Assassination in the middle of class of a teacher in Saint-Jean-de-Luz, murder of little Lola, attack on rue d'Enghien, fire on rue Erlanger... All these cases which have hit the headlines have a common point: that of having revived the debate around the psychiatric state of the defendants, likely to have altered their discernment at the time of the facts.
A state which can have major consequences on the continuation of a procedure.
Here are the different steps that lead the suspects to be accountable, or not, to justice.
Read alsoMurders, rapes, assaults: why are some suspects "interned in psychiatry"?
A medical examination in custody
When a serious crime is committed, a medical examination is systematically ordered from the start of police custody, or even a second when it is prolonged.
Objective: to know if the state of health of the defendant, on a psychiatric and psychological level, is compatible with such a measure.
For example, the doctor who examined the 16-year-old teenager suspected of having killed his Spanish teacher in Saint-Jean-Luz considered that his condition was compatible with police custody.
Conversely, the suspect's state of health may be deemed incompatible with custody.
The doctor may indeed consider that the psychiatric or psychological state of the defendant requires hospitalization under duress.
Police custody is then lifted by the prosecution and the person concerned is taken to a psychiatric hospital.
During his hospitalization, the suspect will then be the subject of a psychiatric examination ordered by the prosecution – or the investigating judge if a judicial investigation has been opened – in order to assess the judgment of the respondent.
Depending on the conclusions of this examination, the courts may order a resumption of police custody at the end of the hospitalization, or even during the latter if the state of health allows it, so that the investigators can question him.
The police custody stage does not bode well for the future
The fact that the suspect's state of health is considered compatible with police custody does not prejudge his criminal responsibility.
“In general, psychiatric experts do not agree to examine a person placed in police custody under emergency conditions, which do not allow them to carry out a real expertise, especially if the question of the abolition
of discernment arises and then requires in-depth reflection, with for example research of the medical history, the need to see the accused several times, the examination of the procedure to know as precisely as possible the circumstances in which the facts were committed, etc ... "
, explains the public prosecutor of Béziers, Raphaël Balland.
“
Given the stakes, it is better to have a real expert report than a sloppy examination whose conclusions could be imprecise or erroneous.
This is why, for my part, like many public prosecutors, I do not generally order a psychiatric examination of the defendant during police custody with the mission for the expert to decide on the discernment of the implicated
”, continues the prosecutor.
Concretely, to take the example of the teacher killed in Saint-Jean-de-Luz, the psychiatric expertise to come from the suspect could very well establish that his discernment was abolished at the time of the facts.
And this, even if his state of health was considered compatible with a placement in police custody.
Abolition or impairment of discernment
In the most serious criminal cases, the investigating judge systematically orders at least one psychiatric expertise and one psychological expertise of the accused.
In case of concern about the discernment of the accused, the judge quickly orders a psychiatric expertise in order to stay as close as possible to the commission of the facts.
When the question of the abolition or significant alteration of discernment arises, the investigating judge may order that the psychiatric expertise be entrusted to a college of psychiatric experts.
If a first psychiatric expertise concludes that discernment has been abolished - this would then lead to the criminal irresponsibility of the defendant -, the judge generally orders a counter-expertise.
A third expertise may even be requested in the event of discrepancies between the first two.
There are criminal immunity proceedings before the criminal court and the assize court.
A defendant can be declared guilty while being recognized as criminally irresponsible.
In 2019, 58 authors thus benefited from a dismissal for the abolition of discernment linked to mental or psychological disorders, according to figures from the Ministry of Justice provided to
Figaro .
.
This figure rose to 80 in 2018. Recent example: Sultan Niazi, author in 2019 of a bloody attack in Villeurbanne which left one dead and thirteen injured, was deemed criminally irresponsible.
Individuals not accessible to a criminal sanction are nevertheless not freed.
They can be hospitalized for several years, or even all their lives for some, in units for difficult patients (UMD).
It all depends on their pathology and the nature of the acts committed.
If the judgment of the suspect is only altered, the latter will on the other hand be judged but with extenuating circumstances.
“The person affected, at the time of the facts, by a psychic or neuropsychic disorder having altered his discernment or hindered the control of his actions remains punishable”
, indicates article 122-1 of the Penal Code.
“
However, the court takes this circumstance into account when it determines the sentence and sets the rules.
If a custodial sentence is incurred, it is reduced by a third or, in the event of a crime punishable by criminal imprisonment or life imprisonment, is reduced to 30 years, ”continues the text
.