Étude des vécus de violences à l’encontre des femmes criminelles

BackgroundWomen constitute around 17% of criminal offenders. However, few studies have addressed criminality in females. The current study aims to determine the prevalence of violence inflicted upon a sample of 91 female criminals during their adult life and compare it to the general female population, in order to provide a better understanding of female crime.MaterialData was collected, between 2014 and 2019, from the criminal expertise files of an expert at the Rennes Court of Appeal for women aged over 15. History of violence experienced as defined by the WHO criteria, where included.ResultsNinety-one criminal expertise files were included. The prevalence of violence experienced during adulthood was 57.1%, a prevalence significantly higher than that of the general European and international female population. Furthermore, these women reported experiences of violence independently of their age in 76.1% of cases.ConclusionOur study highlights an important prevalence of experiences of violence in the life course of criminal women. This victimization appears to be closely related to criminality in women and seems to be a key point in understanding female criminality. In addition, psychiatric disorders are frequent in this population and are over-represented by substance use and personality disorders. The latter two disorders appear to be conditioned by a history of experienced violence, seem associated with crime and to increase the risk of committing a violent act. Therefore, experiences of violence seem to be a predisposing factor to the development of medico-legal issues.     

A consideration of the relationship between the Rules of Court and the Code of Ethics in forensic psychiatry

OBJECTIVE: To consider the relationship between the Rules of Court for expert witnesses and the revised Ethical Guideline No. 9 and Practice Guideline No. 9 of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) and how this affects the responsibilities that psychiatrists have to a court and to their profession, when they enter the legal arena. METHOD: Literature relevant to the subject, the Federal Court rules relating to expert witnesses and the RANZCP Guidelines are discussed and compared, with examples used to illustrate particular issues that arise from time to time in the civil jurisdiction. A distinction is drawn between the functions of those psychiatrists who undertake forensic assessment and those who undertake clinical work, and some of the ethical challenges facing forensic psychiatrists are considered. RESULTS: The Rules of Court relating to expert witnesses and the RANZCP Guidelines No. 9 have a complementary relationship and are thus ethically consistent with each other and provide a basis for psychiatrists to maintain and enhance the integrity of their profession. CONCLUSION: Forensic psychiatry is a particularly complex medical speciality and one that can create enormous personal conflict for clinicians, especially those who are not forensic consultants. It may therefore be time for the College to develop an accreditation process for those prepared to undertake further study in the nature and practice of forensic psychiatry.     

Psychiatric and psychological evidence in the Supreme Court of Iceland—2001 to 2007

Background: Little is known about expert psychiatric and psychological evidence in appeal cases. Aims: To review the frequency, nature and impact of expert psychiatric and psychological evidence in the Supreme Court in Iceland over a 7-year period where all appeals in Iceland are heard. Method: All cases listed on the Supreme Court's Website between 2001 and 2007 were identified. The judgements were carefully screened for relevant information. Details of the nature of the criminal offences for the sample were obtained from official records. Results: 3367 cases were identified. Psychiatric and psychological evidence was considered in 213 (6.3%) cases (2.7% and 4.2% for the two disciplines, respectively), with only 10% cases involving reports from both disciplines. Psychiatrists focused primarily on assessing violent offenders, diminished responsibility issues, restraining orders, and mental state examinations and diagnosis, whereas psychologists were more commonly involved in custody disputes and credibility assessments of victims of sexual offending. No oral expert evidence was heard in the Supreme Court. Psychiatric and psychological evidence was typically that previously presented in the District Courts. Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive study to investigate the contribution of forensic psychiatry and psychology in appeal cases. Psychiatrists and psychologists have complementary skills for the assessment of court referrals. Their evidence and recommendations in appeal cases in Iceland are accepted by the Supreme Court in the great majority (78%) of cases.     

Court Education for Young Witnesses: Evaluation of the Pilot Service in Aotearoa,New Zealand

This article outlines the context and history of the development of the Court Education for Young Witnesses service for children who give evidence in the criminal court in New Zealand. A pilot programme in three courts was funded and implemented by the New Zealand Department for Courts in 2000 along with a two-year evaluation contracted by the then Department of Courts to the authors at the Institute of Public Policy at Auckland University of Technology. This article mostly focuses on the results of the evaluation, which informed revision of the training and materials for national implementation in 2004. Overall, the evaluation of the Court Education for Young Witnesses Pilot was positive. All stakeholders interviewed, including children, defence and prosecution lawyers, were positive about the initiative. Recommendations for improving the programme included reviewing the role of the victim advisers regarding education for defence witnesses; extending the training provided; improving quality assurance mechanisms; and clarifying who should be responsible for debriefing child witnesses. Some of these recommendations have been acted on, in particular regarding the training given to victim advisers.     

