Return to society must be based on clinical, risk assessments, says criminologist
PETALING JAYA: An acquittal on grounds of unsoundness of mind does not mean a child who commits a serious offence simply walks free, said a criminologist emphasising that psychiatric treatment, rehabilitation and public safety must remain at the heart of the response.
Universiti Malaya senior lecturer Dr Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid said the focus should not be solely on punishment when a child is found to have been legally of unsound mind at the time of the offence.
“This does not mean the child is simply ‘getting away with it’. It means the response must shift towards appropriate psychiatric treatment, rehabilitation, supervision and public safety.”
She added that any eventual return to the community should not be automatic but must be based on continuous clinical and risk assessments.
She also said a proper reintegration plan should involve mental health professionals, the family and welfare authorities, with continued treatment or supervision where necessary.
“Public safety and the child’s welfare must both be taken seriously.”
Haezreena also cautioned against attempts to characterise the case as nihilistic violence, violent extremism or terrorism without a proper factual or legal basis.
“These are distinct phenomena and should not simply be lumped together because an act is shocking or violent.”
She added that such labelling could lead to misunderstanding, inappropriate responses and the mischaracterisation of children involved in serious offences.
She also said Malaysia already had a legal framework to deal with cases involving unsoundness of mind, but the case highlighted the need for stronger coordination beyond the courtroom.
“We need stronger coordination between the criminal justice system, mental health services, child protection agencies and families.
“The question is not whether we choose between protecting the child’s rights or protecting public safety. A good system must do both.”
Former Malaysian Bar president Salim Bashir said the finding of legal insanity under Section 84 of the Penal Code concerned the accused’s mental state at the time the offence was committed, which was distinct from an assessment of whether the accused was fit to stand trial.
He added that the latter concerned the accused’s ability to understand the trial process and the charge, as well as to instruct his lawyers, while legal insanity under Section 84 is determined by the court after considering the evidence at trial.
“If the accused is acquitted because, at the time of the offence, he was of unsound mind and unable to tell right from wrong, the law would not find the accused blameworthy for the lack of mens rea (guilty mind) in committing the offence.”
However, Salim emphasised that such an acquittal did not mean the accused was automatically free.
He said Section 348 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for an accused acquitted on grounds of unsoundness of mind to be detained in a psychiatric facility for treatment, subject to the applicable legal process and the pleasure of the Ruler.
The High Court in Shah Alam yesterday acquitted the 15-year-old boy of murdering his 16-year-old schoolmate in Bandar Utama last year after finding him to have been of unsound mind at the time of the incident.
Judge Adlin Abdul Majid ruled that the defence had established the requirements under Section 84 of the Penal Code.
The boy’s lawyer, Kitson Foong, said the court accepted the evidence of forensic psychiatrist Dr Ian Lloyd Anthony, who found that the boy was suffering from severe schizophrenia.
The boy was ordered to be detained and treated at the Bahagia Psychiatric Hospital Ulu Kinta in Perak at the pleasure of the Sultan of Selangor until he is assessed as fit to return to society.
