Justice. Murder in a mosque: criminal irresponsibility, abolition of discernment... What does the law say?

"Upon examination, he attributes all of the acts committed to the influence of the voices: the preparations, the videos, the threatening words, the escape to Italy. The voices would have chosen the victim."

In his report, submitted at the end of June, the professional responsible for the psychiatric examination of Olivier A. , ​​who killed Aboubakar Cissé in a mosque on April 25 in La Grand-Combe (Gard), diagnosed a "chronic psychotic disorder with early onset of the schizophrenic type", which was the cause of his actions.

In conclusion, the psychiatrist concluded that Olivier A.'s judgment was impaired at the time of the crime and that he should therefore not be held criminally responsible for the acts. The man, imprisoned on May 9, has since been transferred to a specialized psychiatric unit.

^Mr. Yassine Bouzrou, the lawyer for the victim's cousin, expressed outrage at this report "based solely on the perpetrator's statements." He said he feared a "judicial disaster." A second expert assessment has been ordered, the Nimes prosecutor said Thursday.

The issue of abolishing the right to discernment in criminal cases regularly comes up in public debate. But what exactly are we talking about?

In French law, various causes may lead to criminal irresponsibility. On the one hand, there are so-called "objective" causes, such as self-defense, a state of necessity, an order given by a legitimate authority, an order by law, and the whistleblower's own justification. Then there are "subjective" causes, including minority, mistake as to the law, duress, and... a lack of discernment resulting from a mental disorder.

Indeed, Article 122-1 of the Criminal Code stipulates that "a person who, at the time of the events, was suffering from a mental or neuropsychiatric disorder that had abolished their discernment or control over their actions is not criminally liable." Proof of the abolition of discernment generally results from medical, psychological or psychiatric assessments.

"It's a fundamental principle of law," explains Jean-Yves Maréchal, professor of criminal law at the University of Lille 2, who also notes the incomprehension that this arouses in the public debate.

"There is a growing intolerance towards the acts committed by people with mental illness, but it goes without saying that there is no conceivable judgment without discernment of the perpetrator," he analyses. The lawyer also warns against the desire of some to call this principle into question .

When criminal irresponsibility is definitively established, the relevant court pronounces a dismissal, an acquittal or a discharge, depending on the stage of the legal proceedings. If the individual presents a danger to society, an internment measure may be ordered. This is often the scenario that is denounced, some regretting that a person guilty of a crime receives "only" a health measure, and others because it can represent additional violence for the victim's loved ones.

"As little as it may be to say, we must not forget that a criminal trial is not there to satisfy the victims, although that is partly done, but to satisfy the general interest," explains Jean-Yves Maréchal.

A few years ago, the Sarah Halimi case, named after the sixty-year-old Jewish woman killed in 2017 by her neighbor, whose criminal irresponsibility was confirmed by the Court of Cassation , sparked a major controversy . At the heart of the controversy: the exception to the rule of the abolition of discernment.

Indeed, an individual becomes criminally liable if he or she has "consumed psychoactive substances with the intention of committing the offense or an offense of a similar nature or of facilitating its commission" (Article 122-1-1 of the Criminal Code). However, Sarah Halimi's murderer, Kobili Traoré, had voluntarily consumed cannabis before committing the act, a substance that was the cause of his "acute delusional episode."

On June 11, 2018, the psychiatric expert report concluded that Kobili Traoré was not criminally responsible, because the THC levels found in his blood were low, that his delusions had continued well after the end of the intoxication and that, "above all, believing he would find relief in smoking, as he had done regularly since the age of 15, he undoubtedly precipitated the development of a disorder of which cannabis was, in our opinion, only a co-factor and not the cause," as one of the psychiatrists explained to the weekly magazine Marianne .

Furthermore, it was admitted that the accused could not have foreseen that cannabis use would cause him to become delusional. Since his arrest, the murderer has been involuntarily hospitalized.