「白癡」的法律上定義

依據印度最高法院2008年8 月31月之見解，所謂的「白癡」是指遲鈍的數數都數不到二十，無法說出週一到週日的名稱，甚或記不得父母的姓名，因此在這種情況下，只有四種人可以被認定是白癡，即傻瓜、瘋子、重病昏迷和酒醉者。

資料來源如下：

===============================

http://news.sina.com.tw/article/20080831/773508.html

（中央社記者郭傳信新德里2008年八月三十一日專電）

什麼人才算白癡 印度最高法院下定義

據印度最高法院今天表示，白癡是一個常被誤用的名詞，也是一個過於簡化的稱號，因為法定承認的白癡，是指遲鈍的數數都數不到二十，無法說出週一到週日的名稱，甚或記不得父母的姓名，因此在這種情況下，只有四種人可以被認定是白癡，即傻瓜、瘋子、重病昏迷和酒醉者。

　　最高法院所以做出這項解釋，主要針對法庭常見犯罪者為自己辯護的「白癡」說詞。根據印度刑法第八十四條，犯罪者如果思想謬誤紊亂以及無法理解犯罪本質者，法庭得酌情免予起訴或判刑。

　　但如果根據最高法院的最新定義，除上述四種人之外，可能沒有其他任何人可以獲得「白癡」的免刑待遇。

據最高法院合議庭兩位法官帕薩亞和夏瑪進一步表示，真正所謂白癡者，是指與生俱來的記憶失常者，是一種永久缺陷，從無清醒的時候。

不久前，印度中部馬德雅省一名被告殺死自己的老岳父，卻向法院辯稱自己罹患癡呆症，對犯罪事實一無所知，並安排「目擊者」證實自己精神錯亂。但法庭以被告未能提出有效醫療記錄，依然以謀殺罪起訴。

　　除未能提出「白癡」病歷證明之外，被告另一理由是辯稱在「毫無犯罪動機」情況下殺人。但法庭解釋說，即使被告是在「出於盛怒、情緒失控、妄想或短暫精神失常」情況下犯罪，也不能符合刑法第八十四條的「白癡」免責條件。
=====================================

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Supreme_Court_defines_whos_an_idiot/articleshow/3426579.cms Supreme Court defines who's an idiot 31 Aug 2008, 0128 hrs IST, Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN NEW DELHI: 'Idiot' is a grossly misused word and an oversimplified epithet, if one goes by the Supreme Court's brand new definition of the term. It is almost impossible for a person to qualify as an idiot, says the Court and therefore, few can expect to get a reprieve for an offence. To be legally accepted as an 'idiot', one has to be so dumb as to be unable to count till 20, list the days of the week, or fail to remember the names of one's parents, the Court said on Friday. Under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, a person is not liable to be prosecuted if they are of unsound mind, or incapable of comprehending the nature of the criminal act and the fact that it is against the law. The Supreme Court identified just four kinds of people who could be classified mentally unsound — idiots, the very ill, lunatics and drunks. "An idiot is one who is of non-sane memory from his birth, by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals: and those are said to be idiots who cannot count 20, or tell the days of the week or who do not know their fathers or mothers or the like," said the judgement by Justices Arijit Pasayat and M K Sharma. They added that it was for the accused to prove they were idiots or otherwise of unsound mind. The court was dealing with a case from Madhya Pradesh where Hari Singh Gond murdered his grandfather-in-law and then claimed innocence on the grounds of idiocy. The Bench affirmed the lower court orders convicting Gond for the murder. If the investigating agency came across a history of insanity, it was duty-bound to subject the accused to a medical examination, the judges said. If a medical examination is not done "the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused", the judges said. The MP trial court had refused to accept the accused was mentally unsound even though eyewitnesses reported he behaved in an unusual fashion at the time. Friday's judgement differentiated between a defendant of unsound mind and mere absence of motive. "Mere absence of motive for a crime cannot, in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within Section 84," it said. "Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84," the SC added, affirming the earlier court orders convicting Gond for the murder.