. Even if the punishment is getting her to the psychiatric hospital, or could it be more and what would ensure such
She must only be punished after it is established by the courts that she is not medically mad, or that although mad, she was very conscious of whatever she was doing which resulted in the death of the young man. In case the court establishes that she is a mad person, she will not go through any criminal. The Court will however send her to a psychiatric hospital for treatment and rehabilitation and she will only be allowed to come out after she becomes sane or normal. This is to prevent a situation where she will be allowed to live with the society and possibly cause a similar death. In the other situation where the court establishes that she is mad but was conscious of that particular act resulting in the death, the court will put her trough a criminal trial and convict and sentence her. She will then spend the term of her sentence first in a psychiatric hospital, and should in case she becomes sane or normal, she is then taken to the prison to continue her sentence.
Some criminals commit crimes under the guise of insanity as already said in the submission and escape justice due to this law. That’s why sometimes the public adapt their own justice methods though not acceptable.
Question is “What can be done to bring such perpetrators to real justice?”
The courts, the police prosecutors and the state lawyers are doing their best to bring such perpetrators to real justice. The issue is that it is only serious crimes of this nature (death) that are publicized for the entire public to know. That notwithstanding, as earlier explained, the court deals with evidence. So what can be done is for the police to conduct a thorough investigation into the medical history of the perpetrator so as to be able to establish any of two important elements before the court. First, that the perpetrator is not an insane or mad person; or secondly, that even if the perpetrator is medically insane, the perpetrator at the time of the commission of the crime was conscious of whatever he or she did. Where the court is satisfied with any of the above elements, then the perpetrator will face the required punishment.
Very good and vivid explanations.
We appreciate your comment.
Would there be any compensation for the bereaved family and a lawyer from legal aid or they’ll have to foot everything?
In criminal cases, it is the state lawyers representing the Attorney-General who take up prosecution of these cases on behalf of the victims or complainants and their families. The police may also represent the Attorney-General in the prosecution of criminal case on behalf of the victims or complainants and their families. Normally, the state compensates the victim based on public opinion or the general public outcry on the state to do so, otherwise the state will only compensate victims where the state had a role to play in the cause of the injury.