Personality Disorders and Criminal Responsibility in the Spanish Supreme Court*

Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine how personality disorders (PDs) are viewed in relation to criminal responsibility (CR) within the jurisprudence of the Spanish Supreme Court. All sentences with PD from 2000 to 2006 were included. The most frequently occurring PDs are cluster B and nonspecific disorders, alongside another Axis I disorder. The Spanish Supreme Court admitted appeals on 50%, and sentencing criteria were changed in 25% of the cases. The most frequent outcome was in the first instance a minor reduction in CR and second full CR being upheld. The borderline PD and the comorbidity between a PD and an Axis I disorder are the variables associated with the decrease in CR. The assessment of CR in PD should be undertaken using the diagnosis as a base taking into account other elements, such as the type of PD, its seriousness, comorbidity, and relationship with the criminal behavior on trial.

An international perspective on criminal responsibility and mental illness.

“…In Spain, there are three potential levels of criminal responsibility: complete criminal responsibility, partial criminal responsibility, and noncriminal responsibility. Furthermore, partial criminal responsibility in Spain can take two forms: (a) partial mitigating circumstances require a severe degree of diminished cognitive and volitional capacities and (b) analogical mitigating circumstances require a lesser degree of diminished cognitive and volitional capacity (Mohíno et al, 2011).…”

“…In Spain, insanity is determined based on a cognitive and volitional standard, similar to the ALI standard, which requires that a “psychic anomaly or alteration” inhibit either an individual’s capacity to understand the unjust nature of the committed act or his ability to modify his behavior in concurrence with the aforementioned understanding (Mohíno, Pujol, & Idiaquez, 2011, p. 150). In accordance with this standard, a person cannot be regarded as completely criminally responsible if they were not sane when they violated the law.…”

“…Much controversy in Europe revolves around the diagnosis of personality disorders, and the degree to which such a disorder relates to an individual’s level of criminal responsibility. According to Mohíno et al (2011), personality disorders are more prevalent in forensic institutions than in the general population; this suggests that the diagnosis of a personality disorder may affect a person’s reasoning abilities. In support of this perspective, an analysis of Spanish Supreme Court jurisprudence by Mohíno and colleagues (2011) revealed that a diagnosis of a borderline personality disorder slightly diminished a defendant’s criminal responsibility; this relationship was strengthened if the personality disorder was comorbid with one or more major mental illnesses.…”

Kişilik Bozukluklarında Tanı Güvenirliği ve Cezai Sorumluluk

“…Ayrıca Paranoid, PasifAgresif Kişilik Bozuklukları ile narsistik davranışların adölesanlarda ve genç yetişkinlerde şiddet içeren suç-ların işlenmesindeki riski yükselttiği bilinmektedir (7). Borderline Kişilik Bozukluğunda yoğun öfke duyguları ve dürtüşle davranımlar belirginse de yoğun stres altında geçici paranoid düşünce ya da ağır dissosiyatif semptomların varlığı (9) suça karışma riskini arttırır özelliklerdir.…”

“…Hastaların %30.7 sinde hem eksen I hem de eksen II komorbiditesi tespit edilmiştir. İspanya'da yürütülen bir çalışmada ise Eksen 1 hastalıkları ve Kişilik Bozuklukları arasındaki komorbidite %58 olarak ortaya çıkmıştır (7). Belirtilen noktada tek bir Eksen 1 bozukluğu ya da Eksen 1 kümesi bozuklukları ve Eksen 2 hastalıkları arasındaki çizgide, kişi hakkında elde edilen kompleks bulgular birbirinden nasıl ayrılacaktır?…”