Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:25:59.312Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criminal responsibility assessment in Switzerland: changes and continuity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

G. Niveau  and
E. Sozonets
G. Niveau*
Affiliation:
Forensic Psychiatry Unit, Institut Universitaire de Médecine Légale, Avenue de Champel 9, 1211Geneva 4, Switzerland
E. Sozonets
Affiliation:
Forensic Psychiatry Unit, Institut Universitaire de Médecine Légale, Avenue de Champel 9, 1211Geneva 4, Switzerland
*
*Correspondence and reprints.
Get access

Summary

Background.

The factors that experts use to assess criminal responsibility are not very well known. Changes in the importance attributed to certain diagnoses are occasionally mentioned in the literature. The aim of this study is to identify the existence and the nature of such modifications.

Method.

We compared the socio-demographic, criminological and psychiatric characteristics of two samples of psychiatric assessments carried out in Geneva, Switzerland in 1973–74 (N = 75) and 1997–98 (N = 94).

Results.

The two groups of subjects described by the experts’ reports appear to be quite different in several characteristics. However, the rate at which experts conclude their reports in favour of diminished responsibility was not found to be significantly different. The logistic regression shows that the diagnosis of personality disorder is the only variable that influenced the experts differently for the 1997–98 period compared to the 1973–74 period.

Conclusion.

In Geneva, psychiatric experts still continue to ascribe diminished responsibility to offenders suffering from psychosis or depression. However, the population that undergoes psychiatric assessments nowadays has changed considerably.

Keywords

criminal responsibilityforensic psychiatryinsanity defenceoffenderspsychiatric expertise
Type
Original Articles
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 16 , Issue 8 , December 2001 , pp. 483 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (DSM III). 3rd ed., Washington DC: APA Press; 1980.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, PSGrisso, T.Posttraumatic stress disorder and the insanity defence: reply. Am J Psychiatry 1994; 151: 153.Google Scholar
Beckham, JCAnnis, LVGustafson, DJ.Decision making and examiner bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guilty by reason of insanity. Law Hum Behav 1989; 13: 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borum, RAppelbaum, KL.Epilepsy, aggression and criminal responsibility. Psychiatr Serv 1996; 47: 762–3.Google ScholarPubMed
Bursztajn, HJScherr, JDBrodsky, A.The rebirth of forensic psychiatry in light of recent historical trends in criminal responsibility. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1994; 17: 611–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callahan, LARobbins, PCSteadman, HJMorrissey, JP.The hidden effects of Montana’s “abolition” of the insanity defence. Psychiatr Q 1995; 66: 103–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, SSmith, A.Changes in the sentencing of diminished responsibility homicides. Br J Psychiatry 1983; 142: 20–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinwiddie, SH.Genetics, antisocial personality and criminal responsibility. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1996; 24: 95–108.Google ScholarPubMed
Durst, RJabotinsky-Rubin, KGinath, Y.A look at court appointed psychiatric evaluations in Israel with special reference to criminal liability. Med Law 1993; 12: 153–63.Google Scholar
Gibbons, PMulryan, NO'Connor, A.Guilty but insane: the insanity defence in Ireland, 1850–1995. Br J Psychiatry 1997; 170: 467–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollweg, M.Modification of criminal law and its impact on psychiatric expert opinions. Int J Law Psychiatry 1998; 21: 109–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Homant, RJKennedy, DB.Subjective factors in the judgment of insanity. Crim Just Behav 1987; 14: 38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Insanity Defense Work Group. American Psychiatric Association statement on the insanity defense. Am J Psychiatry 1983; 140: 681–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunjukrishnan, RBradford, MW.Schizophrenia an major affective disorder: forensic psychiatric issues. Can J Psychiatry 1988; 33: 723–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nedopil, N.Violence of psychotic patients: how much responsibility can be attributed?. Int J Law Psychiatry 1997; 20: 243–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osran, HCWeinberger, LE.Personality disorders and “restoration to sanity”. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1994; 22: 257–67.Google Scholar
Office cantonal de la statistique. Annuaire statistique du canton de Genève. Genevea: publisher; 1975, 1999.Google Scholar
Piper, A. Jr.Multiple personality disorder. Br J Psychiatry 1994; 164: 600–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reichlin, SMBloom, JDWilliams, MH.Excluding personality disorders from the insanity defense–a follow-up study. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1993; 21: 91–100.Google Scholar
Rudnick, ALevy, A.Personality disorders and criminal responsibility: a second opinion. Int J Law Psychiatry 1994; 17: 409–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Touari, MMesbah, MDellatolas, GBensmail, B.Association between criminality and psychosis: a retrospective study of 3984 expert psychiatric evaluations. Rev Epidémiol Santé Publique 1993; 41: 218–27.Google ScholarPubMed
Warren, JIRosenfeld, BFitch, WLHawk, G.Forensic mental health clinical evaluation: an analysis of interstate and intersystemic differences. Law Hum Behav 1997; 21: 377–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organisation. The ICD 10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: WHO; 1992.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.