Criminal Liability Policy Of Persons With Mental Disorders In Case Spreading Racial Issues

Abstract


A. Introduction
Indonesia is a state of law and a country that adheres to a democratic system. This means that the Indonesian state is in the corridor and has freedom of opinion, expression, and creativity as long as it is based on the laws in force in Indonesia. Freedom of expression in public is guaranteed by Article 28E of the 1945 Constitution. 1 Today's society is surrounded by technology and is required to be 'literate' or understand technology and its components, such as social media. Even today, there are still many parties who use internet social media as a means of inappropriate and rude communication, and there are still many cases of internet-based social media crimes.
In the Information and Electronic Transactions (ITE) law, it is explained that fake news aims to deceive, create feelings of hatred or hostility towards certain individuals and/or community groups based on ethnicity, religion, race and inter-group (SARA). Broadcasting of fake news is a form of news fabrication. Only those who don't use common sense have the audacity to broadcast fake news. Broadcasting fake news will be more dangerous to public opinion if it is relayed or quoted by other media 2 A person can be sentenced if the person is aware or at least there is a possibility of knowing that there is a prohibition. The person must also be proven capable of being held liable under criminal law. The ability to take responsibility is an important basis for the element of error. A crime can be removed if there is a causal relationship between the act committed by the maker and the growth disability or mental illness suffered by him. The causal relationship with mental illness still causes many problems because there are various types and characteristics of mental illness contained in psychiatry books. 3 Mental disorders or known as psychiatric disorders are the result of several or a group of symptoms that arise in human psychology. This disorder is not something that the patient wants and is an obstacle to daily activities so that it can reduce the level of well-being of the patient's life. 4 The Criminal Code states that a person loses control of his soul because his soul is physically disabled or disturbed by a disease that changes his mind. Van Hamel states that criminal responsibility is a normal condition and psychological maturity that brings three kinds of abilities to understand the consequences of their own actions, realize that their actions are not justified or prohibited by society and determine their ability to act. 5 Wahjadi Darmabrata said that if the perpetrator of the crime suffered from a mental disorder, he was acquitted of prosecution. The fact that a person with a mental disorder can be convicted for committing a criminal act can be found in the laws and regulations governing this matter, Article 44 of the Criminal Code states that a person cannot be punished because his actions cannot be accounted for, this is due to his lack of perfect intellect (idiot, imbicil, deafblind, mute), mental illness (crazy, hysterical, epilepsy, melancholia, schizophrenia, psychosis), and depression 6 .
According to R. Soesilo, in Article 44 of the Criminal Code as the reason why the defendant cannot be sentenced because his actions cannot be accounted for to him because: 1. Less than perfect intellect, what is meant by the word reason is the power of the mind, the power of the mind, the intelligence of the mind which in Dutch is verstandelijke vermogens. Or geest vermogens means the power or power of the soul. for example idiot, imbicil, deafblind and mute are born. Such people are not actually sick, but because the defects are starting to emerge, so that their minds remain as children. 2. It hurts to change your mind, ziekelijke storing der verstandelijke vermogens. In this sense, for example: madness, manie, hysteria, epilepsy, melancholie, and various other mental illnesses. 7 The electronic system is used to explain the existence of an information system which is the application of information technology based on telecommunications networks and electronic media, which functions to design, analyze, display and transmit or disseminate electronic information. 8 In this case, Article 42 of the Draft Criminal Code also states that perpetrators suffering from mental illness can be prosecuted for reduction or be subject to action, for example, such as being admitted to a Mental Hospital but in this case they are given sanctions in the form of deprivation of independence with imprisonment. Whereas perpetrators like this should be treated or guaranteed that people with severe mental disorders are properly nurtured.
According to S.R. Sianturi, S.H., deprivation of liberty is the removal or limitation of a person's freedom of freedom to move from one place to another other than his choice. 9 Criminal liability imposes penalties on the maker for actions that violate the prohibition or cause prohibited conditions. The handling of a suspect with a normal soul is not much different from a suspect with a mental disorder or a suspect with abnormal behavior. Investigators asked for the help of a psychiatrist at the local mental hospital to conduct psychiatric observations of the suspect 10 .
