L’expert judiciaire et l’irresponsabilité pénale. Débats et controverses au cours du temps et questions contemporaines

IntroductionSince the creation of the Société Médico-Psychologique, an accumulation of discussions at the national level has resulted in legislative changes, which concern people with mental disorders. Public opinion has now become a stakeholder, prompting us, as judicial experts, to address criminal irresponsibility. The authors wish to give an account of the evolution of the ideas and professional practices in alienism and forensic psychiatry regarding criminal liability, irresponsibility, and the evolution of legislative measures in this realm.MethodsTo do so, they rely on the use of their forensic psychiatric and medico-psychological expertise, which has been effective for many years and remains relevant today, as well as on their clinical and theoretical research activities. The methodology is based on the analysis of language and the critical approach of historical and clinical epistemology.Forensic IssuesThey are examined taking into account the cultural and scientific context from the middle of the 19th century to the beginning of the 21st century. Criminal responsibility and irresponsibility are ancient principles codified in Roman law by Marcus Aurelius and which evolved with the political, social and religious conjunctions of each epoch. Whether the reason given for the recognition of criminal irresponsibility is referred to as madness, degeneration, insanity, dementia, psychic abnormality or discernment, it has always been the subject of research by physicians, alienists, and then psychiatrists. The authors analyze the role of the dissemination of the debates from the creation of the Annales Médico-Psychologiques (in 1843) and of the Société Médico-Psychologique (in 1852), illustrating them with some famous cases in specialized literature. The importance of forensic discussions at the Société Médico-Psychologique animated the end of the nineteenth century and the first part of the twentieth century, contributing to the enrichment of psychiatric semiology and to the opening up of new research, notably methodological. This will lead to an evolution of the conceptions relative to what induces the criminal act and will no longer limit irresponsibility to a diagnosis of insanity or dementia ; the study of psychic functioning will be put forward with the notion of discernment and those of self-control of one's actions. If numerous theoretical debates within the profession have fueled “expert disputes” sometimes disqualifying the role of experts, they remained, however, in the medical and judicial field. Over the past decade, these issues have been broadened to include societal debates around issues related to dangerousness and recidivism. This has become a dominant theme in scientific gatherings, before the eruption into the criminal field, of the increasing role played by victims and victims’ associations. Law No. 92-683 of 22 July 1992 introduced into the Penal Code Article 122-1 (1994 Penal Code) replacing Article 64, by inserting the notions of alteration or abolition of discernment. This distinction has given rise to new difficulties and tensions in expert practice ; the law came into force in 1994. During the 2000s, a series of high-profile homicides involving people with serious mental disorders, sometimes carried out in a recidivist situation, hit the headlines in France. This resulted in a shift in public opinion that led to the law of 25 February 2008 on criminal irresponsibility. The law put an end to the judicial dismissal of cases on the grounds of criminal irresponsibility, by introducing other provisions in the form of security measures (judicial supervision and detention of security). This law creates new interferences between legal procedural issues and psychiatric practice ; it also emphasized the importance of the role of experts by creating new missions, including the expertise of dangerousness. The movement linked to the consideration of the place of victims has been accentuated, both by the objective of obtaining a judgment for the perpetrator of the acts, and by the solicitation of their participation in the successive phases of the procedure. We have recently moved on to questions and controversies about the lack of accountability leading to the law of 24 January 2022. The current article 122 did not specify the origin of the psychic disorder causing the abrogation of discernment, which was interpreted by the Minister of Justice as “a legal void”, which must be “filled with urgency”. Title I states: “Provisions limiting criminal irresponsibility in cases of mental disorder resulting from self-induced psychoactive substances”. All these new provisions, as well as the creation of new incriminations and qualifications, certainly engender debates between magistrates and experts, but they are above all part of a concern of the public authorities about the necessity of setting up “provisions limiting criminal liability in the case of mental disorder”. The interpretation of the contribution of the law to a criminal act remains complex, according to the authors, in terms of psychopathological and etiopathogenic research. Within the context of expert practice, this new law will make it necessary to add new questions for the current missions, and it can only result in an increase in the complexity of these missions and in a risk of confusion in the answers.ConclusionThe authors show that the question of criminal liability does not solicit the same questions and problems in the judicial field (the point of view of the forensic psychiatrist, during the expert examination) or in the societal field with the confrontation with all the representations that are attached both to madness and to the passage to the criminal act, which since the beginning of the twentieth century involves other emerging disciplines. From their point of view, the assertion that a psychic disorder can be of such severity so as to affect the free will and discernment of the perpetrator of a criminal act at the time of the offence, must remain within the domain of psychiatry, even if the new law of 24 January 2022, through several of its provisions, would attempt to eliminate this necessity.