Sun D, Wang Q, Xu Y. Influencing factors for assessment of criminal responsibility in patients with mental disorders: A forensic case analysis between 2010 and 2020.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW AND PSYCHIATRY 2023;
86:101854. [PMID:
36528930 DOI:
10.1016/j.ijlp.2022.101854]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2022] [Revised: 12/01/2022] [Accepted: 12/07/2022] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse