Translating clinical findings to the legal norm: the Defendant’s Insanity Assessment Support Scale (DIASS) (original) (raw)
Related papers
A prospective comparison of four insanity defense standards
American Journal of Psychiatry, 1991
Objective: Controversy about the formulation of the insanity defense has been intense, but little empirical work is available regarding how different standards affect court findings. The major aims of the present study were to determine if different standards for determining insanity produced different judgments and to provide a broad descriptive picture of those cases in which the standards appeared to make a difference. Method: Four forensic psychiatrists were asked to indicate whether they thought 1 64 defendants met any or all of four insanity tests: 1) the American Law Institute (ALl) cognitive criterion, 2) the ALl volitional criterion, 3) the APA test, and 4) the M'Naghten rule. Results: The four psychiatrists determined that 97.5% of the defendants met the ALl volitional criterion, 73.9% met the APA criterion, 70.3% met the M'Naghten rule, and 69.5% met the ALl cognitive criterion. Nearly two-thirds ofthe defendants met all four insanity tests, and 24.4% met only the ALl volitional test. Few defendants met cognitive tests without also meeting the ALl volitional test. Elimination ofthe volitional test for insanity reduced the rate ofpsychiatric recommendations of acquittal by 24.4%. Conclusions: These findings highlight the fact that the primary logical division between volitional and cognitive standards appears to be powerful but that distinctions between types of cognitive standards are not terribly powerful. In addition, the variation among individual raters must be viewed as an important determinant of how any insanity standard is applied.
The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 2002
The insanity defense is a legal construct that excuses certain mentally ill defendants from legal responsibility for criminal behavior. This practice guideline has delineated the forensic psychiatric evaluation of defendants raising the insanity defense. The document describes acceptable forensic psychiatric practices. Where possible, standards of practice and ethical guidelines have been specified. And where appropriate, the practice guideline has emphasized the importance of analyzing the individual case, the jurisdictional case law and the state (or federal) statute. This practice guideline is limited by the evolving case law, statutory language and legal literature. The authors have emphasized the statutory language of current legal standards, as well as the state or federal courts' interpretation of those standards because the same statutory language has been interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. Similarly, this practice guideline has reviewed the state and fe...
Background Forensic evaluations of legal insanity include the experts' assessment of symptoms present at the mental state examination (MSE) and the mental state at the time of offense (MSO). Delusions and hallucinations are most important. We explored how often symptoms were recorded in written forensic reports. Design This exploratory, cross-sectional study included 500 reports of legal insanity written in 2009-2018 from cases of violent crimes in Norway. The first author read all reports and coded symptoms recorded from the experts' assessments of the offenders. Two co-authors repeated this procedure for 50 randomly selected reports. Interrater reliability was calculated with Gwet's AC 1. Generalized Linear Mixed Models with Wald tests for fixed effects and Risk Ratios as effect sizes were used for the statistical analyses. Results Legal insanity was the main conclusion in 23.6% of the reports; 71.2% of these were diagnosed with schizophrenia while 22.9% had other psychotic disorders. Experts recorded few symptoms from MSO, but more from MSE, although MSO is important for insanity. We found a significant association between delusions and hallucinations recorded present in the MSO and legal insanity for defendants with other psychotic disorders, but no association for defendants with schizophrenia. The differences in symptom recordings between diagnoses were significant. Conclusion Few symptoms were recorded from the MSO. We found no association between presence of delusions or hallucinations and legal insanity for defendants with schizophrenia. This may indicate that a schizophrenia diagnosis is more important to the forensic conclusion than the symptoms recorded in the MSO.
Forensic psychiatric evaluations of defendants: Italy and the Netherlands compared
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2019
Background: Forensic psychiatric practices and provisions vary considerably across jurisdictions. The diversity provides the possibility to compare forensic psychiatric practices, as we will do in this paper regarding Italy and the Netherlands. Aim: We aim to perform a theoretical analysis of legislations dealing with the forensic psychiatric evaluation of defendants, including legal insanity and the management of mentally ill offenders deemed insane. This research is carried out not only to identify similarities and differences regarding the assessment of mentally ill offenders in Italy and the Netherlands, but, in addition, to identify strengths and weaknesses of the legislation and procedures used for the evaluation of the mentally ill offenders in the two countries. Results: Italy and the Netherlands share some basic characteristics of their criminal law systems. Yet, forensic psychiatric practices differ significantly, even if we consider only evaluations of defendants. A strong point of Italy concerns its test for legal insanity which defines the legal norm and enables a straightforward communication between the experts and the judges on this crucial matter. A strong point of the Netherlands concerns more standardized practices including guidelines and the use of risk assessment tools, which enable better comparisons and scientific research in this area. Conclusions: We argue that there appears to be room for improvement on both sides with regards to the evaluation of mentally ill offenders. More generally, a transnational approach to these issues, as applied in this paper, could help to advance forensic psychiatric services in different legal systems. This research is carried out not only to identify similarities and differences regarding the assessment of mentally ill offenders in Italy and the Netherlands, but, in addition, to identify strengths and weaknesses of the legislation and procedures used for the evaluation of the mentally ill offenders in the two countries. Based on our analysis, at least in
The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 2018
Under Belgian law, offenders deemed to lack criminal responsibility because of insanity receive mandated treatment under the internment law. Population profiles of these forensic patients ('internees') are, however, very scarce. In this study, we analysed the demographic, clinical and judicial profile of a large sample of Belgian internees admitted to a secure setting. In addition, differences between internees admitted to a medium versus a high security setting were investigated. Belgian internees were characterised by a large number of personality disorders and a low number of first offenders. Comparative analyses showed substantial differences between the high and medium security settings, with a marked proportion of the forensic patients in high security having committed a sexual offence. Contrary to expectations, more predictors for length of stay were found in the medium security subsample, while admission periods were significantly longer in the high security subsample.
The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 2016
The present study investigated the impact of different legal standards on mock juror decisions concerning whether a defendant was guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. Undergraduate students (N = 477) read a simulated case summary involving a murder case and were asked to make an insanity determination. The cases differed in terms of the condition of the defendant (rationality deficit or control deficit) and the legal standard given to the jurors to make the determination (Model Penal Code, McNaughten or McNaughten plus a separate control determination). The effects of these variables on the insanity determination were investigated. Jurors also completed questionnaires measuring individualism and hierarchy attitudes and perceptions of facts in the case. Results indicate that under current insanity standards jurors do not distinguish between defendants with rationality deficits and defendants with control deficits regardless of whether the legal standard requires them to do so. Even defendants who lacked control were found guilty at equal rates under a legal standard excusing rationality deficits only and a legal standard excluding control and rationality deficits. This was improved by adding a control test as a partial defence, to be determined after a rationality determination. Implications for the insanity defence in the Criminal Justice System are discussed.
Frontiers in Psychiatry
BackgroundWhich 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.MethodThe 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 usefulne...