Background: Will Farhan stand trial?

Two provisions for canceling the trial of a criminal defendant for mental reasons exist.

May 26, 2009 23:45
1 minute read.
Yihya Farhan (left) taken to court

Yihye Farhan 248.88. (photo credit: Dror Artzi / JINI)


Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief

UPGRADE YOUR JPOST EXPERIENCE FOR 5$ PER MONTH Show me later Don't show it again

According to veteran criminal lawyer Dror Arad-Ayalon, there are two provisions for canceling the trial of a criminal defendant for mental reasons. According to the first, the court may decide that a defendant is incompetent to stand trial because at the moment of the trial, he is in such a poor mental state that he cannot understand the judicial process and therefore cannot contribute to it. This state of mind does not have to do with the defendant's mental condition at the time of the crime of which he is accused. The other provision has to do with the mental state of the defendant at the time he allegedly committed the crimes. In this case, the criterion is that the defendant was unable to differentiate between right and wrong regarding his actions. The longer the gap in time between the alleged crime and the trial, the more difficult it will be to determine what the defendant's state of mind was at the time of the crime. According to Arad-Ayalon, however, even if the court rules that the defendant was not insane (in the legal sense defined above), it is empowered to send him to prison for less than the customary life sentence prescribed by law if it decides that his emotional state at the time was a contributing factor in the crime. Generally speaking, it is the defendant's lawyer that raises the argument of mental incompetence or insanity. If he does, he will try to prove it by presenting the court with an affidavit from a psychiatrist backing the claim. In that case, the prosecution will also bring its own psychiatric opinion to counter the defense. In the end, it is the court that decides whether the defendant is capable of standing trial and whether he was insane at the time of the alleged crime.

Related Content

Jisr az-Zarq
April 3, 2014
Residents of Jisr az-Zarqa beckon Israel Trail hikers to enjoy their town