Criminal responsibility: Meta-analysis and study space

Characteristics associated with criminal responsibility assessment outcomes among women in Central Canada

The number of women involved with forensic mental health systems internationally is rising, however, limited research has explored the characteristics of those assessed for criminal responsibility. We investigated the demographic, psychiatric, and criminological characteristics of women recommended as eligible or ineligible for the defence of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder following a criminal responsibility assessment in Central Canada. Data were collected through retrospective chart reviews of court-ordered criminal responsibility assessments for 109 women referred for evaluations between 2003 and 2019. Accused were an average age of 34.55 years, predominately identified as Indigenous (37.7%) or Caucasian (20.8%), and had often been charged with assault (47.7%). Women identified in the reports as NCR-eligible were significantly more likely to be employed, experience delusions during the index offence, and have expert reports linking their mental health symptoms to NCR legal criteria. They were also significantly less likely to have a personality disorder, substance-related diagnosis, or have used substances during the index offence. Delusions during the index offence significantly predicted assessment recommendations when controlling for age at assessment order, current substance-related diagnosis, and whether the expert report linked mental health symptoms to NCR legal criteria. Findings indicate the key factors considered by forensic mental health professionals when conducting criminal responsibility assessments with women. Meaningful differences exist between women identified as NCR-eligible and ineligible, with findings illustrating who may be more likely to receive services within the Canadian forensic mental health system.

Exploring the connection between childhood trauma, dissociation, and borderline personality disorder in forensic psychiatry: a comprehensive case study

This case study examines the complex relationship between childhood trauma, dissociation, and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) within the context of forensic psychiatry. It focuses on a young murder defendant named "Paul," who has experienced various traumatic events, including childhood maltreatment and domestic violence. These experiences have led to dissociative states marked by high emotional intensity, particularly of an aggressive nature, and impaired impulse control, resulting in violent behavior during dissociative episodes. The study employs advanced assessment tools like Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM), the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III), and the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) to gain a comprehensive understanding of Paul's psychopathological condition, risk factors, and rehabilitation needs. The LS/CMI assessment highlights a high risk of recidivism, mainly influenced by family relationships, educational challenges, interpersonal connections, and aggressive tendencies. To address the multifaceted needs of individuals like Paul, the study emphasizes the importance of using transdiagnostic models for trauma and dissociation. This approach informs tailored treatment programs that include processing past traumatic experiences, improving self-identity, nurturing healthy relational patterns, and enhancing emotional regulation. Although this study is based on a single case, it serves as a model for integrating assessment tools and theoretical-clinical models in the field of forensic psychiatry. Understanding the intricate dynamics of childhood trauma, dissociation, and BPD is crucial for making informed decisions, conducting risk assessments, and developing rehabilitation programs within the justice system. Future research should expand the scope of cases and further validate assessment tools to advance our understanding of this complex relationship.

Are symptoms assessed differently for schizophrenia and other psychoses in legal insanity evaluations of violent crimes?

BACKGROUND

Forensic evaluations of legal insanity include the experts' assessment of symptoms present at the mental state examination (MSE) and the mental state at the time of offense (MSO). Delusions and hallucinations are most important. We explored how often symptoms were recorded in written forensic reports.

DESIGN

This exploratory, cross-sectional study included 500 reports of legal insanity written in 2009-2018 from cases of violent crimes in Norway. The first author read all reports and coded symptoms recorded from the experts' assessments of the offenders. Two co-authors repeated this procedure for 50 randomly selected reports. Interrater reliability was calculated with Gwet's AC1. Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Wald tests for fixed effects and Risk Ratios as effect sizes were used for the statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Legal insanity was the main conclusion in 23.6% of the reports; 71.2% of these were diagnosed with schizophrenia while 22.9% had other psychotic disorders. Experts recorded few symptoms from MSO, but more from MSE, although MSO is important for insanity. We found a significant association between delusions and hallucinations recorded present in the MSO and legal insanity for defendants with other psychotic disorders, but no association for defendants with schizophrenia. The differences in symptom recordings between diagnoses were significant.

CONCLUSION

Few symptoms were recorded from the MSO. We found no association between presence of delusions or hallucinations and legal insanity for defendants with schizophrenia. This may indicate that a schizophrenia diagnosis is more important to the forensic conclusion than the symptoms recorded in the MSO.

Influencing factors for assessment of criminal responsibility in patients with mental disorders: A forensic case analysis between 2010 and 2020

BACKGROUND

In China, police departments usually initiate assessment of criminal responsibility after patients with mental disorders commit crimes. However, the specific conditions demanding assessment are not clearly stipulated by law. Few studies have been conducted on the epidemiological characteristics and assessment of criminal responsibility in patients with mental disorders. This study aimed to analyze the features and identify influencing factors for assessment of criminal responsibility for patients with mental disorders in a single-center cohort.

