Mentally disordered offenders. Patterns in the relationship between mental disorder and crime.
ABSTRACT Five patterns among mentally disordered offenders are distinguished by the relationship between mental disorder, on the one hand, and criminality, on the other. Pattern 1 offenders are those for whom crime is a response to psychotic symptoms, most often delusions or hallucinations. Pattern 2 offenders commit crimes motivated by compulsive desires, such as sex offenses by paraphiles and offenses regarded as evidence of disorders of impulse control. Pattern 3 offenders are those with personality disorder for whom the crime is merely one example of a maladaptive pattern of voluntary and knowing behavior. Pattern 4 offenders have coincidental mental illness that is unrelated to the crime. Pattern 5 offenders are those who become mentally disordered or feign mental disorder as a result of their crimes, such as those who dissociate upon seeing what they have done, those who become depressed in prison, those who become psychotic on death row, and those who malinger mental illness. Although these categories do not determine whether offenders are responsible for their behavior, some unknown proportion of Pattern 1 offenders do meet legal criteria for insanity, depending on the facts of each case and the applicable legal standards. It is arguable whether or not Pattern 2 offenders ever meet legal criteria of insanity. Offenders evidencing only Patterns 3, 4, or 5 are not candidates for an insanity defense.
SourceAvailable from: Phillip J Resnick[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The insanity defense has been described as a symbol of the relationship between law and psychiatry (Stone, 1984b). As such, it has always been the subject of intense legal and public scrutiny, despite the fact that it is infrequently raised and seldom successful. Forensic psychiatrists are often depended upon by the criminal justice system to provide these evaluations, which require a high degree of training and expertise. In 2002, the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law published it's Practice Guideline for Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Defendants Raising the Insanity Defense (AAPL, 2002). While noting that any attempt to promulgate guidelines will be limited by evolving legal doctrine and psychiatric science, the intent of the guidelines was to describe ''acceptable forensic psychiatric practices.''Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention 02/2008; 8(1):92-110. DOI:10.1093/brief-treatment/mhm024
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Existing research in law and psychiatry point to schizophrenia as a risk factor for violence and offense behaviors. The present study aims to: 1) report on the prevalence and types of offensive or criminal acts in patients with schizophrenia; 2) identify attributes of schizophrenic offenders; and 3) examine factors associated with offensive or criminal behaviors within a sample of schizophrenic offenders. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of 358 patients with schizophrenia who were admitted to a psychiatric ward in Iran between 2004 and 2008. Study data was collected using patients’ medical, criminal records, as well as via personal interview with the family member. Study variables included criminality or offensive behavior, types of schizophrenia (paranoid vs. nonparanoid), experiencing hallucination, disease onset, and patients’ demographics. Results: Of the sample, 64.8% were male, 80.7% were 45 years old or younger, and 74.1% were either single or divorced. Slightly over 59 % were offenders with criminal status, of which, 9.8% were legal offenders and 48.6% were hidden offenders. The results of unadjusted logistic regression between these variables and criminality show, except for employment, marital status, and opium use, all other variables were statically associated with criminality. Conclusions: Methodological difficulties arising from this study, as well as, the role of mental health professionals, family, and legal system for prevention of violence in and by patients with schizophrenia are discussed.Journal of injury & violence research 05/2014; 7(1). DOI:10.5249/jivr.v7i1.635
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The authors review the recent literature on multiple personality disorder (MPD), the most severe and chronic of the dissociative disorders, in relation to court cases of competence to stand trial, the insanity defense, and research on malingerers feigning MPD. Issues relevant in the assessment of competency and insanity are described. Features characteristic of MPD, including amnesia and alterations in consciousness and personality, have varying degrees of influence over the criminal behavior of an individual with MPD. As in other psychiatric disorders, the influence of MPD on an individual's competence to stand trial, and sanity, can be evaluated systematically. This article discusses a specific diagnostic tool, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders (SCID-D), an extensively field tested instrument that is potentially quite useful in forensic assessment of suspects manifesting dissociative symptoms and disorders. The particular advantages of the SCID-D will be reviewed in the context of some well known criminal cases involving MPD. Further research using diagnostic interviews for the systematic assessment of dissociative symptoms and MPD in criminal cases will continue to clarify the influence of these symptoms in a forensic context.The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 02/1993; 21(3):345-56.