Are psychiatrists equipped for management roles in mental health services?

OBJECTIVES: To promote the discussion of leadership and management skills development among psychiatrists in Australia and New Zealand. METHOD: A key informant survey of fellows of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists was conducted via a semi-structured interview. This canvassed views about leadership and management issues including levels of confidence and needs for additional skills. RESULTS: There was widespread support for psychiatrists to be in management roles in mental health services; however, on entering management positions, psychiatrists often felt inadequately trained and prepared for their new role. Furthermore, many who had made the transition to management perceived a lack of support from their clinical colleagues. Clinicians appeared to believe that management was not difficult to learn and could be done by any experienced clinician. The provision of short courses and mentoring programmes is the preferred option for most psychiatrists seeking to acquire leadership and management skills. CONCLUSIONS: For psychiatrists to maximize their potential as leaders in Australian and New Zealand mental health services, greater attention to promoting the acquisition of relevant skills throughout training and in the post-fellowship years is required. Psychiatrists need to be supported and encouraged to pursue further education, training and research in this area. Failure to address this issue risks psychiatrists continuing to feel disadvantaged in management roles and hence reluctant to undertake the challenge.     

Counterintuitive Expert Psychological Evidence in Child Sexual Abuse Trials in New Zealand

The Evidence Act 2006 came into law in New Zealand in 2007. Among the many reforms was an amendment to the law pertaining to expert opinion evidence. In keeping with other jurisdictions, New Zealand adopted the “substantial helpfulness” test in relation to the admissibility of expert evidence. Since 2008, the courts have regularly admitted what has been termed “counterintuitive” expert psychological evidence in child sexual abuse trials, and appellate courts have upheld the use of this evidence. Such evidence has the purpose of educating juries, with particular reference to commonly held misconceptions about child sexual abuse. We discuss what is meant by the term counterintuitive evidence, why such evidence has been deemed helpful and the types of counterintuitive evidence currently given by psychologist expert witnesses in the New Zealand courts.     

R v Leonboyer: The Role of Expert Witnesses in Psychological Blow Automatism Cases

Automatism is a defence in criminal violence that raises some critical issues about the role of the expert witness in the determination of guilt and innocence. The recent Australian case of R V Leonboyer illustrates some of these issues including psychiatrists and psychologists going beyond their area of expertise, establishing reasonable doubt on the basis of possibilities rather than probabilities and failing to differentiate between automatic behaviour and its causes. Though there may be a necessity to utilise the experience of psychologists and psychiatrists to explain the complex issues arising from the defence of automatism, there are particular problems in using such expert witnesses in this under-researched and complex area.     

Expert Evidence and Jurors’ Views on Expert Witnesses

Jurors who had served on criminal trials associated with charges of sexual offences against children were asked about their views of expert evidence and in particular about the characteristics and behaviour of expert witnesses. Responses indicated that jurors welcomed and valued expert testimony, perceiving it as an opportunity to hear from someone neutral in the context of the adversarial process. Jurors were asked to describe the qualities of expert witnesses that gave credibility to their evidence. Relevant professional experience, lack of bias, and clarity of evidence were ranked in that order. Also relevant were the confidence and eye contact of the expert witness with the jury, followed by the academic qualifications of the expert. These results have implications for the selection and training of expert witnesses and the admissibility of their proposed evidence.     

Points of Law

What is the extent of personal legal liability of professionals carrying out investigation and assessment in cases involving child protection? In cases where their advice has been incorrect, or where the Court decision does not support their conclusions, can they be held liable by the child or parents involved? These questions were considered recently by the House of Lords, whose judgement will have important implications for professionals who work with children and families. Their Lordships decided that psychiatrists and other professionals involved in child protection cases are not personally liable. The principle of witness immunity was extended to cover any professional who gives advice either in the context of or in contemplation of court proceedings. In the child protection area, local authorities will not be liable either directly or as the employers of professionals. Peggy Ray , a solicitor specialising in children's cases and member of the Children's Panel of the Law Society, spells out the legal implications of the judgement. Judith Trowell , a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist and experienced expert witness, discusses the implications for clinicians undertaking expert witness work.     

Community treatment of severely mentally ill offenders under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system: a review.

