Forensic psychology expert Reza Indragiri recently provided his analysis on the mental condition of Sudirman, the convicted individual in the Vina Cirebon case. During a review hearing at the Cirebon District Court, witnesses described Sudirman as a naive and innocent person. Additionally, it was mentioned that Sudirman had below-average intelligence.
Reza emphasized that the nature and character of the convict cannot prove that he is a criminal. He criticized law enforcement authorities for building a profile of the defendant. According to Reza, the defendant’s profile is often used as evidence in court proceedings. This, in turn, creates the impression that law enforcement authorities lack sufficient evidence.
In various discussions, Reza concluded that the psychological profile of the defendant is used by law enforcement as a tool presented in court. This tactic is employed to influence the judge and add to the evidence arsenal. However, the psychological profiles often paint a negative picture of the defendant.
Profiles submitted in court often portray the defendant in a negative light, highlighting low intelligence, poor upbringing, bad personality traits, and a history of trauma, anger, and resentment. Reza expressed concern that these negative psychological portraits presented in court could sway the judge’s final decision.
The portrayal of the defendant’s negative psychological profile during the trial could potentially influence the judge’s verdict. This raises questions about the validity and impact of using such profiles as evidence in legal proceedings.
Reza’s insights shed light on the complexities of using psychological profiles in court cases and highlight the potential biases and implications of such practices. It is essential to consider the ethical and moral implications of relying on psychological assessments to determine guilt or innocence in legal proceedings.