Agreement between psychiatric evaluations and court decisions concerning criminal responsibility

Abstract

Introduction

To our knowledge, a relatively small number of studies address the agreement between psychiatrists and court decisions concerning criminal responsibility among psychiatric offenders.

Objectives

The objective of the present study was to examine the agreement between psychiatric evaluations and court decisions in Greek penal cases.

Methods

Legal case files of 100 adult subjects, 90 male/10 female, 88 Greeks/12 foreigners were studied, and agreement was assessed by the κ (kappa) statistic.

Results

Seventy eight percent of the subjects had had contact with psychiatric services before the commitment of the crime. The most common diagnoses were schizophrenia spectrum psychosis (18%), antisocial/borderline/mixed personality disorder (15%) and substance use disorder (15%). In 30% of the cases criminal insanity/partial responsibility was attributed in the first-degree court. The presence of a psychiatrist (n = 63), attending, defense, prosecution or appointed by the court, significantly increased the possibility of such an attribution (41.3% versus 10.8%).

The highest agreement (κ = 0.780) was observed between court's decision and the evaluation of the psychiatrist appointed by the court, in the 35 cases in which such an expert was present (P < 0.001). Very significant agreement (κ = 0.805) was observed between the decisions of second and first-degree courts (P < 0.001). In 91% of the cases, the decisions remained unchanged.

Conclusions

Criminal insanity/diminished responsibility, were attributed in 30% of the reviewed cases. The presence of a psychiatrist already at the first-degree court is a prerequisite for such an attribution, especially when, he is appointed by the Court.

Disclosure of interest

The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.