Man who attacked nun on CCTV in Jerusalem acquitted on grounds of mental health
Developed over time first seen 2 months ago
An Israeli court has acquitted Yona Schreiber, 36, of attacking a French nun in Jerusalem after accepting psychiatric evidence that he was having a psychotic episode and was not criminally responsible. He has been ordered to a psychiatric hospital for up to six years, concluding a case that prompted widespread condemnation and renewed concern about the safety of Christian clergy and pilgrims in the Old City.
Schreiber pushed the nun from behind and kicked her in April, leaving her with facial and leg bruising after she hit her head on a stone block. He had faced a charge of assault motivated by hostility towards a religious group, but prosecutors accepted the psychiatrist’s assessment; the incident occurred amid reported harassment, vandalism and tensions affecting Christian institutions in Jerusalem.
- Court acquits attacker due to psychotic episode.
- He may be hospitalised for up to six years.
- Attack intensified concerns for Christians in Jerusalem.
New here? Start with this
Jerusalem’s Old City is home to sites sacred to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and attracts large numbers of worshippers, clergy and pilgrims. Christian communities in the city are small but longstanding, and many churches and religious orders have a daily presence there.
Relations among religious groups are shaped by the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict, disputes over holy places and domestic political tensions. In recent years, church leaders and monitoring groups have reported cases of verbal abuse, spitting and physical harassment directed at Christian clergy and visitors, sometimes linked to far-right Jewish activists.
Israeli criminal courts can find a defendant not criminally responsible if psychiatric evidence shows they were in a severe mental state at the time of an offence and unable to understand or control their actions. In such cases, judges can order compulsory psychiatric treatment instead of a prison sentence, subject to legal review.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the acquittal would argue that criminal responsibility depends on a person’s mental capacity at the time, not solely on the severity or public visibility of the harm. If credible psychiatric evidence showed Schreiber was in a psychotic episode and unable to understand or control his actions in the legally required sense, hospital treatment is both the fairer response and a means of protecting the public. They would add that a secure psychiatric order of up to six years is a serious consequence, rather than an absence of accountability.
The case against
Critics would argue that the attack caused real physical and psychological harm to an identifiable victim and took place amid an alarming pattern of hostility towards Christian clergy, making a criminal acquittal especially troubling. They may fear that the outcome weakens deterrence and public confidence, particularly if vulnerable religious visitors believe assaults motivated by prejudice will not be fully punished. Even while accepting the importance of mental-health care, they would contend that the legal system should make the victim’s harm and the wider communal context more visibly central to its response.