EDITORIAL: Criminal responsibility

A psychiatric evaluation is planned for an unemployed man arrested after a stabbing rampage in March in Tsuchiura, Ibaraki Prefecture. He is suspected of murdering two people and injuring seven. The recent rise in heinous crimes that are difficult to fathom has resulted in more cases involving psychiatric evaluations to determine if the perpetrators can be held criminally responsible for their actions.

Against this background, the Tokyo District Court ruled Monday that Kaori Mihashi, who had been charged with murder but was declared mentally disturbed by experts, was mentally competent at the time of the crime.

The presiding judge found her guilty of murder and sentenced her to 15 years in prison.

In 2006, Mihashi killed her physically abusive husband at home and dumped his body after cutting it up. The grisly aspects of her crime became fodder for the media.

But because she was diagnosed with an acute psychotic disorder, her mental competence became the focus of the trial.

Individuals unable to tell right from wrong because of some form of mental disorder are deemed legally incompetent to be held criminally responsible. The spirit of the law is that people incapable of controlling themselves should not be punished for their actions.

It is difficult to determine if Mihashi could tell right from wrong. And it must have been a tough decision for the judge. But with the introduction of the "citizen judge" system next year, ordinary citizens may have to deal with the same legal issue.

In Mihashi's case, both the prosecution and the defense called for psychiatric evaluations of the defendant. Two experts--one for the prosecution and the other for the defense--concurred that the defendant had been "in a mentally befuddled state and was hallucinating."

But the judge based his verdict on the argument that, although the evaluations were trustworthy, it was Mihashi's own personality that led to the murder of her husband, not some imagined voice or vision in her head.

The judge also pointed out that Mihashi had tried to cover up her crime.

The results of the psychiatric examinations were nothing more than experts' opinions, the judge said, and ultimately it is the court's job to reach a verdict based on a comprehensive examination of the nature of the crime and the motive.

Some people may not want to accept a verdict if it contradicts the results of psychiatric tests. But it is also a fact that the court's decision cannot be based on the tests alone.

Apparently in preparation for the start of the citizen judge system next year, the court tried a new approach in explaining the results of the psychiatric evaluations.

In the past, experts' opinions were presented in the form of voluminous reports filled with technical jargon. This time, the experts explained their findings before the judge. And instead of being called to court separately, the experts were asked to appear together.

In a separate case, the Supreme Court ruled last week, "The opinions of psychiatric experts ought to be fully respected, unless there is cause to question their impartiality or competence."

We believe this was the top court's way of reminding the public, again ahead of the start of the citizen judge system, not to take the opinions of experts lightly. This means it will become even more necessary for citizen judges to correctly understand the experts' findings.

It is not easy to evaluate a criminal defendant's mental competence, nor to explain the findings to lay people. We hope courts around the nation will follow the example set by the Tokyo District Court and try to make it easier for ordinary citizens to understand psychiatric evaluations.

--The Asahi Shimbun, April 29(IHT/Asahi: April 30,2008)