Audit study of the new hospitalization for assessment scheme for forensic mental health in Japan

Diminished criminal responsibility: A multinational comparative review

This article reviews the legal frameworks of diminished criminal responsibility in eighteen civil law jurisdictions across the globe-Brazil, Chile, China, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Turkey. Specifically, it reports the legal standards and main features of partial responsibility, associated penalty reductions, and potential dispositions following a partial responsibility finding. It also surveys empirical data on the prevalence of diminished responsibility as compared to criminal nonresponsibility. This article, which reflects contemporary penal codes and draws from both English and non-English sources, is the only known existing source to compile these partial responsibility standards or to delineate their precise sentencing consequences. It is also the only known source in English to describe Portugal's and Chile's treatment of diminished responsibility. Providing a comparative overview of graduated responsibility in nearly twenty countries invites global discussion on whether and how society should recognize partial responsibility, as well as the punitive and therapeutic consequences that should attend this finding.

Differences between British and Japanese perspectives on forensic mental health systems: A preliminary study

AIM

To clarify the differences in views on forensic mental health (FMH) systems between the United Kingdom and Japan.

METHODS

We conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with six leading forensic psychiatrists. Based on a discussion by the research team, we created an interview form. After we finished conducting all the interviews, we qualitatively analyzed their content.

RESULTS

In the United Kingdom the core domain of FMH was risk assessment and management; however, in Japan, the core domain of FMH was psychiatric testimony. In the United Kingdom, forensic psychiatrists were responsible for ensuring public safety, and psychopathy was identified as a disease but deemed as not suitable for medical treatment. On the other hand, in Japan, psychopathy was not considered a mental illness.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, there are considerable differences between the United Kingdom and Japan with regard to the concepts of FMH. Some ideas taken from both cultures for better FMH practice were suggested.

Drug driven psychoses and legal responsibility or insanity in six Western Pacific nations

Prompted by four questions, forensic mental health clinicians from Russia, China, Japan, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand provided information on both the legislative basis and current practice concerning the relationship between legal insanity, intoxication and drug induced psychosis in their six Pacific Rim Countries which account for nearly 20% of the world's population. Details of the survey for each contributing nation are provided. While there are significant variations in practice that have been shaped by regional legal, clinical and cultural influences there is considerable similarity in the legislation underpinning how these issues are considered. Consequently there remain similar challenges for each nation. In none of the legislative bases was the issue of drug induced psychosis specifically addressed. The authors conclude that evolving pharmaco-neuropsychiatric knowledge, societal values and patterns of substance misuse require nations to consider developments in scientific and clinical knowledge to support their interpretations of the relationship between altered mental states as a result of substance use and the legal construct of insanity.

Risk Factors for Problematic Behaviors among Forensic Outpatients under the Medical Treatment and Supervision Act in Japan

The Medical Treatment and Supervision Act (MTSA) was enacted in 2005 in Japan to promote the reintegration of clinical offenders with mental disorders into society. Under the MTSA, individuals who committed serious crimes in a state of insanity or diminished responsibility are diverted from the criminal justice system to the mental health system. Based on court decisions about MTSA-based treatment, clinical offenders have an obligation to engage in rehabilitation within their local community under the guidance of mental health professionals. However, patients under MTSA-based clinical treatments have faced various problems in the course of treatment, because of psychiatric as well as other static or dynamic factors, and sometimes have committed problematic behaviors, such as violence and medical non-compliance. Hence, this study aimed to clarify factors related to patients' inclusion in MTSA-based outpatient treatment and additionally, their commitment of problematic behaviors, based on confidential data acquired during a four-year government survey period (National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry) from MTSA enactment (July 15, 2005) to December 31, 2009. In total, we recruited 441 clinical offenders receiving MTSA-based outpatient treatment from 158 nationwide facilities. To evaluate related factors, we collected demographic, psychiatric, forensic, clinical treatment, and social service information. Statistical analyses demonstrated that predominant profiles of patients included male gender, younger age, low school history, psychiatric diagnoses (F1, F2, and F3), and no correctional or outpatient history before MTSA-based treatment. F1 or substance use diagnosis, in particular, was increasingly correlated with other factors, such as male gender, older age, and correctional history before MTSA treatment. Among the 441 patients, 189 (43%) committed problematic behaviors in the course of the MTSA-based outpatient treatment. Risk factors for patients' commitment of problematic behaviors comprised F1 diagnosis and inpatient history before MTSA-based treatment inclusion. In summary, reduction of overall problematic behaviors under the MTSA outpatient likely makes progress by focal attention to patients with psychiatric disorders caused by substance use and/or a past inpatient history for more severe psychiatric symptoms. This work is of ongoing and future importance in the domain of forensic community treatment, to connect risk-enhancing factors with risk management.