Full exemption from mental disturbance and security measures
The Criminal Court imposes the security measure of internment in a psychiatric center on the unimputable defendant.
As there is no contradiction as to the reality of the facts for which the accusation was made, having been recognized by the defendant in the act of trial, a contradiction was raised regarding the affectation of their intellective and volitional faculties to such a degree that they would allow them to appreciate or otherwise not, the complete defense of art. 20. 1 of the Penal Code.
The expert reports were fully consistent in their conclusions, in the sense that the accused has annulled his intellective and volitional faculties in relation to the delusional core he suffers from. Even though the defendant can understand the criminal consequences of committing an offense, the truth is that he has an alternative reality in which he understands that his actions are correct, acting imbued with his delirium and from the normal rational understanding that delirium is a false belief, for the accused-sick it is his reality, not being aware of his delirium.
Once the incidence of the anomaly or psychic alteration in criminal responsibility has been analyzed through the application of the complete defense of art. 20.1 of the CP, when he was declared inimputable and, therefore, acquitted of the crimes for which he had been accused, the penal reaction has been the imposition of a security measure of those provided for in arts. 101 and 105 and following of the same legal text.
Security measures constitute the criminal response for the treatment of cases of non-imputability or semi-imputability for the fulfillment of special preventive purposes through measures of a therapeutic, educational or care nature. There are two assumptions necessary for a security measure to be applied: one of an objective nature, which is the existence of criminal danger, and another of a subjective nature, linked to the fact that not every supposedly dangerous person, but only found in the cases provided for in arts. 101 to 104 of the Penal Code, may be subjected to security measures. From another point of view, there are also two assumptions: one, the commission of a criminal act by a person; two, the dangerousness, that is, the probability that he will commit other criminal acts in the future. And it is that the security measures are “based on the criminal dangerousness of the subject to whom they are imposed, externalized in the commission of an act foreseen as a crime” (art. 6.1 CP), mere social dangerousness not being sufficient.</p >
Regarding the purposes and function of the measure to be adopted, one must consider, on the one hand, the protection of the defendant himself, who through the corresponding medical-therapeutic treatment can control the impulses of his mental illness and end up leading a normal life, an objective of social rehabilitation that will also end up having repercussions for the benefit of the community. And society is also protected with the measure, safeguarding it from the risks generated by a person who has already proven a dangerousness objectified in the prosecuted act, avoiding the reiteration of such acts in the future.
In the case examined in view of the delusional disorder suffered by the defendant, the security measure consisting of internment in a psychiatric center for a period of two years has been imposed on him, considering the measure appropriate to your circumstances.