Forensic psychiatric evaluations of defendants: Italy and the Netherlands compared

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.

Difference between forensic patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders in Italy and other European countries: Results of the EU-VIORMED project

BACKGROUND

There has been a substantial change in the law on the provision of secure health services for offender-patients in Italy, a country currently with the lowest general psychiatry bed availability per head of the population in Europe, raising questions about possible differences in offender-patient admissions between European countries.

AIMS

In this multicentre case-control study, our aim was to compare the socio-demographic, clinical and criminological characteristics of a sample of Italian forensic in-patients with schizophrenia or similar psychosis with patients in a similar diagnostic range in specialist in-patient services elsewhere in Europe.

METHODS

Secure hospital unit in-patients with psychosis were recruited across five European countries (Italy, Austria, Germany, Poland and England). Consenting patients were interviewed by researchers and assessed using a multidimensional standardised process. Within country similarities between Austria, Germany, Poland and England were confirmed.

RESULTS

Overall, 39 Italian participants had had fewer years of education than the 182 patients in the other countries and were less likely to have ever had skilled or professional employment. The Italian patients had been older at first contact with any mental health services than the other Europeans. Diagnosed comorbidity rates were similar, but the Italian group reported higher levels of disability. Although the other European forensic patients were more likely to be undergoing treatment at the time of their index offence, they were also more likely to have been poorly compliant with treatment. The rate of suicide-related behaviours was significantly lower among the Italian patients than among the others.

CONCLUSIONS

Notwithstanding similar diagnoses, important differences emerged between patients in Italian forensic mental health resident services and those in four other European countries, some possibly reflecting less access to earlier relevant services in Italy. Others, including lower disability ratings among the Italian patients and a lower rate of suicide-related behaviours, may indicate that the Italian reforms carry benefits. This is worthy of further evaluation.

Decision-Making Within Forensic Psychiatric Investigations: The Use of Various Information Sources by Different Expert Groups to Reach Conclusions on Legal Insanity

BACKGROUND

Which type of information experts use to make decisions regarding legal insanity within forensic psychiatric investigations (FPI) is relatively unknown, both in general and when considering variations due to case context. It is important to explore this area to be able to counteract the effects of various kinds of cognitive bias.

METHOD

The aim was to explore whether FPI expert groups differed regarding case-specific as well as general use of information types required to make decisions on severe mental disorder (SMD). Three FPI case vignettes were presented to three professional groups involved in FPIs in Sweden (n = 41): forensic psychiatrists (n = 15), psychologists (n = 15), and social workers (n = 11). The participants reported which types of information they required to reach conclusions regarding SMD in each case. They also reported which types of information they had used within general FPI praxis during the previous year and the information types' perceived usefulness.

RESULTS

The expert groups differed somewhat regarding what type of information they required for the cases (e.g., results from cognitive testing), but some information was required in all cases (e.g., client's self-report). Regarding the preliminary assessment of SMD in the three cases, minor differences were found. Within the general FPI praxis, experts reported using several information types, while the general perceived usefulness of these sources varied.

DISCUSSION

The professional groups relied partly on a "core" of information sources, but some case-specific adaptations were found. The professional groups' inclination to suspect SMD also varied somewhat. This indicates a need to explore the potential consequences of these similarities and differences.

Translational Application of a Neuro-Scientific Multi-Modal Approach Into Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation: Why and How?

A prominent body of literature indicates that insanity evaluations, which are intended to provide influential expert reports for judges to reach a decision "beyond any reasonable doubt," suffer from a low inter-rater reliability. This paper reviews the limitations of the classical approach to insanity evaluation and the criticisms to the introduction of neuro-scientific approach in court. Here, we explain why in our opinion these criticisms, that seriously hamper the translational implementation of neuroscience into the forensic setting, do not survive scientific scrutiny. Moreover, we discuss how the neuro-scientific multimodal approach may improve the inter-rater reliability in insanity evaluation. Critically, neuroscience does not aim to introduce a brain-based concept of insanity. Indeed, criteria for responsibility and insanity are and should remain clinical. Rather, following the falsificationist approach and the convergence of evidence principle, the neuro-scientific multimodal approach is being proposed as a way to improve reliability of insanity evaluation and to mitigate the influence of cognitive biases on the formulation of insanity opinions, with the final aim to reduce errors and controversies.