A Country Where Lunatics Are Prosecuted

A man was recently sentenced to 10 years in prison custody for attempted assassination of the president. According to the story, the man (who was showing signs of mental illness) was found in a church where the president regularly congregates. The president was not in church that particular day but the man was alleged to have entered the church with a weapon concealed in his pants (underwear) and comfortably sat as a congregant.

During the sermon he was reportedly acting suspicious so the presidential guards arrested him and he was subsequently arraigned and sentenced within 48 hours. Now the question is what kind of assassin will attend church, with the intention of killing the president, have his (undisclosed) weapon concealed in his pants and continue behaving suspiciously. The inability of the police to disclose the weapon he was carrying made many people conclude that they are making a big case out of slight evidence or none.

As a result of pressure from civil society and the general public, a recent medical test was conducted and it confirmed that the man indeed was clinically insane and so many people hope that he will be released and placed on medication. But we are told there will be a retrial. We don’t want Ghana to be the first to prosecute lunatics. The law on the legal process is very clear – that for an accused to be arraigned before court, proven guilty and sentenced, he must be of a sound mind. Here is a man who is not of a sound mind yet is being prosecuted. Ghana is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 in Paris, which includes the rights of the mentally-handicapped.

5 thoughts on “A Country Where Lunatics Are Prosecuted

  1. The U.S. does the same (prosecutes the mentally ill). Some states also execute the mentally handicap (IQ at or below 70), even though the practice has been declared unconstitutional. The states (Georgia and Texas come to mind) decided that it was the responsibility of the condemned to prove his or her handicap “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a nearly impossible standard. Such a sad state of affairs. We have had several folks in recent years who have received life sentences for threatening the life of the President without ever having been near him. Yet, we are supposed to be a shining example of human rights.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Really…even in the US? What kind of lunatic goes about proving his lunacy “beyond a reasonable doubt” to a court. And what we call intelligence or high IQ is arguable, so I find it very funny when people claim they can measure IQ…based on what?

      ….Hypothetical situations are completely different from real life situations. Do the authorities even differentiate between “retardation” and “emotional disturbances?”

      International human rights organizations must put pressure on governments to end this abuse.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Gen, I was about to say the same thing and you got to it before me. The U.S. sadly does the same thing. Of course, the people who do the arresting and convicting assure us that it’s for another reason, not because the person is mentally unstable or because the person has low intelligence. So they say the right thing, but then go ahead and arrest the mentally ill person anyway.

      Liked by 2 people

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s