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

Which diagnoses and arguments regarding severe mental disorder do forensic psychiatric experts in Sweden consider in different cases? A qualitative vignette study

The decision-making process of experts in forensic psychiatric investigations (FPI) is complex and reasoning regarding psychiatric diagnosis and severe mental disorder (SMD, the judicial concept central to legal exemption in Swedish law) has severe ramifications. Nevertheless, the qualitative aspects of FPI experts' decision-making process have seldom been studied systematically.

METHOD

The participants (N = 41) were FPI experts: forensic psychiatrists (n = 15), forensic psychologists (n = 15) and forensic social workers (n = 11). Using three case vignettes and qualitative content analysis, it was explored how case-specific characteristics could affect which hypotheses FPI experts generated regarding a) psychiatric diagnosis and b) severe mental disorder and c) which information sources they required. Each case vignette described a diagnostically ambiguous case but indicated emphasis on: psychotic symptoms (case 1); personality disorder symptoms (case 2) and neurodevelopmental disorder symptoms (case 3).

RESULTS

Experts reasoned in a similar manner regarding generating hypotheses and required information, but also in a case-adapted manner. Experts considered various diagnostic alternatives, and some (e.g. psychosis) were mentioned for all three cases. Other diagnoses were only suggested as hypotheses in certain cases (e.g. case 3: intellectual disability).

DISCUSSION

In Sweden, a core basis for SMD is psychotic-like functioning, and psychosis was suggested as a hypothesis for all three cases. Experts reasoned in similar ways regarding SMD in all cases, considering various perspectives for and against SMD. Some case-specific arguments for and against SMD adapted to the psychopathological circumstances were found. These could be related to aspects of the SMD concept that become important to ascertain when the type of psychopathology indicated in the case vignette was present; for example, ascertaining reality monitoring for a person with potential delusions of being followed by a criminal gang requires investigation of criminal history and related conflicts. Taken together, FPI-experts considered a broad range of psychiatric diagnoses in various cases. Their reasoning regarding SMD was both based on general and case-specific (or psychopathology-specific) factors.

Experts' decision-making processes in Swedish forensic psychiatric investigations: A case vignette study

It has previously been demonstrated that decisions made by forensic experts can suffer from issues with both bias and poor reliability. The outcome of Swedish forensic psychiatric investigations can have a major impact on the courts' choice of sanction for a mentally disordered offender. These investigations are performed by multi-professional teams of experts, where each expert is obliged to state their opinion on whether the client has a severe mental disorder (SMD) or not. In the present study, a case vignette design was used to simulate the decision-making process of forensic psychiatric investigations. Of the 73 Swedish experts working with forensic psychiatric investigations, a total of 27 (37%) participated in the study. The results showed that the Swedish experts formulated multiple diagnostic hypotheses about cases throughout the process and revised these hypotheses when presented with new information. There was substantial variation between the experts in which hypotheses were seen as most relevant. While the experts grew more certain of their opinions on SMD during the simulated investigation, there was considerable variation in their opinions both throughout and at the end of the process. Although low statistical power and the sample not being randomized limit generalizations, the results indicate no idiosyncratic patterns in the decision-making processes of Swedish experts or signs of confirmation bias. If used properly, the variation in both process and outcome could be used to safeguard and possibly increase the reliability and validity of the final decision of Swedish forensic psychiatric investigations.

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.