On the principle of criminal law, there is a principle that we know as the principle of legality 11 . The principle of legality requires that an act cannot be punished unless it is based on the provisions of the criminal law in force before the act occurred. But unfortunately not all law enforcers comply with the law and norms and do not use the law as a source of law. An example of a case that has attracted the author's attention is the implementation in Article 44 of the Criminal Code, namely the case regarding a woman who is a perpetrator of a criminal act of spreading racial issues on social media who suffers from mental illness psychosis who is threatened with criminality in Article 28 paragraph (2) in conjunction with Article 45A paragraph (2) of the Law. Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions and sentenced to imprisonment for 5 months.
Based on the facts in the trial and the observation process by expert doctors from the Suharto Herdijan Grogol Mental Hospital, West Jakarta, it was stated that it was true that the suspect had a severe mental disorder and could not distinguish illusion from reality, aka psychosis. Psychosis is a mental disorder characterized by an impaired ability to cope with reality. Psychosis is caused by a brain disorder that affects the way the brain processes information.
Meanwhile, we know that if the perpetrators of criminal acts who suffer from mental illness are put in prison, it is wrong and useless, because it can be seen that if ordinary people who do not have mental illnesses are put in prison, they can even experience unstable mental illness. Therefore, we can see the incompatibility of the provisions of Article 44 of the Criminal Code with the implementation by law enforcement in this case. Therefore, the authors are interested in examining the judge's decision study of Decision No. 8/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Srg). in more depth by analyzing it in the form of a research entitled: "Criminal Liability Policy Of Persons With Mental Disorders In Case Spreading Racial Issues" Research method is normative legal uses a case approach and a statutory approach. Sources of data used are primary data obtained from interviews and secondary data obtained by collecting data contained in books, papers, journals, print or electronic media and laws and regulations relating to the existing problems are studied and analyzed which is then called as legal material. The data analysis used is qualitative analysis The novelty of this research is about the policy of criminal responsibility for people with mental disorders in cases that cause racial issues. in law enforcement regarding court decisions and the realization of justice for criminals who suffer from mental disorders

B. Discussion
A court decision based on Article 1 Number 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code is a juridical statement that is sentenced in a general trial, in the form of a crime, or is acquitted or excluded from all cases according to the method regulated by law 12 . All court decisions are only valid and have legal force if they are pronounced in court open to the public 13 .
The judge's assessment of the alleged violation is an important consideration in the judge's decision. In essence, the judge's consideration is a component of proving whether the defendant's actions are in accordance with the crime charged by the public prosecutor. The basis for consideration comes from two syllables, namely basic and weigh, the word "basis" in the large Indonesian dictionary means principal or basis. The word "weigh" means fair and equal, and consideration means opinion (good or bad).
Judge's decision in Case No. 8/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Srg has permanent and binding legal force (inkracht van gewijsde). The court's decision in Article 50 of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power which states that the court's decision must contain not only the reasons and basis for the decision, but also special provisions or the writing of the relevant law, That the defendant on behalf of Aisyah Tusalamah on a date and time that can no longer be remembered from the end of 2017 to around July 2018 had "deliberately and without rights disseminated information, which was intended to cause hatred or hostility to certain individuals and/or community groups based on ethnicity, religion, race and inter-group (SARA)", the defendant committed the act in the following way: That the defendant had uploaded/uploaded a video recorded by the defendant himself to the Facebook using the names Muahmad Syah Ash and Sin Shima Syaba (Musa M one) with the defendant's cellphone, a white Samsung J7 Prime brand, at the defendant's house in Gg. Beautiful Tower Sayabulu RT. 002 RW. 007 Serang Village, Kec. Attack Serang City.
