According to Art. 31 of the Criminal Code, a person who, due to a mental illness, mental retardation or other disturbance of mental functions, was unable to recognize its significance during the act or direct its conduct – does not commit a crime. In practice, this means that, for example, a person who committed a prohibited act under the influence of a mental illness should not be convicted for it.
Moreover, in the next paragraph of this provision, the code indicates that not only people who do not fully recognize the meaning of the act are to be treated more leniently, but also those whose ability to recognize the meaning of the act or direct the proceedings was significantly limited at the time when the crime was committed. In such a situation, the court may apply extraordinary leniency.
In the judgment of January 24, 2019, file ref. IV KK 459/17 The Supreme Court spoke about yet another situation. It stated that a reduction in sanity – even to an insignificant degree – may be important in determining the sentence. The court emphasized that the issue of accountability is of primary importance in determining the perpetrator’s guilt, however, even in the absence of the premises referred to in Art. 31 of the CC, even a slight limitation of sanity may result in a lower degree of guilt and punishment.
KS
