including his history of child abuse, severe mental impairments, service to
his country and successful adjustment to life in prison.
61. According to the Applicant, the mandatory death penalty prevented the
sentencing court from considering the mitigating effect of his mental
impairments while he suffered from debilitating post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury. He contends that, while his
mental disabilities reduce his moral culpability and disqualify him from the
death penalty, the Respondent State’s law is indifferent to his psychological
disorder so long as he is deemed sane and fit to stand trial. The Applicant
also submits that he has a long history of substance abuse namely, of
alcohol and marijuana, which helped him cope with successive traumatic
experiences. He submits that the sentencing court ignored the fact that he
committed the offence when he was in a state of insanity as he had drunk
hard liquor and smoked ‘bhang’ which affected his control.
62. The Applicant further avers that the evaluation of his state of health was
conducted three (3) and a half years after the offence had been committed
and was limited to a bare assessment of whether he met the legal threshold
for sanity and fitness to stand trial. It is the contention of the Applicant that
the medical report obtained by the sentencing court to evaluate his mental
health fell short of best practices for psychiatric evaluations because it was
incomplete and superficial. According to the Applicant, such deficiencies do
not necessarily warrant exemption from criminal sanctions but diminish
personal culpability given that the offender’s capacity to understand and
process information, to communicate and control impulses diminishes. The
Applicant submits that as a person with multiple and severe mental
disorders, he is exempted from the application of the death penalty.
***
63. The Respondent State rebuts the Applicant’s allegations and submits that
as clearly stated under Sections 14(2) and 14(2)(b) of the Penal Code,
intoxication can only be a defense to a criminal charge if by reason thereof
16