Diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and criminal responsibility

Spaans, Marleen; Barendregt, Marko; Haan, Bernadette; Nijman, Henk; Beurs, Edwin de

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.08.008

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Under current Dutch criminal law, a crime committed because of a disorder that rendered the offender unable to act differently (i.e., that the offense was unavoidable) is not considered punishable (Spaans et al, 2011). As in North America, the presence of symptoms that correspond with a major mental disorder are regu-larly associated with diminished responsibility in the Netherlands (Barendregt et al, 2008).…”

Section: Symptoms Of Mental Illnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

An international perspective on criminal responsibility and mental illness.

Grossi

Green

2017

Practice Innovations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criminal responsibility refers to the degree to which an individual is accountable for an illegal act that he or she committed given idiographic factors such as age, cognitive abilities, and psychological functioning (Packer, 2009). Thus, perception of criminal responsibility has the potential to greatly impact forensically involved individuals, and most often forensically involved individuals living with severe and persistent mental illness and/or cognitive limitations. This paper focuses on international and cross-cultural perspectives on criminal responsibility; the topic is of importance because mental health professionals may perform evaluations of criminal responsibility, and potentially testify in this regard, in jurisdictions with dissimilar perspectives and/or policies related to criminal responsibility. Specifically, this article discusses the similarities and differences between several geographic areas' definitions of criminal responsibility, evolving legal standards, and the apparent relevance of formal diagnoses in determining criminal responsibility. Variation in perceptions of treatment to rehabilitate mentally ill offenders and the potential legal consequences of a finding of guilt or nonguilt by reason of insanity are also discussed. Findings emphasize that mental health experts who perform criminal responsibility evaluations must be attuned to the specific context in which a defendant is being tried, particularly if practicing in multiple jurisdictions, and that consumers of criminal responsibility research should attend to the broader social context(s) in which each research study is conducted and findings are interpreted.

show abstract

Section: Symptoms Of Mental Illnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

An international perspective on criminal responsibility and mental illness.

Grossi

Green

2017

Practice Innovations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Earlier research on Dutch forensic pretrial assessments has shown that 78% of individuals with diminished criminal responsibility had a personality disorder, which was in turn associated with advice for enforced forensic treatment (Spaans, Barendregt, Haan, Nijman, & De Beurs, 2011).…”

Section: Pretrial Assessment In the Netherlandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The DAPP–SF as a Screener for Personality Disorder in a Forensic Setting

Spaans

Rinne

Beurs³

et al. 2014

Journal of Personality Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies on the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Short Form (DAPP-SF) have shown its ability to identify treatment-seeking patients with personality disorders. This study focuses on its screening potential for personality disorder in 89 criminal suspects (77 men, 12 women; M age = 37.0 years) undergoing residential pretrial psychological assessments in a high-security setting. It was expected that Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality (SIDP-IV) criteria met for personality disorder(s) would be associated with higher DAPP-SF scores. A floor effect was found in DAPP-SF scores: The forensic population reported less personality pathology than the general population. Only moderate associations between DAPP-SF and SIDP-IV outcome were found. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that some DAPP-SF subscales did not exceed chance level in their ability to screen for personality disorders. It is concluded that the DAPP-SF has limited usefulness as a screener for personality disorders in a forensic pretrial setting. Alternative forensic screening instruments are presented.

show abstract

“…Studies have shown a strong association between various types of personalities (schizoid, antisocial, borderline, psychopathic) and violent crime (Loza and Hanna, 2006;de Barros and de Padua Serafim, 2008;Walsh et al, 2009;Logan and Johstone, 2010;Esbec and Echeburúa, 2010;Spaans et al, 2011;Camp et al, 2013;Mela et al, 2014). For those with psychopathy, this association is justified due to characteristics such as lack of empathy, pathological egocentricity, shallow emotions, low threshold for display of aggression, and lack of remorse (Hare and Neumann, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%