Content uploaded by Thierry Urwyler
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thierry Urwyler on Oct 21, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Das Teilnahmerecht der Verteidigung am Explorationsgespräch des psychiatrischen Sachverständigen mit der beschuldigten Person im Lichte der EMRK - Mit Fokus auf das Gutachten zur Schuldfähigkeit und Massnahmenindikation
Abstract
Zusammenfassung: Das Explorationsgespräch des Sachverständigen mit der beschuldigten Person ist ein zentraler Baustein der psychiatrischen Begutachtung im Strafverfahren. Der Autor legt in seiner Dissertation dar, dass ein faires Verfahren i.S.v. Art. 6 EMRK nur dann stattfindet, wenn die Exploration audiovisuell aufgezeichnet wird und wenn die Verteidigung der beschuldigten Person an der Exploration teilnehmen darf.
Résumé: L’entretien du psychiatre avec le prévenu est un élément central de l’évaluation psychiatrique dans la procédure pénale. L’auteur explique dans sa thèse qu’un procès équitable (Art. 6 CEDH) n’a lieu que si l’entretien est enregistré par vidéo et la défense de l’accusé est autorisée à participer à l’entretien entre le psychiatre et le prévenu.
Abstract: The interview with the accused is a central component of a psychiatric examination in criminal proceedings. The author shows in his PhD thesis that a fair trial (Art. 6 ECHR) requires an audio-visual recording of the psychiatric interview. Additionally, the accused must have the right to let his defence counsel attend the psychiatric interview.
Background:
Criminal courts of law rely on forensic psychiatric/psychological reports when clarifying legal questions of culpability, dangerousness, and the need for therapeutic measures for offenders. Incorrect decisions owing to a lack of expert report quality and comprehensibility can have serious consequences for potential victims, offenders themselves, or societal use of resources. In this pilot study, we started from the hypothesis that forensic psychiatric/psychological reports meet the minimum requirements for legally admissible expert opinions.
Methods:
Within the framework of assessment by the Concordat Expert Commission of Northwestern and Central Switzerland, 58 adult criminal law reports were randomly selected. Two researchers extracted and analyzed standardized data descriptively. For quality assurance, they followed the extended codebook of the Research and Development Department of the Zürich Office of Corrections and Reintegration.
Results:
Psychopathological findings accounted for only 1% of the reports, which seemed problematic considering that these findings reflect the personality traits of offenders. Furthermore, only 7% of offenders underwent physical examinations, and the reasons for not performing physical examinations were noted in fewer than half of these offenders. Of 26 sexual offenders, only one was physically assessed. Additional imaging or neurophysiological examinations (e.g. electroencephalogram) were conducted in only one offender. Furthermore, published baseline recidivism rates were used in only 37.9% of the reports.
Conclusions:
The results of this study suggest that current forensic psychiatric assessment is deficient. The infrequent use of published recidivism rates for risk communication denies prosecutors and judges solid reference values for the actual recidivism probability. Moving away from somatic medicine contradicts the federal court judgment, which disqualifies psychologists from providing a forensic report owing to their lack of expertise in physical examination. The authors recommend the multidisciplinary involvement of forensic psychiatrists and psychologists and, in certain cases, of specialists in somatic medicine to produce accurate and well-founded reports.
Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 26711/07 and 2 others
- Krunoslava Egmr
- Zovko V. Croatia
EGMR, Krunoslava Zovko v. Croatia, no. 56935/13, § 45, 23 May 2017; EGMR,
Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 26711/07
and 2 others, § 94, 12 May 2016; EGMR, J.M. and Others v. Austria, nos. 61503/14
and 2 others, § 122 f., 1 June 2017; EGMR, Duško Ivanovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 10718/05, § 57, 24 April 2014.
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 26711/07 and 2 others
- Poletan Egmr
EGMR, Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no.
26711/07 and 2 others, § 94, 12 May 2016.
Austria, nos. 61503/14 and 2 others, § 122 f
- J M Egmr
- Others V
EGMR, J.M. and Others v. Austria, nos. 61503/14
and 2 others, § 122 f., 1 June 2017;
- Mantovanelli V Egmr
- France
EGMR, Mantovanelli v. France, 18 March 1997, § 36, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1997-II; EGMR, Cottin v. Belgium, no. 48386/99, § 32 f., 2 June 2005.
445 f. und die von ihm zitierte Rechtsprechung; sodann ANTOGNINI
- Wohlers Eingehend
- Zstrr
Eingehend WOHLERS, ZStrR 2018, S. 445 f. und die von ihm zitierte Rechtsprechung; sodann ANTOGNINI, N 10; BINDER, S. 191 ff.; DONATSCH, Jusletter 14. Mai
2007, N 44 ff.; DONATSCH/ZUBERBÜHLER, S. 343 f.
885 ff.; WOHLERS, ZStrR
- S Erb
ERB, S. 885 ff.; WOHLERS, ZStrR 2018, S. 439 ff.
192 weist zurecht darauf hin, dass sich die Aufgabenbereiche zwischen Psychiatrie und Recht verschränkt haben
- Verwahrte Habermeyer
HABERMEYER, Verwahrte, S. 192 weist zurecht darauf hin, dass sich die Aufgabenbereiche zwischen Psychiatrie und Recht verschränkt haben; Kröber et al.-I-RÖSSNER, S. 419.
Austria, nos. 61503/14 and 2 others, § 122 ff.; EGMR, Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 26711/07 and 2 others
- J M Egmr
- Others V
EGMR, J.M. and Others v. Austria, nos. 61503/14 and 2 others, § 122 ff.; EGMR,
Poletan and Azirovik v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 26711/07
and 2 others, § 94, 12 May 2016;
222 betonen indes zurecht, dass die Subjektivitätsproblematik sämtliche Wissenschaftsdisziplinen (d.h. auch Physik etc.) betrifft
- Sachverständige Barton
BARTON, Sachverständige, S. 32 ff.; ERB, S. 911 f.; DONATSCH, fp 2019, S. 137 f.;
LAEMMEL, S. 246; TOEPEL, S. 201; ähnlich auch RUCKSTUHL/DITTMANN/
ARNOLD, N 1251; DONATSCH/ZUBERBÜHLER, S. 340, MEIER/BIGLER, S. 61 f. und
ZWIEHOFF, S. 222 betonen indes zurecht, dass die Subjektivitätsproblematik sämtliche Wissenschaftsdisziplinen (d.h. auch Physik etc.) betrifft; dazu auch PIES, S.
18 ff. sowie HAUG/TRABERT/SCHAUB, S. 259 f.
693: «Diagnostic field reliability in medicine and mental health is generally mediocre
- S Finzen
- Gowensmith
- S Al
FINZEN, S. 43 ff.; GOWENSMITH ET AL., S. 693: «Diagnostic field reliability in medicine and mental health is generally mediocre, despite continuing advances in both
fields.»;