<![CDATA[Law enforcement against offenders afflicted with severe mental disorders, particularly paranoid schizophrenia, frequently generates juridical controversy regarding the fulfillment of the geen straf zonder schuld principle (no punishment without fault) as stipulated in Article 44 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP). This phenomenon is vividly illustrated in Decision Number 150/Pid.B/2024/PN.Jkt.Brt, in which the defendant, Andi Andoyo, was sentenced to sixteen years of imprisonment for the premeditated murder of Fresa Danella, despite medical evidence comprising a Visum et Repertum Psychiatricum and sworn forensic psychiatric expert testimony confirming his diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. This study aims to examine the construction of criminal responsibility (toerekeningsvatbaarheid) attributed to the paranoid-schizophrenic perpetrator in the decision in question and to analyze it from a criminological perspective in order to trace the criminogenic factors underlying the offense. Employing a normative legal research method with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches, this study qualitatively analyzes secondary legal data through descriptive analysis. The findings indicate that the panel of judges disregarded the medical evidence and nonetheless constructed the defendant as a legal subject possessing full capacity for criminal responsibility, a conclusion that contradicts Van Hamel's cumulative parameters of responsibility as well as the juridical recognition afforded by Law Number 18 of 2014 concerning Mental Health. Criminologically, the element of "prior planning" used as the basis for aggravating the sentence is more accurately understood as a pseudo-adaptive response to command hallucinations and delusions, compounded by a systemic failure of social and medical supervision as explained through social control theory. This study concludes that retributive imprisonment without an accompanying order for comprehensive psychiatric rehabilitation fails to address the criminogenic root of the problem and risks becoming a flawed precedent for the future adjudication of persons with mental disorders (ODGJ), thereby underscoring the need for consistent application of Article 44 of the KUHP grounded in a multidimensional approach integrating legal, psychopathological, and social dimensions]]>