METHODS

Cases undergoing criminal responsibility assessment at the Center of Forensic Science, East China University of Political Science and Law in Shanghai (CFS, ECUPL) between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Criminal responsibility was categorized as criminal irresponsibility, diminished criminal responsibility, and full criminal responsibility. Differences among the groups were then statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

In the study period, 437 patients including 361 males (82.61%) were referred for criminal responsibility assessment. Their ages ranged from 15 years to 91 years. After assessment, the number of cases with criminal irresponsibility, diminished criminal responsibility, and full criminal responsibility were 196 (44.85%), 181 (41.42%), and 60 (13.73%), respectively. The Chi-square test and nominal regression analysis showed that influencing factors for assessment of criminal responsibility comprised crime in public places (OR = 14.734; 95% CI: 1.463-148.424), crime in victim's residence (OR = 10.852; 95% CI: 1.068-110.214), crime in suspect's residence (OR = 9.542; 95% CI: 1.046-87.092), forensic psychiatric diagnosis of F1X (OR = 0.014,0.011; 95%CI:0.001-0.261,0-0.5), F2X (OR = 5.75; 95%CI:1.315-23.145), F4X (OR = 0.077; 95%CI:0.016-0.38,) and F6X (OR = 0.112,0.075; 95% CI: 0.022-0.558,0.006-0.959), criminal object of property (OR = 9.989; 95% CI: 1.305-76.455), cases of theft (OR = 0.09, 0.087; 95% CI: 0.013-0.648,0.012-0.654), and cases of endangering public security (OR = 0.152, 0.205; 95% CI: 0.034-0.678, 0.045-0.931).

CONCLUSION

Crime in public places, suspect's residence and victim's residence, forensic psychiatric diagnosis of F1X, F2X, F4X and F6X, criminal object of property, case types of theft and endangering public security were influencing factors in assessment of criminal responsibility. Therefore, special attention should be paid to patients with mental disorders under such circumstances in order to avoid bias on assessment of criminal responsibility.

Rational capacity and criminal responsibility in the USA

The United States Supreme Court recently found that an insanity defense based upon moral incapacity was not constitutionally required. This decision allows states with a moral incapacity insanity defense, i.e., most states, to abolish their insanity defense. Unfortunately, the Court's opinion was based upon conflated concepts without considering irrationality, traditionally and universally the indispensable core element of insanity standards. This present perspective review attempts to clarify and disambiguate the critical concepts of instrumental and rational capacities as applied to insanity standards. With a proper understanding and application of these distinctly different capacities, insanity standards that at least incorporate rationality should in the future meet the Court's touchstone for determining constitutionally required due process.

Use of assessment instruments in forensic evaluations of criminal responsibility in Norway

OBJECTIVES

Assessment instruments are often used to enhance quality and objectivity in therapeutic and legal settings. We aimed to explore the use of instruments in Norwegian reports of forensic evaluations of criminal responsibility; specifically, whether this use was associated with diagnostic and forensic conclusions.

METHODS

Our study has an exploratory cross-sectional design. We examined 500 reports filed with the Norwegian Board of Forensic Medicine in 2009-2018 regarding defendants indicted for the most serious violent crimes. The first author coded data from all reports according to a registration form developed for this study. Two co-authors then coded a random sample of 50 reports, and inter-rater reliability measures were calculated. The first author coded 41 reports for calculation of intra-rater reliability. Descriptive statistics are presented for the use of assessment instruments, and a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was used to estimate associations between the use of instruments and diagnostic and forensic conclusions.

RESULTS

Instruments were used in 50.0% of reports. The Wechler's Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), Historical Clinical Risk-20 (HCR-20), and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM disorders (SCID I), were used in 15.8, 13.8, and 9.0% of reports, respectively. The use of instruments increased from 36% in 2009 to 58% in 2015; then decreased to 49% in 2018. Teams of two experts wrote 98.0% of reports, and 43.4% of these teams comprised two psychiatrists. In 20.0% of reports, the diagnostic conclusion was schizophrenia, and in 8.8% it was other psychotic disorders. A conclusion of criminal irresponsibility was given in 25.8% of reports. Instruments were more often used in reports written by teams that comprised both a psychiatrist and a psychologist, compared to reports by two psychiatrists. The use of instruments was strongly associated with both diagnostic and forensic conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Instruments were used in 50% of reports on forensic evaluations of criminal responsibility in Norway, and their use increased during the study period. Use of instruments was associated with diagnostic and forensic conclusions.