That as a result of the actions of the perpetrators in this case are regulated and subject to criminal sanctions in Article 28 paragraph (2) in conjunction with Article 45A paragraph (2) Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions which contain elements of -the elements are as follows: 1. Each person; 2. Those who intentionally and without rights spread information aimed at causing hatred or hostility to certain individuals and/or community groups based on ethnicity, religion, race and inter-group (SARA).' Which declared the defendant guilty of committing an act of "imprisonment for 5 (five) months and stipulating that the period of arrest and detention that the defendant had served was deducted entirely from the sentence imposed." The defendant's act as mentioned above is an act of spreading that is having broadcast; share or distribute videos that are distributed through Facebook through their account, where the defendant "sends and/or disseminates electronic information as stipulated in Article 1 point 1 of Law Number 19 of 2016 which is one or a set of electronic data, including but not limited to writing, sound, pictures, maps, designs, photos of electronic data interchange (EDI), electronic mail (electronic mail), telegram, telex, telecopy or the like, letters, signs, access codes, symbols or processed perforations that have meaning or can be understood by someone who can understand it." "Principles" relating to criminal liability are in the form of the principle of legality and the principle of error, as well as including against the law as an error in the broadest sense in addition to intentional or error and can be accounted for or with the term toerekenbaar 14 . Not everyone can be said to be able to be responsible, it is said that someone is unable to be responsible in Article 44 of the Criminal Code which states: 1) Whoever commits an act that cannot be accounted for by him because his soul is disabled in growth or is disturbed due to illness is not criminal. 2) if it turns out that the act cannot be insured against the perpetrator because his mental growth is impaired or is impaired due to illness, the judge may order that the person be admitted to a mental hospital for a maximum of one year as a probationary period." In civil law and common law countries, criminal responsibility is generally formulated in negative terms, because it is considered criminal responsibility as a solution for criminals to be free from the punishment given. This means that the Indonesian criminal law, like civil law systems, the law actually formulates the circumstances that can cause the perpetrators of criminal acts not to be held accountable 15 . In Indonesia, criminal liability exists when there is criminal liability that does not require an element of error, it is called absolute criminal liability and is also known in the common law as liability without fault .
The Criminal Code Bill is a criminal law originating from Wetboek van Srafrecht voor Nederlandsch, as well as a bill designed to update policies, conditions, and legal developments in society, the state, and state life. It is also currently being stated whether people with mental disabilities can shorten their sentences if they commit a crime. The answer is contained in Article 38 of the Draft Criminal Code which reads: "Everyone who at the time of committing a crime suffers from a mental disability and/or intellectual disability, his criminal offense can be reduced and subject to action." The basis of a person's criminal law liability is seen from three factors: the ability to be responsible, the existence of an error in the sense of intention (dolus) or negligence (culpa), and the absence of justification and forgiving reasons. Talking about criminal liability, responsibility can be from two aspects: 1) Ability to distinguish good and bad deeds; unlawful and unlawful acts.
2) Ability to understand and assess good intentions and bad intentions First of all, criminal liability is a condition that exists within the maker when committing a crime. Then this criminal responsibility also means linking the circumstances of the maker with appropriate actions and sanctions. Therefore, the assessment is carried out in two directions: a) Criminal responsibility is first of all in the context as a factual requirement for coaching because it carries a preventive aspect. b) Criminal liability, which is part of the repressive aspects of criminal law. Criminal liability depends on the situation that is a prerequisite for the existence of a sentence and the legal consequences of its existence.
Based on the element of criminal responsibility, namely an unlawful act, it is true that the defendant is guilty for spreading a video to Facebook containing information containing racial issues about Islam and admitting that he leads a kingdom called the Jellyfish Kingdom. However, after observing the defendant by a psychiatrist, it was stated that the defendant actually suffered from severe psychosis. Because of this we can see in the provisions regulated on "reasons that can eliminate the criminal imposition of criminal acts, namely in Article 44, Article 48, Article 49 Paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 50 and Article 51 Paragraph (1) and (2).. Article 44 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code states that a person who is insane or insane cannot be held criminally responsible, the psychological condition of the suspect which causes the suspect as formulated in the article cannot be punished. Cannot be held accountable for perpetrators because the perpetrator's soul is disabled in growth or is disturbed due to disease." Based on the results of the interview with Uli Purnama, that in the verdict of the defendant's case, the verdict was open.act of the perpetrator spreading the video on his Facebookis contrary to the teachings of Islam which creates "a sense of hatred or hostility towards certain individuals and/or groups of people based on ethnicity, religion, race and between groups." And criminal courts must bring in experts and public witnesses. The results of observations must be stated in full, for reports, for reports against the defendant in community research, that the defendant has never gathered or mingled with other residents and there have been clashes with residents because of the night and until morning because many of his followers are from outside and their activities disturb the residents. The author's analysis is that the judge must consider and see the condition of the defendant where the defendant himself as a child did not fit in with his family and did not feel appreciated by his family, then a certain understanding arose and the defendant had a disturbance in his allusions. The defendant's actions were also based on the defendant's own testimony because many had blasphemed the defendant's husband and isolated the defendant and the defendant had a wrong belief and had been corrected by other people but was still carried out by the defendant. So it can be seen that no one can control the defendant's behavior. Should the punishment received by the perpetrator can be lighter and or can get rehabilitation taking into account the condition of the perpetrator.
