Intoxication and criminal behaviour

The common law position in Australia in relation to self‐induced intoxication and criminal responsibility is that evidence of intoxication should be taken into account when determining whether the Crown has proved beyond reasonable doubt that an accused person acted voluntarily and intentionally. In the Code jurisdictions, similar principles apply, although evidence of intoxication is generally only relevant to certain classes of offences. Although many legal commentaries on the issue of intoxication and criminal responsibility have been published in recent years, many of these have largely ignored the vast and rapidly growing scientific literature on the nature and effects of intoxication. This article describes the major effects of various psychoactive drugs, with particular emphasis on the potential effects of these drugs on criminal behaviour. The drugs are classified according to their major pharmacological properties — central nervous system depressants, central nervous system stimulants, opiates, cannabis, hallucinogens and anabolic steroids. The literature reviewed in this article suggests that the effects of intoxication on criminal behaviour may vary greatly depending on the type of drug that is taken and a number of situational factors. Therefore, it is considered inappropriate to deal with the law on intoxication and criminal responsibility with ‘blanket’ principles. Instead, each individual case of intoxication should be considered separately to determine whether the accused's behaviour was likely to be a consequence of intoxication.     

An analysis of criminal liability in a criminal case involving an epileptic

This paper presents the case of an epileptic patient who killed his wife during the intermittent period of epilepsy: three different units were asked to give the forensic psychiatric appraisement which came to three different conclusions, namely, the patient should be entitled to no criminal responsibility, partial criminal responsibility, and full criminal responsibility with respect to these three conclusions, the authors make a detailed discussion and give their own opinions.     

A questionnaire survey on judgment of criminal responsibility]

The authors conducted questionnaire surveys utilizing model cases with the aim of investigating the current views of psychiatrists regarding criminal responsibility judgments in forensic psychiatric evaluations. Six model cases-injury by a person with acute schizophrenia, indecent assault by a person with chronic schizophrenia, attempted murder by a woman with depression, arson by an alcohol abuser, burglary by an amphetamine abuser, rape and indecent assault by a person with personality disorder-were presented to 345 psychiatrists, who were asked about criminal responsibility and appropriate treatment for each of the cases. One hundred eighty-five of the psychiatrists responded. In the case of acute schizophrenia with hallucination and delusion, the case of severe depression, and the personality disorder case, there was a high level of agreement between the evaluations of criminal responsibility made by the different respondents, but in the case of chronic schizophrenia, the case of alcohol-induced psychotic disorder, and the case of amphetamine abuse, there were variations in the evaluation of criminal responsibility, with many respondents emphasizing the patient's symptoms and condition at the time of the offense, and relatively few emphasizing whether the disorder was endogenous. Regarding the form of treatment, many of the respondents recommended compulsory hospitalization for the case of acute schizophrenia with hallucination and delusion, while at the same time recommending treatment in a prison environment for the personality disorder case. In contrast, for the case of chronic schizophrenia and the case of alcohol-induced psychotic disorder, opinion was divided as to whether the subject should be handled with a medical or a judicial approach. Regarding treatment for the case of alcohol-induced psychotic disorder and the case of amphetamine abuse, there was a tendency to make a judgment based on the subject's condition at the point of psychiatric evaluation, which was not necessarily linked to the criminal responsibility.     

Now-a-days positions in legal psychiatry (author's transl)]

The stimulus to this contribution to legal psychiatry has to be seen in the present state of the discussion of some of its premises. To be fully aware of the problem it seems necessary to go back to a very elementary point of view. Thus it becomes evident that there is epistemologically a fundamental difference between the so-called gnostic and the agnostic standpoint, between the psychoanalytical and the phenomenological approach. Furthermore a non-contradictory answer to the present questions only appears consistent with the "agnostic" method, whose formal implications are explained very shortly.     

Neurobiological determinism: questionable inferences on human freedom of choice and forensic criminal responsibility

Several authors argue that criminal behavior is generally caused by neurobiological deficits. Based on this neurobiological perspective of assumed causality, the concept of free will is questioned, and the theory of neurobiological determinism of all human behavior is put forward, thus maintaining that human beings are not responsible for their actions, and consequently the principle of guilt should be given up in criminal law. In this context the controversial debate on determinism and indeterminism, which has been held for centuries, has flared up anew, especially within the science of criminal law. When critically examining the current state of research, it becomes apparent that the results do not support the existence of a universally valid neurobiological causality of criminal behavior, nor a theory of an absolute neurobiological determinism. Neither is complete determination of all phenomena in the universe--as maintained--the logical conclusion of the principle of causality, nor is it empirically confirmed. Analyzed methodically, it cannot be falsified, and thus, as a theory which cannot be empirically tested, it represents a dogma against which plausible objections can be made. The criticism of the concept of free will, and even more so of human accountability and criminal responsibility, is not put forward in a valid way. The principle of relative determinism--the evaluation of the degree of determinism of personality factors potentially reducing criminal responsibility, which includes concrete observations and analysis of behavior--thus remains a central and cogent approach to the assessment of criminal responsibility. To sum up, the theories proposed by some authors on the complete neurobiological determinism of human behavior, and the subsequent impossibility of individual responsibility and guilt, reveal both methodical misconception and a lack of empirical foundation.     