OBJECTIVE: Very large numbers of severely mentally ill persons now fall under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. A number of conditions are placed on those who are returned to the community, including specific ones related to treatment. This paper reviews the principles and practice of forensic outpatient mental health treatment. METHODS: MEDLINE, Psychological Abstracts, and the Index to Legal Periodicals and Books were searched from 1978, and all pertinent references were obtained. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Community treatment of severely mentally ill offenders who fall under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system has important differences from treatment of nonoffenders, which focuses on alleviation of symptoms. Patients must comply with legal restrictions on their behavior, and treatment first addresses a patient's risk of harm to the community. Mentally ill offenders are often resistant to treatment. The mental health system may be disinclined to treat them due to their resistance and their criminal history, especially a history of violence. It is critical to identify a treatment philosophy that strikes a balance between individual rights and public safety and includes clear treatment goals, a close liaison between treatment staff and the criminal justice system, adequate structure and supervision, treatment staff who are comfortable with using authority, interventions for managing violence, incorporation of the principles of case management, appropriate and supportive living arrangements, and a recognition of the role of family members and significant others in treatment.     

Admissibility of false-confession testimony: know thy standard

The reliability of confessions is subject to a variety of factors, some of which give rise to expert testimony. To the degree that prosecutors construe the determination of reliability as an objective standard, they may attempt to bar testimony. Moreover, when the testimony is theoretical rather than clinical, there are additional challenges. Depending on jurisdiction, the admissibility of expert testimony on whether a confession was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary is subject to a legal threshold such as the Frye or Daubert standard. The authors review a 2002 New Jersey Superior Court ruling that illustrates the forces that shape the admissibility of confessions.     

Self-reported suicide attempts and associated risk and protective factors among secondary school students in New Zealand

OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between individual, family, school and community characteristics and rates of suicide attempts in a national population sample of New Zealand secondary school students. METHOD: A total of 9570 randomly selected 9- to 13-year-old students from 114 schools were surveyed, using the New Zealand Adolescent Health Survey. This is a 523-item anonymous self-report comprehensive questionnaire delivered by Multi-Media Computer-Assisted Self-Interviewing. Multivariate analyses were used to examine correlates of self-reported suicide attempts within the last 12 months. RESULTS: In total, 739 participants (4.7% of males and 10.5% of females) reported having made a suicide attempt within the last 12 months. Depressive symptoms, alcohol abuse, -having a friend or family member attempt suicide, family violence and non-heterosexual attractions were independently associated with increased rates of suicide attempts while parents caring, other family members caring, teachers being fair and feeling safe at school were independently associated with decreased rates of suicide attempts. Caring friendships, attending worship frequently, possible sexual abuse and anxiety symptoms were not independently associated with suicide attempts. Risk and protective factors operated in the same way for male and female students and for those with and without other suicide predictors. CONCLUSIONS: New Zealand secondary school students, particularly female students, report high rates of suicide attempts. Risk of suicide attempts is lower in students reporting caring home and fair, safe school environments and this effect remains once depression is taken into account. This study confirms the importance of depression, substance use, problem behaviour, negative life events, exposure to suicide behaviour by others and the significance of sexual orientation in suicidal behaviour among school students and provides evidence of the importance of the family and school environments in reducing risk among this group.     

Fitness to Stand Trial in New Zealand: Different Factors Associated with Fitness to Stand Trial Between Mentally Disordered and Intellectually Disabled Defendants in the New Zealand Criminal Justice System

Individuals on trial for an offence are expected to contribute to their own defence via liaison with their defence team and be able to participate meaningfully in the court process. Defendants who are unable to do so are deemed unfit to stand trial. The factors associated with fitness to stand trial within the New Zealand criminal justice system have not been closely examined. This study compared sociodemographic, offence-related, clinical and court-related factors associated with fitness to stand trial for 200 mentally disordered and intellectually disabled (ID) defendants assessed for the New Zealand Courts. The study found generic sociodemographic, offence-related and clinical factors were not significantly associated with fitness to stand trial. By contrast, court-related factors such as previous assessment of fitness to stand trial and previous finding of unfitness, and clinical factors such as previous diagnosis of ID and low cognitive functioning were significantly associated with unfitness to stand trial. Court liaison nurses' concerns about the defendant's ability to communicate and comprehend appeared to be reliable indicators of unfitness, suggesting that this may be a useful initial screen of eligibility before more formal assessment of competency and intelligence.     

People with an Intellectual Disability in the Australian Criminal Justice System

Intellectual disability (ID) is not accurately identified early enough in the criminal justice system. The extent to which each jurisdiction addresses the needs of persons with ID is inconsistent. Magistrate Court diversion programmes aiming to identify defendants with ID needs vary throughout Australia. This article argues the need for a national approach for the diversion of persons with ID from the criminal justice system. This will be important for persons with and without coexisting mental illness and will affirm international developments protecting the rights of persons with ID (including those in the criminal justice system) to improved and accessible health care.     

