The Absence of Evidentiary Indicators for Psychiatric Disorders and the Impact on Judicial Reasoning in Case Study Decision No. 150/Pid.B/2024/PN Jkt.Brt

Abstract

The issue of criminal responsibility for offenders suffering from mental disorders remains one of the most complex questions within criminal law. Indonesian criminal law recognizes that individuals who commit criminal acts while experiencing certain mental disorders may be exempted from criminal liability under the doctrine of excuse, as reflected in Article 44 of the Indonesian Criminal Code. However, in practice, the application of this doctrine frequently raises legal debates, particularly due to the absence of standardized indicators for assessing mental disorders in criminal proceedings. This research analyzes the criminal responsibility of an offender diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in Decision Number 150/Pid.B/2024/PN Jakarta Barat. The study focuses on the judicial reasoning applied by the panel of judges in determining the defendant’s criminal liability despite the presence of expert testimony indicating a severe mental disorder. The findings indicate that although psychiatric expert testimony confirmed the presence of paranoid schizophrenia affecting the defendant's cognitive and behavioral capacity, the court ultimately concluded that the defendant remained capable of criminal responsibility. This conclusion raises questions regarding the adequacy of judicial reasoning in assessing the relationship between mental disorders and criminal liability. The study argues that the absence of clear scientific indicators for evaluating mental disorders in criminal proceedings creates a significant degree of judicial discretion, potentially leading to inconsistencies in judicial decisions. Therefore, stronger integration between legal assessments and forensic psychiatric evaluations is necessary to ensure substantive justice in criminal cases involving offenders with mental disorders.