What is the ruling on writing "O so-and-so, you are a dayyuth" on walls, with the writer admitting to it, if the writer is insane, or if his family justifies his actions to evade the consequences of his deed?

Jurists have determined that if someone curses another by calling him "dayyuth" (cuckold), the former is to be given a discretionary punishment (ta'zir) and not a prescribed punishment (hadd), because he has attributed a defect to him. The ruling does not differ if it is proven that the insulter is insane or legally incompetent, because this does not prevent punishing him with a discretionary punishment that is deterrent and appropriate for his condition. Insanity and minority prevent the implementation of a hadd punishment, but they do not prevent a discretionary punishment for discipline. Insanity removes accountability and legal addressability due to the absence of intellect, but it does not negate the rights of people, such such as guarantees and the like. It is also permissible to discipline an insane person or a minor by striking them as a deterrent against bad behavior.