According to Uli Purnama, that the judge will weigh based on the juridical facts revealed before the trial obtained from witness statements, letters of evidence, expert statements, and the defendant's testimony will be linked to evidence, so the facts must first be proven, second whether they can be questioned. criminal liability or not. If this act is proven there is no reason for the abolition of the crime, the judge still has confidence in making decisions in court.
According to Uli Purnama that. "it must be remembered that the results of examinations from psychiatrists regarding the psychopathology of criminal acts are not binding on judges in determining whether or not there is criminal responsibility for criminal acts, although in this case they have cooperation with psychiatrists in determining the psychopathology. The judge can decide otherwise than the results of a psychiatrist's examination, of course with considerations of decency and appropriateness in criminal law, as described above. That is, it is the judge who has full authority to state whether a perpetrator of a crime has the ability to be responsible or not, taking into account whether the disease is so great that the defendant's actions cannot be held criminally responsible. This is in line with Simons' opinion, as quoted by Lamintang, which states that in an effort to make a decision about the presence or absence "toerekeningsvatbaarheid" from a person, the judge must pay attention to the reality, namely to what extent the disease disorder has an influence on the psychological state. of the doer, and must consider whether the influence is such that the doer becomes incapable of realizing the meaning of his action or not, and according to his consciousness is also able to determine what he wants to do or not." Freedom of judges must also be shown in theimpartial jugdeof Article 5 Paragraph (1) of Law no. 48 of 2009. The concept of impartiality here should not be as original, because the judge must make the right decision. In this case, it does not mean that it is not impartial in its considerations and judgments. More precisely the formulation of Law no. 48 of 2009 Article 5 Paragraph (1): "The court will judge according to the law by not discriminating between people". Judges who make decisions are not only based on legal values that live in society, but are also explained in Article 28 Paragraph (1) of Law no. 40 of 2009 states "Judges are obliged to explore, follow and understand the legal values that live in society" 16 .
According to the author, "criminal responsibility is a form of being able to determine whether a suspect or defendant can be accounted for or not for a crime that has occurred, in other words criminal liability can determine whether a person is released or convicted. And the judge decides that a case may indeed use the judge's conscience, this is in accordance with the theory of proof according to the judge's belief alone (conviction intime) 17 . In the evidence system based on the judge's belief, the judge can make a decision based on mere belief without being bound by a rule. The judge's belief still plays an important role in determining the guilt of the defendant, but the application of the judge's belief is carried out selectively in the sense that the judge's belief is limited by having to be supported by clear and rational reasons in making a decision. And that between the valid evidence according to the law and the judge's belief there is a reciprocal work where the valid evidence according to the law must lead to the judge's belief, and vice versa, so that in other words, the judge's belief is obtained from valid evidence. in order to create a judge's decision that has a sense of justice." The judge before deciding a criminal case must pay attention to every crucial thing in the trial. The judge examines a criminal act committed by a person by taking into account his subjective requirements, namely the presence of an error, the ability to take responsibility for a person and no excuse for forgiveness for him. In addition, the judge is also required to show the objective requirements, namely that the criminal act committed is in accordance with the formulation of the offense, is against the law and has no justification. If it is fulfilled, then the judge considers things that can relieve and burden the defendant 18 .
According to Elisabeth Puji Astuti that, in this case the perpetrator was entangled in "Article 28 paragraph (2) Jo. Article 45A paragraph (2)  The author's analysis, that a perpetrator cannot be convicted of a crime has a basis for causing it, this is in accordance with 7 (seven) grounds that can cause, namely: 1) There is the inability of the perpetrator to take responsibility (Article 44 Paragraph (1)  ." The 7 (seven) basic causes for not being convicted of the perpetrators are grouped into two basics, namely: 1. On the basis of forgiving reasons that are subjective and inherent in people, especially regarding the inner attitude before or when it is done. 2. On the basis of justifying reasons that are objective and attached to his actions or other things outside the mind of the perpetrator, in other words according to Schaffmoistei, it is easily formulated if there is a forgiving reason then the nature of being reproached cannot be blamed 20 . Analisis The author's analysis is that it is true that the defendant has fulfilled the element of committing a criminal act of spreading racial issues based on Article 45A paragraph (2) of the ITE Law by distributing videos containing racial remarks to social media Facebook against Islam and claiming to be the leader of a kingdom that is recognized as a new religion.

