The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 10-2021
11
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
October 21, 2021 |
Pages:
11-15
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue10-03
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
‘
ABSTRACT
This article analyzes the theoretical and practical issues of responsibility of a person with a mental
disorder, his understanding, medical and legal criteria in a way that does not exclude insanity. It
proposes that the crime committed by a person with a mental illness be considered a mitigating
circumstance.
KEYWORDS
Law, Criminal, Psychiatric Care, Medical Criterion, Mental Disorder, Legislature Associates, Mental
Illness, Limited Mental Illness.
INTRODUCTION
The Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On
amendments and additions to some legislative
acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan in
connection with the improvement of the
system of psychiatric care" of September 12,
2019 supplemented the current Criminal Code
of Uzbekistan with Article 18
At the same time, it should be noted that this
norm is new for national criminal law.
However, in turn, Professor M.Kh.Rustambaev
noted that in this regard that a sane person can
be found not only as a mentally healthy person,
but also as a person with a mental disorder,
who is able to consciously and accurately
assess his actions in a given situation or
situation at the time of the crime.”
Today, the issue of liability of a person whose
mental state has been violated in a way that
does not exclude sanity at the time of the crime
Theoretical And Practical Issues Of Criminal Liability Of
Persons With Mental Disorders In A Way That Does Not
Exclude Sanity
Kushbakov Dilshod Musurmonkulovich
Senior Lecturer Of The Department Of Administrative Law Of Academy Of The Ministry Of
Internal Affairs Of The Republic Of Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theamericanjou
rnals.com/index.php/ta
jpslc
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 10-2021
12
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
October 21, 2021 |
Pages:
11-15
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue10-03
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
is relevant and one of the areas of criminal law
that has not been sufficiently studied. This is
because the issue of the liability of a person
whose mental state has been violated in a way
that does not exclude sanity raises a number of
difficulties and problems in law enforcement
practice. The reason is that at present there is
no clear understanding of what state of mental
retardation can lead to criminal liability, its level
and duration, and what criteria should be
distinguished from mental retardation.
Although, in the literature, the medical
criterion for limited mental retardation is
described as a mental disorder. However, at
the same time, the legislation does not define
the term “mental disorder”. This leads to
different application of this norm of criminal
law in law enforcement practice. For example,
some researchers claim that the medical
criteria for limited mental health are similar to
the medical critia for mental illness. However,
we do not support such an approach to the
medical criteria of limited intelligence. Because
if we pay attention to the expressions used in
the legislation and its structure in classifying
the medical criteria of mental illness and
limited mental illness, we can see that there are
no grounds to determine their similarity.
In addition, in the second part of Article 18 of
the Criminal Code, the legislature associates
mental retardation with a “mental disorder”
and classifies the causes that lead to a mental
disorder. However, the first part of Article 18 of
the Criminal Code, although it deals with the
violation of the state of mind at the time of the
commission of the crime, but does not specify
the signs or causes of the violation of the state
of mind. This means that the medical criteria of
mental retardation include various mental
illnesses that lead to mental disorders, as well
as disorders of the mental state that are
pathological in nature. The medical criteria for
mental retardation, on the other hand, do not
have the pathological features of a mental
disorder.
Furthermore, the medical criteria of limited
intelligence are interpreted differently in the
literature. For example, in this case, N.I.
Khojaeva and A.U. Shoyusupova argues that
"in psychiatric practice, because of the
multifaceted and diverse range of mental
disorders that exclude dementia, its symptoms
on medical criteria have not yet been clearly
classified, so any research to make such a
diagnosis is based on medical analysis."
However, in forensic psychiatry, it has been
concluded that mental disorders that exclude
insanity can be regulated despite the fact that
they are different districts. In particular, it has
developed criteria and signs that reflect the
characteristics of mental retardation, including
limited mental retardation in terms of various
nosological forms of pathology.
In particular, signs of limited mental
intelligence include functional and organic
disturbances of mental state. Functional
disorders of the mental state include neuroses
and psychopathies, while organic disorders
include mild oligophrenia caused by organic
diseases of the central nervous system under
the influence of brain injury, chronic mental
changes during epilepsy, alcoholism and drug
addiction.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In addition, some researchers have focused on
this issue. For example, A.N. Shamgunov
divides the medical criteria of mental
retardation into the following groups: mild
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 10-2021
13
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
October 21, 2021 |
Pages:
11-15
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue10-03
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
chronic mental illness (epilepsy, organic brain
injury, schizophrenic defects, cerebral syphilis,
chronic alcoholism); transient mood disorders
(reactive and intoxication psychoses, post-
traumatic stress disorders), mental anomalies
(mental retardation, psychopathy, behavioral
accentuation), neuroses, abnormal processes
(pregnancy), and other similar illnesses. These
listed cases of mental disorders result in limited
mental retardation at the same time.
However, in this regard, S.V. Dolgova writes,
“The medical criteria of limited mentality can
reflect any disorder of the mental state that
does not reach a psychotic level in a way that
does not exclude mentality. These are:
endogenous (eg, schizophrenia, persistent
remission or debilitating epilepsy), exogenous
mental disorders caused by external factors
(organic diseases of the brain), circulatory
disorders caused by infectious diseases (brain
dysfunction
due
to
encephalitis)
),
psychoactive substance addiction (alcoholism,
drug addiction, toxicomania) and mental
disorders caused by pathological development
(oligophrenia, pixopathy). But we cannot fully
support this idea. This is because limited
mental health does not imply cases of mental
disorder that acquire a pathological character.