早期精神分裂症刑事作案的责任能力相关因素分析

目的探寻在刑事作案中早期精神分裂症患者的特点及影响责任能力评定的相关因素。方法回顾性调查本中心司法鉴定室1991年至2000年间所作的本中心司法鉴定刑事案例资料，将早期精神分裂症患者与非早期精神分裂症患者和正常者进行分组比较，对家族史、案型、案前精神状况、作案诱因、作案动机、隐蔽性、作案对象、自我保护、鉴定诊断、症状特点、责任能力评定等相关因素用SPSS软件作统计分析。结果早期精神分裂症患者组在精神病家族史、文化程度、职业等方面与其他组相比有显著差异：自我保护、思维障碍、行为障碍等变量对三组被鉴定人具有差别效应。结论为提高在司法精神医学鉴定实践中对早期精神分裂症鉴定的准确性，应重视精神病家族史、作案动机、自我保护、思维障碍、行为障碍诸因素。     

Psychiatric aspects of criminal responsibility: insanity and mitigation

Forensic psychiatry expertise may be useful to criminal courts in several ways, including evaluating competence (e.g., to stand trial, waive Miranda rights, confess, plead, represent oneself, or be sentenced), assessing responsibility for alleged criminal behavior, and clarifying mental or psychosocial factors that may mitigate criminal charges or the form and severity of punishment. This column focuses on psychiatric/psychological aspects of mitigation in criminal matters.     

Le cadre juridique régissant la responsabilité pénale de l’aliéné mental au Maroc

IntroductionThe lunatic is any person deemed unfit for societal life. Nowadays, insanity is defined as a mental illness. The psychiatric expertise constitutes a judicial procedure designed to determine the insanity with regards to the effects on penal responsibility.ObjectivesThe aim of this work was to highlight the different rules governing penal responsibility of the insane in Morocco. It also aims to emphasize the main function of the expert psychiatrist in determining the mental status of the offender at the time of the crime.MethodThis is a legal analysis of the effects of insanity on criminal liability. It is based on the examination of different rules governing the penal procedure, and the study of different judgments and case treatments either by the judge, the expert psychiatrist or by the institutions where the insane was placed.ResultsTo detail procedural rules of criminal responsibility of the insane in Morocco as well as the role of the psychiatric expertise.DiscussionThe fundamental question is to determine whether the penal responsibility of the offender in the case of insanity is assumed solely by the criminal court, or whether it is mandatory to obtain the opinion of the expert psychiatric. Although the psychiatric expertise is the cornerstone of the procedure, the criminal court has the potential power to judge the different elements of the criminal process, whereas the medical expertise represents only one.ConclusionThe determination of insanity is paramount due to the importance of the effects that it may have on the criminal responsibility of the offender. Even if the legislature cares to determine the conditions and effects of the insanity on criminal responsibility, the boundaries between the judicial and medical expert intervention remain unclear. Therefore, it is crucial to establish a detailed legal schedule to specify the boundaries and limits, considering that both judge and psychiatrist must collaborate to find the way to improvement.     

Posttraumatic stress disorder as an insanity defense: medicolegal quicksand

A growing awareness of posttraumatic stress disorder has led to recent use of the disorder as a legal defense against criminal responsibility for both violent and nonviolent crimes. Diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder is difficult because the symptoms are mostly subjective, often nonspecific, usually well publicized, and, therefore, relatively easy to imitate. Accurate psychiatric testimony in such cases requires diligent searching for collateral sources of information. The authors argue that the insanity defense is appropriate only in the rare instance that a dissociative episode related to posttraumatic stress disorder directly leads to criminal activity.     

司法精神病鉴定中限定刑事责任能力评定(附95例分析)

目的：对司法精神病鉴定中评定为限定刑事责任能力进行讨论。方法：对95例司法精神病鉴定中评为限定刑事责任能力案例进行分析。结果：限定刑事责任能力的评定在鉴定中可酌情应用。结论：限定责任能力大致可见于以下几种：①精神病性症状与作案无直接关系；②继发性人格障碍而非疾病直接导致；③轻、中度精神发育迟滞；④其他精神活动障碍。     

Clinical analysis of 47 cases of epilepsy

This article makes a clinical analyses of the general data concerning 47 epileptic cases in our hospital, and especially reports on the forensic psychiatric assessment of two out of the seven criminal cases, their history of illness and responsibility. In the assessment of such cases, special emphasis should be laid on the diagnosis of the epilepsy so as to avoid misdiagnosis. The author suggests that the patient folds no responsibility for his criminal behaviour during the attack. But he should be responsible in a diminished criminal for his criminal behavior when he is only suffering from a personality disorder, since he has some discriminative and self-control ability.     