P-ISSN 2723-2638
Volume 3 Issue 2, July-December 2022 E-ISSN2745-9314 The theory of forgiving reasons is one of the reasons behind the abolition of the crime (strafuitslutings grand), in criminal science the reasons for the abolition of the crime are divided into justifying reasons, the distinction is in accordance with the development of criminal law which distinguishes the punishment of an act and the punishment of the person who has committed the act. The theory of justification is the reason that eliminates the unlawful nature of the act, the justifying reason contained in the Criminal Code Article 49 Paragraph (1), Article 50, Article 51 Paragraph (1). In general, legal experts include reasons for forgiveness, namely: a. Not being able to take responsibility b. Forced defense that exceeds the limit c. In the case of carrying out an illegal position order in good faith While the justification reasons are as follows: a. Forced power b. Emergency defense / forced defense c. Reasons for carrying out statutory orders d. Reasons carry out legitimate office orders Although it "does not clearly distinguish the reasons for forgiveness and justification, but Memorie van Toelichting (MvT) who puts forward the so-called "reasons for irresponsibility of a person or reasons for not being convicted of a person" MvT stated that there are two reasons that is, the reason for not being accountable for a person lies in that person or the mind (Article 44 Paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code) and the reason for not being accountable for a person lies outside that person or outside the mind (Articles 48, 49, 50, 51 Criminal Code)." Based on the results of the author's interview with Elisabeth Puji Astuti, that the perpetrator should not be given "a punishment in accordance with the provisions of Article 44 of the Criminal Code that "Whoever commits an act that cannot be insured against him because his soul is disabled in growth or is disturbed due to illness, is not punished" where that the defendant has proven true to suffer from severe mental disorder psychosis. This is as emphasized in Article 103 of the Criminal Code, that chapters 1 (one) to chapter 8 (eight) of book 1 of the Criminal Code also apply to other provisions outside the Criminal Code as long as it is not specified otherwise (lex specialis derogate legi generalis). lex specialis derogate legi generalis, namely the principle of legal interpretation which states that special laws override general laws.
Furthermore, Elisabeth Puji Astuti, stated that if the defendant was sentenced to 5 months in prison, it would cause very significant trauma to the defendant's psychologist who already had mental retardation before and people could assume that the illness he had suffered so far was a lie and examination by experts can be considered a fabricated lie. And should pay more attention to the principle of ultimum remedium which is a legal term that is generally used and interpreted as the application of criminal sanctions which are the final (last) sanctions in law enforcement.
Based on the results of the author's interview with Dr. Agung Frijanto, that it is true that the defendant on behalf of Aisyah Tusalamah has been observed by him and his team and it is true that the defendant suffers from a psychotic mental disorder. Psychosis is a serious type of mental disorder. The Guidelines for the Classification and Diagnosis of Mental Disorders (PPDGJ) list various types of mental illness, starting with codes F0 F1 F2 F3 to F9. Psychosis or psychosis is one type of mental disorder in the code between F0 F1 F2 F3 in which there are symptoms of psychosis. One of the symptoms of mental disorders is psychosis.
According to Dr. Agung Frijanto, research conducted by a team of doctors so that it can determine that the patient really has a psychotic disease, namely the mechanism/procedure is when law enforcers perceive an unnatural behavior from the suspect/defendant and question whether the suspect/defendant can be held accountable for his actions or not, or whether the suspect/defendant has a mental disorder or not, they will send an application for a visum et repertum psychiatry or a mental health certificate for legal purposes to a psychiatrist as team leader. Then a team will be formed consisting of 2 psychiatrists, 1 clinical psychologist, and doctors related to the disease that is in the suspect/defendant. After the suspect/defendant is sent to the hospital, observation is carried out for a maximum of 14 days, which can be extended if the team has not reached a conclusion. In the observation process, physical examination, psychological examination, supporting examinations, laboratories, and others were carried out which finally concluded that according to the conclusion of the visum et repertum whether first was there a mental disorder, then whether the mental disorder was related to the alleged criminal act, then whether The patient can be held accountable for his actions. So if the patient commits a criminal act as a result of a mental disorder, it is considered that the patient cannot be held accountable for his actions in the eyes of the law.