Validation of a new instrument to guide and support insanity evaluations: the defendant's insanity assessment support scale (DIASS)

The insanity defense represents one of the most controversial and debated evaluations performed by forensic psychiatrists and psychologists. Despite the variation among different jurisdictions, in Western countries, the legal standards for insanity often rely on the presence of cognitive and/or volitional impairment of the defendant at the time of the crime. We developed the defendant's insanity assessment support scale (DIASS) based on a wide view of competent decision-making, which reflects core issues relevant to legal insanity in many jurisdictions. To assess the characteristics of the DIASS we asked 40 forensic experts (16% women; years of experience = 20.6 ± 12.9) to evaluate 10 real-life derived forensic cases with the DIASS; cases included defendants' psychiatric symptom severity, evaluated through the 24-itemBrief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Exploratory factor analysis by principal axis factoring was conducted, which disclosed a two-factor solution explaining 57.6% of the total variance. The DIASS showed a good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86), and substantial inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa = 0.72). The capacities analyzed through the DIASS were mainly affected by mania/excitement and psychotic dimensions in nonresponsible and with substantially diminished responsibility defendants, while by hostility and negative symptoms in responsible defendants. The DIASS proved to be an effective psychometric tool to guide and structure insanity defense evaluations, in order to improve their consistency and reliability.

Preliminary examination of an insanity defense typology: Prevalence rates and correlates

The present investigation was designed to systematically examine the insanity defense typology proposed by Brown (2018) using a large sample of cases wherein there was support for the insanity defense. A total of 187 court-ordered cases in which an insanity defense was supported were categorized based on the typology. The sample comprised of mostly single, middle-aged males who had been charged with a felony and diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. About half the sample was ultimately adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity by the court. About two-thirds of the cases were categorized into one of the seven insanity defense subtypes using a coding scheme developed by the author of the typology. Inter-rater agreement occurred 82% of the time. The most frequent subtype was Paranoid Self-Defense, followed by "But It's Mine" and Paranoid Protection of Others. There were few differences among these subtypes based on demographic, clinical, offense, and outcome variables, except for presence of a primary psychotic disorder and offense type. Implications and ideas for future research are discussed.

Criminal behavior and mental illness in the Arab world

Numerous studies have highlighted significant correlations between major psychiatric disorders and criminal behavior. However, the plethora of literature on criminality among patients with major psychiatric disorders originated in the West. The objective of the present paper is to review criminal behavior among individuals with mental illness in Arab countries. Attributes of individuals assessed by forensic psychiatric committees and identifying various aspects that may reinforce criminality among individuals with mental illness were considered. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of literature from three databases (Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science) was carried out. A total of 20 articles were included. The publications span between 1975 and 2020 and originated in seven different Arab countries including Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Jordan, and Algeria. Individuals evaluated by forensic psychiatric committees were predominantly males. Excluding substance use disorder, psychotic disorders were the most commonly diagnosed disorders among individuals evaluated by forensic psychiatry committees. Concerning schizophrenia, concomitant substance use and nonadherence to therapy were significantly associated with increased criminality. The review demonstrates that substance use is certainly linked to violence. There is a significant association between mental illness and criminal behavior. Therefore, awareness of different characteristics and risk factors behind criminal behavior among mentally ill offenders could allow us to design and implement effective preventative measures. The Arab's contribution in this field of forensic psychiatry is relatively small. Indeed, further investigation and contributions from the Arab world are required.

The factors associated with forensic psychiatrists' decisions in criminal responsibility and social dangerousness evaluations

Despite the central role in criminal trials, there is little research on the decision-making processes of experts in forensic psychiatry. We aimed to investigate the role of sociodemographic, psychopathological, and criminological characteristics in forensic psychiatric decisions on criminal responsibility and social dangerousness in criminal trials. We analyzed 302 forensic psychiatric reports provided by 16 forensic psychiatrists from the North, Central and Southern Italy. Defendants' psychiatric symptom severity was evaluated through the 24-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Defendants judged not criminally responsible (Not-CRDs) presented with more severe psychiatric symptoms (positive symptoms, negative symptoms, manic excitement / disorganization), were more likely to be female, to be affected by a schizophrenia spectrum disorder, or bipolar spectrum disorder and to have had a higher number of previous psychiatric treatments and previous involuntary hospitalizations compared to their criminally responsible counterparts. Not-CRDs affected by a schizophrenia spectrum disorder, personality disorder, with severe psychiatric symptoms and with histories of criminal convictions and more victims were more likely to have received a judgment of social dangerousness. The forensic psychiatric evaluations were carried out on average of 770 days after the time of the crime, which in light of the other results, suggests an effect of the perceptions of the expert on the judgment of responsibility, raising the possibility of time bias on forensic judgments concerning defendants' mental responsibility.