精神疾病患者的暴力行为及其责任能力评定

精神疾病与暴力行为之间存在着较为密切的联系。精神疾病患者暴力作案的责任能力评定是司法鉴定中的常见和难点问题。本文从患者暴力行为特征、责任能力相关影响因素以及未来发展趋势等方面,结合国内外研究进展进行了综合评述,以期对精神疾病患者刑事责任能力评定的研究和实践提供理论参考。     

Criminal responsibility assessment in Switzerland: changes and continuity

BACKGROUND: The factors that experts use to assess criminal responsibility are not very well known. Changes in the importance attributed to certain diagnoses are occasionally mentioned in the literature. The aim of this study is to identify the existence and the nature of such modifications. METHOD: We compared the socio-demographic, criminological and psychiatric characteristics of two samples of psychiatric assessments carried out in Geneva, Switzerland in 1973-74 (N = 75) and 1997-98 (N = 94). RESULTS: The two groups of subjects described by the experts' reports appear to be quite different in several characteristics. However, the rate at which experts conclude their reports in favour of diminished responsibility was not found to be significantly different. The logistic regression shows that the diagnosis of personality disorder is the only variable that influenced the experts differently for the 1997-98 period compared to the 1973-74 period. CONCLUSION: In Geneva, psychiatric experts still continue to ascribe diminished responsibility to offenders suffering from psychosis or depression. However, the population that undergoes psychiatric assessments nowadays has changed considerably.     

责任能力与作案特征、作案时精神症状的相关分析

目的:探讨责任能力与作案特征、作案时精神症状的相关性. 方法:通过使用精神疾病患者限定刑事责任能力评定量表及简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)等工具,对504例刑事案件鉴定案例的责任能力、作案特征及作案时精神症状进行相关分析. 结果:责任能力与BPRS中精神病性症状的相关性较大(0.5相似文献   

Responsibility and choice in addiction

The treatment of patients with substance use disorders requires that providers be aware of their own views on the relative roles of personal responsibility and of forces outside personal control in the onset and progression of and recovery from these disorders. The authors review the role of responsibility for addiction from several viewpoints: biological, psychological, sociocultural, self-help, religious, and forensic. Factors that affect personal responsibility in addictive diseases include awareness of the problem, knowledge of a genetic predisposition, understanding of addictive processes, comorbid psychiatric or medical conditions, adequacy of the support network, nature of the early environment, degree of tolerance of substance abuse in the sociocultural context, and the availability of competent psychiatric, medical, and chemical dependency treatment. Factors that affect societal responsibility include degree of access to illicit drugs, society's level of tolerance of drug use, the courts' approach to deterring substance abuse (punishment versus treatment), individuals' refusal to obtain substance abuse treatment, presence of clear behavioral norms, availability of early assessment and prevention, presence of community education, and degree of access to outpatient and community treatment.     

Factors affecting the decision to prosecute mental patients for criminal behavior

Several authors have argued that under certain circumstances it is both necessary and therapeutic to bring criminal charges against psychiatric patients who have committed assaults or manifested other criminal behavior. Others have argued that prosecution may impair therapeutic alliances and may lead to increased litigation by patients. In this paper the authors present four cases in which patients in the public mental health system were prosecuted, and they discuss factors that affect the decision to pursue prosecution. They argue that both clinicians and legal professionals need specific training to help them recognize the differences between behavior that a patient's illness prevents him from controlling and impulsive behavior, stemming from character pathology, that can appropriately be addressed by criminal sanctions.     

Commentary: A response to Wortzel and Arciniegas about amnesia and crime

The review by Wortzel and Arciniegas of the phenomenology and neuroanatomy of memory is a welcome complement to our psychiatric clinical perspective on the concept of amnesia in relation to crime. The authors raise their concerns in noting that certain concepts referred to in the literature are inconsistent with the phenomenology and neurobiology of memory. In response, we clarify the DSM-IV-TR nomenclature and provide information on current research exploring various mechanisms outlining memory impairment and other neurocognitive deficits in schizophrenia and other psychoses. In relation to amnesia and crime, the practice of forensic psychiatry requires the expert to be able to consider the validity of amnesia claims in criminal proceedings, translate scientific knowledge into a language accessible to the court, and provide an opinion. As such, a psychiatric clinical approach to the concept of amnesia in relation to crime provides a useful framework.     

精神障碍者限定刑事责任能力的评定分级

目的：研究对限定责任能力进行分级的可行性。方法：根据责任能力受影响的程度将106例限定责任能力案例分为三组,对他们的作案特点和疾病严重程度进行比较分析。结果三组在作案特点和疾病严重程度上存在显著差异：小部分组多起意过程简单(92％)、作案前缺乏先兆(84％)及计划准备(84％),缺乏自我保护(64％),对作案行为的认识模糊,自知力、生活自理能力及工作学习能力受损严重;大部分组多正常起意(76．9％)、作案前有先兆(46．2％)及计划准备(76．9％),有自我保护(74．4％),对作案行为的认识较完整,有一定自知力,生活自理能力及工作学习能力受损轻;部分组则介于两者之间。结论限定责任能力可以被划分为三级。