Parçalanmış Kimlik Bozukluğunda Cezaî Sorumluluk ve Yargılama Usulünü Yönlendirmek: Bangladeş İçin Çerçeve ve Öneriler

Abstract

Parçalanmış Kimlik Bozukluğu (PKB), ceza hukukunun hem maddi hem de usul boyutunda geleneksel yargı anlayışına özgün zorluklar getirmektedir. Bangladeş’teki hukuk literatürü, bu kaygı verici konuyu ele almakta büyük ölçüde sessiz kalmış, hatta kayıtsız görünmüştür. Bu makale, Bangladeş’in mevcut ceza yasaları ile PKB hastalarının ceza sorumluluğu arasındaki boşluğu kapatmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, öncelikle PKB’nin doğasına ve içsel kişilikler arasındaki etkileşime ışık tutarak başlamaktadır. Ardından, hak–ödev temelli bir analizle bu alternatif kişiliklerin “kişilik” statüsünü ortaya koymaktadır. Bu alandaki diğer çalışmalardan farklı olarak, karşılıklı amnezik, tek yönlü amnezik ve eş-bilinçli gibi farklı PKB durumları için yeni bir ceza sorumluluğu ölçüm çerçevesi geliştirmektedir. Polis sorgusu aşaması ve uzman görüşünün delil değeri üzerine düşünerek, PKB hastalarının yargılanma usulünü 1898 Ceza Muhakemeleri Usul Kanunu (CrPC 1898) ile uyumlu şekilde önermektedir. Son olarak, bu tür davalarda reformcu teoriye dayalı en uygun sonucu vurgulamakta ve hukuki yapıda bazı değişiklikler önermektedir. Makale, mevcut boşluğu gidermek amacıyla PKB perspektifiyle bakıldığında Bangladeş hukuk sistemine dahil edilebilecek bir dizi değişiklik önerisiyle sona ermektedir.

Keywords

• PKB (Parçalanmış Kimlik Bozukluğu)
• Kontroldeki-Alter Yaklaşımı
• PKB Nedeniyle Cezai Ehliyetsizlik (NGRI-DID)
• Önleyici Ceza Teorisi
• Reformcu Ceza Teorisi

Ethical Statement

NSU Hukuk Araştırmaları Sempozyumu’nda sunulan bildiriden türetilmiştir.

Navigating Criminal Liability and Trial Procedure in Dissociative Identity Disorder: Framework and Proposals for Bangladesh

Abstract

Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) poses unique challenges to the traditional criminal jurisprudence both from the substantive and procedural dimensions. The legal literature in Bangladesh has been quite silent, if not nonchalant, in addressing this issue of concern. The paper aims at bridging the gap between the existing penal laws of Bangladesh and DID patients as far as their criminal liability is concerned. It begins with shedding light on DID and the interplay between personalities living inside. Afterwards, it establishes the personhood of alter personalities through a right-duty-based analysis. Unlike other studies on this issue, it develops a new measurement framework of criminal liability for different DID conditions like mutual amnesic, unidirectional amnesic and co-conscious. Reflecting on the police interrogation phase and the evidentiary value of expert opinion, it suggests the trial procedure of DID patients in line with the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (CrPC 1898). Finally, it highlights an optimal outcome of such cases premised on reformative theory and recommends a few amendments in the legal architecture. This paper concludes by pointing out some recommendations for amendments that, when viewed through the lens of DID, could be incorporated into our corpus juris to address the existing lacuna in this area.

Keywords

• DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder)
• Alter-in-control Approach
• NGRI-DID (Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity due to DID)
• Preventive Theory of Punishment
• Reformative Theory of Punishment

Ethical Statement

Derived from the paper presented at NSU Undergraduate Law Research Symposium Spring 2024.

References

1. Ahsan, MS et al. “Multiple Personality Disorder: A Case Report.” Bangladesh Journal of Psychiatry 20, no. 2 (2006): 96.
2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 3rd ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 1980.
3. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013.
4. Badsha Mia. “Custodial Torture: Laws and Practice in Bangladesh.” ERJSSH 2, no. 2 (2020): 232, 241.
5. Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. 1st ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1769.
6. Contract Act, 1872, s. 2.
7. Fitzgerald, Patrick John. Salmond on Jurisprudence. 12th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1966.
8. Haider (Md) Masud v. Md Golam Ambia (Harun), (2015) 67 DLR 395.

9. Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh v Bangladesh, [2019] Writ Petition No. 13989/2016 (SCB).
10. Jayakumar, N. K. Lectures in Jurisprudence. 3rd ed. Gurgaon: LexisNexis, 2015.
11. Kabene, Stefane M., Nazli Balkir Neftci, and Efthymios Papatziki. “Dissociative Identity Disorder: Guilty or Not Guilty.” Frontiers in Psychology 13 (2022).
12. Khan, Hamiduddin. An Introduction to Jurisprudence. 2nd ed. Dhaka: Ideal Library, 1973.
13. Keyes, Daniel. The Minds of Billy Milligan. 1st ed. New York: Bantam Books, 1981.
14. Modi, Jaising P. A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. 12th ed. New Delhi: LexisNexis, 1955.
15. Narayani Sepaha. “Psychiatric Expert Opinion: Admissibility and Relevancy.” Law Colloquy Journal of Legal Studies 1, no. 1 (2021). https://lawcolloquy.com/journals/psychiatric-expert-opinion-admissibility-and-relevancy-narayani.pdf. Accessed September 28, 2024.
16. Öztürk, Erdinç, and Vedat Sar. “Formation and Functions of Alter Personalities in Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Theoretical and Clinical Elaboration.” Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Psychology 6, no. 6 (2016): 385.
17. R v McNaughten [1843] RR 59, 8 ER 718 (HL).
18. Saks, Elyn R., & Stephen H. Behnke. Jekyll on Trial: Multiple Personality Disorder and Criminal Law. New York: New York University Press, 1997.
19. Saxena, Mudit, Sachin Tote, and Bhagyesh Sapkale. “Multiple Personality Disorder or Dissociative Identity Disorder: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management.” Cureus 15, no. 11 (2023).
20. State v Badger [1988] 551 A.2d 207 (Vermont Supreme Court).
21. State v Miligan (1978) No. 77-CR-11-2908 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas).
22. State v Rodrigues (1984) 67 Hawaii 70.
23. Thigpen, Corbett H., and Hervey Cleckley. “A Case of Multiple Personality.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49, no. 1 (1954): 135.
24. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, s. 108.
25. Weihofen, Henry. "Punishment and Treatment: Rehabilitation." In Theories of Punishment, edited by Stanley E. Grupp, 255. London: Indiana University Press, 1971.
26. Orndorff v Commonwealth [2010] 691 SE 2d 177 (Virginia Supreme Court).
27. (1959) AIR Mad 239.(1980) 32 DLR 182.(2004) 56 DLR 324.