Many questions arise about expertise
“We wondered about your expertise…” begins the president of the court. The psychiatrist had to decide on two points. One: was the defendant, at the time of the facts, suffering from a mental disorder which abolished or seriously impaired his capacity for discernment or control of his actions? Two: is he still in this state today and, if so, does he constitute a danger to society?
The answers will weigh on the future of the accused. If he was seriously disturbed at the time of the rape and is still in that state now, he should be committed. On the other hand, if he regains his senses at the time of judgment, he must be acquitted, under article 71 of the Penal Code.
Sketch of justice: “Every day, morning, noon, evening, he threatened me”
It would not constitute a particular social danger
In a first report, the expert judged that Moussa’s mental disorder had abolished his judgment at the time of the rape and that his condition had not improved. The doctor then changed his mind. In a new version, he considers that his capacity for discernment was “seriously impaired” (plus “abolished”) when he took action, but that would no longer be the case today. In conclusion, he considers that Moussa does not constitute a particular social danger if he follows his medication.
Why this change of heart? “My first impression is that he was quite disturbed at the time of the incident. I saw him again. During the second interview, he was still very coherent in the way he told his story.” said the doctor. During this second appointment, the inmate was under treatment prescribed by the prison psychiatrist. “Antipsychotics help a lot in some patients. This type of medication suppresses the symptoms.”
Sketches of justice: pigeon droppings as funny evidence of drug trafficking
“I don’t think he’s schizophrenic.”
At this moment, Moussa enters the room, surrounded by police officers. The handcuffs are removed. He has a fixed gaze, slow gestures.
The president resumes: but how can the possible positive evolution of the state of the accused modify the assessment of his disorder at the time of the facts? Why does the doctor retrospectively make an initial diagnosis of less seriousness? The expert responds without answering. “He is clearly psychotic but I don’t believe he is schizophrenic. At the time of the rape, he just didn’t take the other person into account, which is one of the characteristics of psychotics.” He adds: “I have more hope that he will be able to regain the ability to live outside, but with psychiatric care.”
It’s not the first time
The judge turns to the defendant. “This must all be a bit difficult for you…” Moussa speaks. “There is a doctor who follows me, in Brugmann. He knows a lot about me. He told me: you have an illness, schizophrenia. He stumbles over the word. The president interrupts gently. Does he remember the sexual assault of a young woman in the psychiatric hospital? “I remember it”he replies. Why did he do that? “I can’t tell you. It was the illness. I went there urgently.”
It wasn’t the first time, he adds. Moussa has indeed had a series of hospitalizations in psychiatry. But when he goes out, he stops taking his medication which prevents him from sleeping. The rest of his words are lost in the limbo of the intelligible. The defendant today says he feels “Alright”. “In prison, I take medication. They help me a lot.” He specifically cites a molecule used in the treatment of schizophrenia.
Sketch of justice: an unfriendly truck driver beats up a driver who was driving too slowly for his liking
The prosecutor calls for internment
Unsurprisingly, the King’s prosecutor asks the judges to order the internment of the accused. Psychosis or schizophrenia, there is a permanence of the mental disorder, he justifies. When he is hospitalized, the drugs inhibit his impulses, but when he is discharged, he does not have the will or the strength to continue his treatment, which poses a danger to society.
Moussa’s lawyer loudly regrets the lack of clarity in the expert psychiatrist’s explanations – the latter left the room. “I still do not understand how, a posteriori, it goes from an abolition of the capacity for discernment at the time of the facts to a serious alteration.” We must therefore choose the most favorable situation for the accused – abolition –, which allows the application of article 71 and therefore an acquittal.
Sketch of justice: when a defendant is absent, his judicial past speaks for him
“It’s true that he annoys me…”
In the alternative, the lawyer asks to dismiss the expert report, which does not meet the conditions of the law on internment: Moussa was not allowed to be assisted during the interviews with the psychiatrist.
We cannot, at the same time, take into account a report in one case and say that it is not valid in the other, objects the president. Moussa’s lawyer explodes: “This expert psychiatrist, who is supposed to enlighten us, is a charlatan! Put yourself in the defendant’s place: would you like the judge to take into account a report whose author fails to explain certain points?”
The president asks the defense to remain calm. “It’s true that he annoys me. But it’s extremely serious that we continue to designate him and that the lives of some people depend on this character,” retorts the lawyer.