The admissibility of expert evidence of mental disorder in criminal law and the application of the evidence act 1995 (NSW)

The Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (hereafter EA) commenced on 1 September 1995. The Act sought to clarify and reform complex rules of evidence including the rules relating to the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal trials. In doing so however the legislation has raised its own complexities. The result is that the extent to which expert evidence may be admissible in the criminal trial requires a close analysis not only of the application of the opinion rule, but also other sections of the Act which impact upon it The application of expert evidence is particularly significant in the area of mental disorder in the criminal law, as demonstrated by reform of the law of diminished responsibility in New South Wales which (inter alia) emphasises a central role for the jury as the ultimate decision‐maker in the application of the defence. These developments in the law suggest a need for examination of the admissibility of expert evidence in trials where mental disorder of the accused, or sometimes the complainant or other witnesses, is raised. This article seeks to review the law of opinion evidence at common law and under the EA with a view to assessing the application of expert evidence in the field of mental disorder in the criminal law under the regime of the new legislation. The outcome reveals that each of the disciplines involved in this field need to come to grips with the application of the EA and the manner in which it shapes the relationship between evidence of mental disorder and the criminal law.     

Dangerosité psychiatrique et responsabilité pénale atténuée : à propos de la condamnation à la réclusion à perpétuité d’un schizophrène auteur d’un homicide sexuel sadique

The second paragraph of article 122-1 of the French Criminal Code provides for a reduced penalty in criminal matters (Court of Assizes) when the offender is suffering at the time the act is committed from a mental disorder that reduces his liability. This legal provision is not always respected, as shown by the sentencing to life imprisonment of a chronic psychotic patient who committed a sexual homicide (sadistic rape). The Court of Assizes found that the great dangerousness of this schizophrenic, with a multiple criminal record and who had refused his treatment, justified his conviction, while the psychiatric expertise concluded that he should benefit from a reduction on his criminal liability. The sentence was passed without the level of severity of his mental state having been verified by a new expert. The author therefore questions the “ethical” nature of this court decision which, albeit legal, is contrary to the spirit of the law. There was no appeal against the sentence.     

Differences between juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability in offense type and risk factors

The present study aimed to examine differences between American juvenile offenders with and without intellectual disability (ID) in offense type and risk factors. The sample consisted of adolescents with ID (n=102) and without ID (n=526) who appeared before the courts for a criminal act and for whom the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA) was completed. Results showed that adolescents with ID had committed more offenses against persons compared to adolescents without ID. Few differences in risk factors were found between juvenile offenders with and without ID in the domains of school, family and use of free time. Juvenile offenders without ID more often had problems in the relationship and alcohol/drugs domain, whereas juveniles with ID more often experienced problems in the domains of attitude, aggression and skills.     

Expert testimony in capital sentencing: juror responses

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Furman v. Georgia (1972), held that the death penalty is constitutional only when applied on an individualized basis. The resultant changes in the laws in death penalty states fostered the involvement of psychiatric and psychologic expert witnesses at the sentencing phase of the trial, to testify on two major issues: (1) the mitigating factor of a defendant's abnormal mental state and (2) the aggravating factor of a defendant's potential for future violence. This study was an exploration of the responses of capital jurors to psychiatric/psychologic expert testimony during capital sentencing. The Capital Jury Project is a multi-state research effort designed to improve the understanding of the dynamics of juror decision-making in capital cases. South Carolina data (n = 214) were used to investigate the impact of expert testimony on the mitigating factor of mental illness and the aggravating factor of future dangerousness. Ordered logit regression analyses revealed significant correlations (p < .005) between the presence of a defense psychiatrist or psychologist expert witness during the sentencing phase and jurors' having the impression that the defendant was mentally disturbed. Similar analyses revealed no significant relationship between the presence of state-introduced psychiatric testimony and jurors' having the impression that the defendant, if not executed, would be violent in the future. These findings seem to contradict the view that psychiatric testimony on future dangerousness in death penalty cases has a powerful impact on jurors. The jurors in this study were significantly influenced, however, by psychiatric/psychologic testimony in the area of a defendant's mitigating mental abnormality.     

New justice system responses to mentally impaired defendants in New Zealand

On 16 March 2020 the District Court in Auckland, New Zealand, had its first sitting as a court dedicated exclusively to cases where issues of fitness to stand trial or insanity had been raised. The impetus for these court sittings, called ‘the CPMIP Court’ [after the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003], was to reduce delays for mentally impaired defendants, and improve the coverage and efficiency of mental health advice to the Court from both Court Liaison Nurses and Health Assessors (Psychiatrists and Psychologists). This article looks at the model in operation and reflects on some early outcome data, as the possibility of further expansion of this model is contemplated in other regions. We also consider broader challenges currently facing mentally impaired defendants in New Zealand’s criminal justice system, and argue that other innovative judicial approaches such as the establishment of problem-solving mental health courts should be considered.Key words: court liaison, diversion, fitness to plead, insanity, mental health court, prison, problem-solving court, remand