I

n the past couple of weeks, a new type of hoax has sprung up. People with mental illness have been accused of being remnants of the outlawed Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) who would attack religious leaders. Investigations are ongoing into whether and why people with real mental illness are being manipulated, possibly for political games. Such hoaxes have triggered persecution and attacks on people with mental problems in Cileungsi, West Java and in Pandeglang, Banten.

Similar violence occurred last year when hoaxes claiming that child kidnappers disguised themselves as people with mental illness circulated on Facebook and WhatsApp groups. As a result, at least 14 people with mental illness were interrogated, detained and beaten up.

People with mental illness, especially those living on the streets, are particularly prone to this violence. Some suffer from psychosis, which limits their ability to perceive reality and communicate with other people, making them unable to defend themselves. Without family, friends and even identity cards, they are mostly without support.

Such violence against them reveals our incomplete understanding of mental illness. The hoaxes are often guided by myths and prejudice, not only about mental illness itself, but also about the consequences of mental illness on other aspects of our life. One aspect that is clearly misconstrued is how criminal law treats people with mental illness.

In one of the videos of people targeting suspected attackers of religious leaders, one person in the crowd accuses the victim of falsifying his unsound mind. This same theme of suspects pretending to be mad is found in the titles of the videos and social media posts.

This accusation comes from the assumption that people with mental illness cannot be held responsible for their acts, including the most heinous crimes. This is a false belief.

Article 44 of the Criminal Code states: “People who cannot be held responsible for their actions because of the defective development or sickly disorder of their mental capacities shall not be sentenced.” This provision is followed by another article, which states that the judge may send the suspect to receive treatment at a mental health hospital.

Yet people with mental illness are not necessarily immune to conviction; the court must prove whether their illness influences their understanding of the nature of their act, thereby contributing to their decision to commit a crime.

This examination is challenging and extensive. Not only does a psychiatrist need to diagnose the suspect’s mental state, law enforcement agencies also must determine whether the crime committed is a result of the suspect’s impaired decision-making ability.

For example, in 2017, judges acquitted a psychotic man who damaged several cemeteries in Barabai, South Kalimantan. The expert told the court the perpetrator had already been in a psychotic state of mind for one year. However, in the same year, judges in Blangkejeren, Aceh, sentenced a man to seven months imprisonment for possession of illegal drugs although he had already been diagnosed with depression prior to the misconduct.

Those cases show that people with mental illness are handled in various ways in the criminal justice system.

Sadly, law enforcers have repeatedly made statements that fail to thoroughly explain this complicated process. Police officers, for example, say they cannot pursue a case once a suspect is declared mentally ill.

The police should indeed stop investigations into people revealed to have a mental illness, as detention would not improve their mental health. However, this decision should be taken only after considering all aspects, including how their mental illness affects their ability to commit crimes, whether the suspects could withstand interrogations and trials and how the police could uphold justice.

During the legal process, suspects should have their specific rights, such as access to medicine, access to lawyers experienced in assisting people with mental illness, and access to translators.

Since law enforcers are often a main source for the media, they play a pivotal role in fighting society’s misperception of people with mental illness. Rather than implying that mentally ill people are immune to prosecution, they should instead explain the various types of mental illness and what impact it has on the case.

The Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities, which Indonesia has ratified, mandates signatories to ensure access to justice for people with disabilities on an equal basis with others. The convention further says the states should facilitate the role of people with disabilities as witnesses.

For people with mental illness, particularly those with psychosis, this right is often denied. Their testimony is generally considered unreliable.

The discrimination also appears in the media. Almost all reports on people with mental illness who fall victim to persecution and violence do not include the testimony of the victims themselves, which is important to ensure the media covers all sides.

This bias is a result of the perception of people with mental illness as “insane people”, perpetuated by news outlets. It is alarming how one adjective can cancel out all the truth contained in the thought, writing and speech produced by people with mental illness.

It is indeed challenging to search for the meaning inside the mind of people with psychosis. But it is not impossible. With the right treatment, people with serious mental illness, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression, could convey their thoughts accurately.

Journalists could also interview the victims together with their “interpreters”, such as their caregivers or psychiatrists who know their mental condition better.

In a domestic violence case in Kuningan, West Java in 2016, for example, the victim, who had depression, was allowed to testify in court. She said her husband had verbally abused and abandoned her. As a result, she suffered from moderate depression and had to be hospitalized for two months.

Based on her testimony, which was supported by other witnesses, the judges concluded that the act of violence perpetrated by the husband was the source of the victim’s mental illness and therefore sentenced him to prison.

The legal system set a ground rule on how to question people with mental illness, who can communicate like normal people. We just need more patience in listening, understanding and keeping in mind their mental state of mind. Their statements could contain more truth than the hoaxes “normal” people spread.
_______________________________

The writer is a researcher at LBH Masyarakat legal aid institute, Jakarta.