The factors associated with forensic psychiatrists' decisions in criminal responsibility and social dangerousness evaluations

Forensic psychiatric evaluation of 187 homicidal assailants with and without a schizophrenia spectrum disorder: Clinical, criminological and behavioral characteristics

“…On the other hand, there is no correlation between the diagnosis of personality disorder and the negation or reduction of criminal responsibility. It is clear that the forensic psychiatrist appointed by the judge to assess the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator, as occurs in Italian courts, more frequently comes to the conclusion that he/she recognizes absence or reduction of the criminal responsibility of the actor of the crime when the defendant has a schizophrenic spectrum disorder, as we demonstrated in our previous research (Mandarelli et al., 2019). Conversely, if the perpetrator is affected by a personality disorder—although in Italy the Supreme Court has recognized that even a personality disorder can negate criminal responsibility of an offender—the expert has much greater difficulty finding that the offender had an impairment of personality that would have affected criminal responsibility.…”

“…Unlawful intentional homicide is among the most extreme forms of violence and at the same time it is one of the crimes of greatest forensic psychiatric interest, in terms of the perpetrators' forensic evaluation (Mandarelli et al., 2019) and clinical treatment (Catanesi et al., 2019). Over the years, the number of homicides in Italy has progressively decreased, ultimately falling to one of the lowest rates in Europe (Vichi et al., 2020).…”

“…Among those Italian forensic psychiatric patients who are subjected to custodial psychiatric security measures, 26% had committed homicide or attempted homicide (Catanesi et al., 2019). Perpetrators of homicide or attempted homicide often undergo a forensic psychiatric evaluation (Mandarelli et al., 2019), because the Italian Criminal Code provides that those who acted under conditions of mental illness may satisfy the criteria for a verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) or of diminished responsibility.…”

Translating clinical findings to the legal norm: the Defendant’s Insanity Assessment Support Scale (DIASS)

“…For instance, in a dated pioneering study, it was found that insanity pleas are raised in about 1% of felony cases and proving successful only in about 28% of those cases 11 . Nevertheless, a more recent study from our group showed 42% of insanity judgments among evaluated defendants 12 . These differences are mainly due to different legal thresholds for admitting psychiatric evidence in criminal cases that vary broadly.…”

“…Furthermore, the availability of a tool that can be used in forensic psychiatric practice could facilitate the exchange of empirical data in research across different jurisdictions and disciplines, thus implementing the evidence that could be of empirical support. Some efforts to shed light on the processes underlying forensic evaluators’ decision-making during the insanity assessment have already been made 12,25,26 .…”