Can you call someone crazy with impunity?
Can you call someone crazy with impunity?
"When someone is told they are crazy, can they lodge a complaint? If so, how far can the complaint go?
Marc, Chavannes
Under article 177 of the Criminal Code, anyone who, by word, writing, image, gesture or deed, attacks another person's honour is liable to punishment for insult. A statement that makes a person appear contemptible is an attack on honour if it is not recognisable that this statement is based on facts that could be proven. In fact, the author must have been aware of and intended to express an objectively insulting value judgement.
It should be noted that this offence is objectively less serious than the other offences against honour, in particular defamation (art. 173 of the Swiss Criminal Code) and slander (art. 174 of the Swiss Criminal Code), which involve the presence of third parties, whereas insulting behaviour is committed between four eyes.
To say that a person is insane may constitute a value judgement that is prejudicial to honour. By definition, an insane person is a mentally ill person, i.e. a person suffering from a mental disorder. However, case law has accepted that an allegation that a person is "mongrel" or "psychopathic" is prejudicial to honour and therefore constitutes an insult. For example, calling a police officer a "wimp" or reproaching someone with "baseness" is also an insult.
The person concerned may lodge a complaint. Such a complaint may result in a fine of up to 90 days. However, the judge may exempt the offender from any penalty if the person insulted directly provoked the insult by reprehensible conduct. Furthermore, if the person insulted immediately retaliated with another insult or an assault, i.e. a physical attack that did not cause bodily harm or damage to health, the judge may exempt one or both offenders from the penalty. Finally, it should be noted that in practice, if the perpetrator denies the facts, these are difficult to prove when there were no third parties who could testify to what they heard; in this case, the trial authority is likely to drop the prosecution for reasons of expediency.