Under the law, when a person does not have a
severe mental disorder, he or she is exempted
from liability because a severe mental disorder
distracts the person from moving his or her
div in relation to the environment, directs it
in the wrong direction, and misrepresents the
mind.
The next sign to be considered of a limited
mental state is its legal criterion. It is important
to note that today the practice of law
enforcement and the understanding of the
legal criteria of limited sanity in the legal
literature is a complex and controversial
situation. This is because most authors rightly
point out that the legislator's limited reasoning
to express the legal criterion of rationality in a
way that "did not fully understand or control
the significance of their actions (inactions)" is
ambiguous
and
allows
for
different
interpretations. Science and practice have not
yet developed clear criteria for which level of
understanding
should
be
considered
‘complete’ or ‘incomplete’. Such an edit is
“extremely unreliable” and therefore “makes
it difficult to find a subject with a limited mental
disability”.
This, in order to understand the meaning of this
expression expressed in the legislation,
requires the definition of the essence of the
legal criterion of limited reason, first of all, the
"incomplete level" of mind and will. Of course,
it is not possible to fully disclose the exact
meaning of this evaluative phrase, but it is
possible to define it to the maximum, to set
certain limits and levels for its understanding.
CONCLUSION
However, given the emphatic structure of the
rule of law, it makes it possible to find such a
situation to be limited rationality. Because
according to the law, a person must not fully
understand the importance of his actions
(inaction) or be able to control them due to the
violation of his mental state at the time of the
crime. This means that a person with a limited
mental state may not be able to fully
comprehend his actions due to a mental state
disorder, or he may not be able to fully control
his actions, even though he fully understands
them.
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 10-2021
14
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
October 21, 2021 |
Pages:
11-15
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue10-03
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
The current criminal law of Uzbekistan does
not stipulate that the actions of a person who
has committed a crime in a state of limited
sanity should be considered as a mitigating
circumstance. Therefore, in our opinion, it
should be noted that limited mental
retardation as a mitigating factor in sentencing
is due to the specific features of the
pathological manifestation of mental disorders
(affective, psychogenic, not intentionally
provoked by the subject, etc.). Such a
condition cannot be considered as a mitigating
circumstance if the state of mental retardation
was intentionally caused or the person
consciously allowed his / her illness to have a
pathological
origin
(alcoholism,
drug
addiction).
From the above it can be concluded that:
first, the legal representation of the institution
of limited sanity serves to ensure a full legal
assessment of socially dangerous acts
committed by persons with mental disorders,
without exception, to differentiate between
mentally retarded and persons with mental
disorders from a psychiatric point of view, and
to bring to justice such persons;
secondly, because of the mental state
disturbed at the time of the crime, the person
must not fully understand the importance of
his actions or be able to control them, that is, a
state of limited sanity means that a person, or
a state of mind, is unable to fully comprehend
his actions due to a disorder, or that he is
unable to fully control his actions, even though
he fully understands them. In determining the
voluntary sign of a limited mental state, it is
always taken into account that there must
always be a volitional sign, even if there is no
mental sign. The will sign reflects the basic
structural aspect of the legal criterion, and it is
always required to be defined and exist in
order to confirm the fact of limited reason;
third, the issue of the liability of persons whose
mental state has been compromised in a way
that does not exclude insanity at the time of
the crime requires further in-depth study and
special research because of the lack of clear
definitions of what constitutes criminal liability
today, how long this restriction lasts, on what
criteria it should be distinguished from mental
retardation, and its degree.
REFERENCES
1.
Course of criminal law of the Republic
of Uzbekistan. Five volumes. 1 tom.
General section. Crime Doctrine: A
Textbook
for
Higher
Education
Institutions. Completed and revised
second edition / M.Kh.Rustambaev,
A.A.Otajonov et al. - T .: Academy of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, 2018. - P. 197.
2.
G.V. Nazarenko Insanity. Criminally
relevant mental states. SPb., 2002. – P
112-134.
3.
Xojaeva
N.I.,
Shoyusupova
A.U.
Psychiatry. Textbook. - T., 2011. - P. 182.
4.
Forensic medicine and psychiatry. Two
volumes. Volume 2 Forensic psychiatry:
S.A. Giyasov, J.I. Botaev, Ch.Sh. Saidov.
Textbook. - T .: Academy of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs of the Republic of
Uzbekistan, 2011. - B. 46. Dushanov R.X.
Psychology of the offender. Study
guide. - T. : Academy of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs of the Republic of
Uzbekistan, 2011. – P. 8. Dolgova S.V.
Features of the medical criterion of
limited sanity. Bulletin of the Baltic
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 10-2021
15
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
October 21, 2021 |
Pages:
11-15
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue10-03
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
Federal University. I. Kant. Series:
Humanities and Social Sciences. - 2012.
- No. 9. - P. 85-90.
5.
Shamgunov A.N. The norm of criminal
responsibility of persons with mental
disorders that do not exclude sanity:
problems of application in judicial and
forensic psychiatric practice // Bulletin
of the Chelyabinsk State University. -
2005 .-- P. 106-109.
6.
Dolgova S.V. Features of the medical
criterion of limited sanity. Bulletin of
the Baltic Federal University. I. Kant.
Series: Humanities and Social Sciences.
- 2012. - No. 9. - S. 85-90.