Law Number 8 of 2016 concerning Persons with Disabilities does not explicitly regulate the criminal liability of persons with mental disabilities, so that the criminal liability of persons with mental disabilities remains in accordance with the provisions of Article 44 of the Criminal Code but the important point is that the law concerns the legal process of persons with disabilities with the provision that law enforcement officers by law, it is obligatory to ask for the consideration of a doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist and/or social worker before examining a person with a disability.
The author does not agree with the judge's decision No. 8/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Srg which decided that the defendant received a prison sentence of 5 months, so it can be said that the panel of judges did not use the testimony of expert witnesses. It is true that the testimony of the expert witness is not binding on the decision of the panel of judges, but it seems that the expert's opinion is wrong regarding the mental illness suffered by the defendant. It was also impressed that the panel of judges did not believe in the credibility of the expert witnesses who examined the defendant. As well as in the analysis, there are things that can alleviate the criminal threat given to the defendant, such as that it is true that the defendant suffers from severe psychosis, where the defendant is a person with a mental disability, which is stipulated in Article 44 of the Criminal Code and Article 38 of the Draft Criminal Code. And in the process of investigating the defendant, there must be more detail on the specifications of the case faced by the defendant, because the investigation process stated at the time in court determines what decision the defendant receives in court by the judge.
It is better if the threat of "the punishment decided by this judge should be lower than what has been decided or replaced with action (maatregel)" from the development of modern law regarding the term double track system which means there is a separation between criminal sanctions and action sanctions as another alternative to criminal principal, especially imprisonment 21 . Action sanctions are more anticipatory in nature against the perpetrator of the act than criminal sanctions that are reactive to an act because in accordance with the provisions in Article 44 of the Criminal Code which regulates if the criminal act committed by the perpetrator cannot be held accountable to him, it is due to his disabled soul or his soul is disturbed due to diseases such as mental illness, psychosis, hysteria, epilepsy, and others. In such a condition, it can be said that the defendant is not yet legally competent as stated in Article 32 of Law no. 8 years" 2016 on disability." The author's analysis, that in this case the judge was actually less thorough and careful in assessing the juridical facts in the trial which led to the facts that led to the fact that the defendant was a person who was given an exception in carrying out the crime because it was P-ISSN 2723-2638 Volume 3 Issue 2, July-December 2022 included in the category of psychosis. Substantively and juridically based on Article 44 of the Criminal Code, actually the defendant cannot be held accountable so the judge's decision against the defendant is not correct. But because the law does not only aim at legal certainty but also aims at the element of expediency and does not conflict with a sense of justice, nonjuridically the decision is correct. Because ideally when compared to other countries, for example in the Netherlands, special prisons for people with mental disorders and general prisons are separated. There prisoners with severe mental illness or who refuse treatment can be treated in psychiatric detention center facilities. Meanwhile, in less severe cases, prisoners with mental disorders can be taken to special treatment facilities designed to "provide a calm atmosphere". The novelty of this study is about the judge's considerations regarding the importance of proof in terminating the perpetrators of mental disorders whose mental disorders are disturbed.

C. Conclusion
The criminal responsibility for the defendant with psychosis as the perpetrator of the crime of spreading racial issues in Decision No. 8/Pid.Sus/2019/PN.Srg is that the judge decided that the defendant was proven legally and convincingly guilty of committing a crime "Intentionally and without the right to spread information that creates hatred for community groups based on ethnicity, race, religion, and inter-group (SARA)" which is punishable by criminal sanctions in Article 28 paragraph (2) in conjunction with Article 45A paragraph (2) of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions, Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code and other relevant laws and regulations, with imprisonment for 5 months. The accountability of the defendant with a psychotic mental disorder is explained in Article 44 of the Criminal Code which regulates if the criminal act committed by the perpetrator cannot be held accountable to him, it is due to his mental disability during growth or mental disorder, so that his mind remains as a child or his soul is disturbed due to diseases such as: mental illness, hysteria, epilepsy and others. The condition of the defendant like that can be said that the defendant has not been legally competent as stated in Article 32 of Law no. 8 of 2016 concerning disability.