Abstract
Legal Insanity is not a legal loophole is a stand established in this research. The significance of the research is to understand the intersection between mental health and the legal system. This research also sheds light on the importance of fair and just legal processes that take into account the nuances of mental health, rather than viewing insanity as a way to exploit legal loopholes. It also underlines the types of insanity and the differences between medical and legal insanity which brings a vast change in the trial proceedings. The main arguments which are premiered in this research are legal insanity requires strong and substantial evidence to prove the accused is insane during the crime, the accused is focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment, and the legal standards towards the defence of insanity are challenging. The methods used in this research are mainly case laws, the Penal Code, and observational. The research has a strong foundation due to the solid precedents set in this case. After the analysis of the research, it is known that the defence of insanity is secured within the legal framework and the accused are challenged at most to prevent them from faking or exaggerating their mental illness. It is also proven that Malaysia incorporates good strategies to keep up with the enforcement of the law in the defence of insanity.
Vidhyasri A/P Santhiran, Universiti Utara Malaysia
Commentaires