Volume 19, Issue 60 (4-2025)
MLJ 2025, 19(60): 490-508 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rezaei M. Criminal Insanity: Its Scope, Custody and Treatment in the Penal Systems of Iran and England. MLJ 2025; 19 (60) :490-508
URL: http://ijmedicallaw.ir/article-1-1685-en.html
URL: http://ijmedicallaw.ir/article-1-1685-en.html
Department of Law, Ard. C., Islamic Azad University, Ardabil, Iran
Abstract:
Background and Aim: The defense of insanity is one of the topics of criminal law. This article was written with the aim of investigating the scope of insanity and the reaction of the criminal justice system of Iran and England from the point of view of custody and treatment insane criminals.
Method: The method of this research is descriptive-analytical and content analysis method was also used in data analysis.
Ethical Considerations: In all stages of writing the present research, while respecting the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness was observed.
Results: The survey indicated that, although insanity is recognized as a defense in both legal systems and measures to protect society through the custody and treatment of mentally disordered offenders have been implemented, significant differences exist regarding the conceptual scope of insanity, the criteria for establishing insanity, the procedures for its assessment, and the duration of custody or treatment of such offenders. In Iran's criminal justice system, the custody or treatment of insane requires verification that the offender poses a danger. In contrast, in the Englan’s criminal justice system, such verification is not necessary, and merely establishing insanity is generally presumed to indicate dangerousness. Unlike the Iranian criminal justice system, under English law, an offender may not meet the formal legal definition of insanity but may still present a dangerous mental condition, which can justify the issuance of a hospitalization order in a psychiatric facility. Furthermore, unlike the Iranian system, which does not consider the type of crime committed, in England hospitalization order in a psychiatric facility is applied only when the primary sentence for the offense is imprisonment. Finally, the procedures and criteria for the release or discharge of mentally disordered offenders differ between the two systems.
Conclusion: Community protection can be achieved more effectively by broadening the conceptual scope of insanity and removing the requirement to establish the dangerousness of the offender. This approach safeguards the rights of mentally disordered offenders by protecting them from criminal punishment. Considering the type of offense can further enhance the effectiveness of their custody and treatment.
Please cite this article as:
Rezaei M. Criminal Insanity: Its Scope, Custody and Treatment in the Penal Systems of Iran and England. Medical Law Journal. 2025; 19: e32.
Method: The method of this research is descriptive-analytical and content analysis method was also used in data analysis.
Ethical Considerations: In all stages of writing the present research, while respecting the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness was observed.
Results: The survey indicated that, although insanity is recognized as a defense in both legal systems and measures to protect society through the custody and treatment of mentally disordered offenders have been implemented, significant differences exist regarding the conceptual scope of insanity, the criteria for establishing insanity, the procedures for its assessment, and the duration of custody or treatment of such offenders. In Iran's criminal justice system, the custody or treatment of insane requires verification that the offender poses a danger. In contrast, in the Englan’s criminal justice system, such verification is not necessary, and merely establishing insanity is generally presumed to indicate dangerousness. Unlike the Iranian criminal justice system, under English law, an offender may not meet the formal legal definition of insanity but may still present a dangerous mental condition, which can justify the issuance of a hospitalization order in a psychiatric facility. Furthermore, unlike the Iranian system, which does not consider the type of crime committed, in England hospitalization order in a psychiatric facility is applied only when the primary sentence for the offense is imprisonment. Finally, the procedures and criteria for the release or discharge of mentally disordered offenders differ between the two systems.
Conclusion: Community protection can be achieved more effectively by broadening the conceptual scope of insanity and removing the requirement to establish the dangerousness of the offender. This approach safeguards the rights of mentally disordered offenders by protecting them from criminal punishment. Considering the type of offense can further enhance the effectiveness of their custody and treatment.
Please cite this article as:
Rezaei M. Criminal Insanity: Its Scope, Custody and Treatment in the Penal Systems of Iran and England. Medical Law Journal. 2025; 19: e32.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Received: 2023/07/28 | Accepted: 2025/03/7
Received: 2023/07/28 | Accepted: 2025/03/7
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
