A new look at Iran's criminal law regarding the responsibility and punishment of the insane

Jurists, legal experts and psychologists disagree with defining insanity as full loss of sense and recognition. Rather, they believe that insanity is, directly or indirectly, related with mental and neurological disorders. Basically, the presence or absence of insanity in a defendant must be diagnosed proved. The exact diagnosis in this regard must be made by a qualified consultant. The judge however is not necessarily bound to respect the consultant's verdict and has the authority to decide independently. From one hand, nonetheless, judges expect the psychologists/physicians to assert their vote on the defendant's liability or innocence and from the other hand psychologists/physicians incline to leave the responsibility of judging the case to judges. The fundamental point, however, is that insanity itself is of various kinds and even some experts maintain that it has eighty kinds. Resulted from mental disorders, insanity may be permanent of recurrent. By convention, a defendant will be exonerated only if the presence of insanity during committing a crime is proved. If this is the case, the defendant is even not liable to pay the fee of carrying legal procedures. Proving the presence or absence of insanity in a defendant has been addressed in Islamic Punishment Regulations. The noteworthy point in this respect is the stipulation of detaining the defendant in the case of his/her insanity is proved to be destructive to the public order. Considering the principle of clarity in legal procedures, the present study aims to address the undue generalizations in Islamic Punishment Regulations. This necessitates a psychologically exact examination of the problem as well as providing clear and specific definitions. The study also deals with cases in which the defendant has undergone insanity after committing the crime.