Introduction/Objectives:
Individuals suffering from personality disorders are more and more frequently encountered in the psychiatric practice today. Antisocial personality disordered individuals are usually in conflict with the law and as such are an issue of practice dealt by forensic psychiatry. Their model of behavior and functioning usually becomes their lifestyle. Distinguishing early or prodormal signs of impulsiveness and deviant behavior is crucial in prevention of crime as that is a combination of signs which usually leads to the worst possible prognostic outcome: a permanent psychological structured predisposition towards committing crime – antisocial personality disorder, criminal psychopathy respectively. The terminology varied, depending on the professional orientation and time (psychopath, sociopath) but since the admittance of antisocial behavior in clinical psychology and psychiatry as a distinct entity, the criminals were suddenly gone; they've all seem to be viewed as ill. Are they all really mentally disturbed or, are there some criminals who are “mentally” normal individuals?
Participants, Materials/Methods:
Although the criteria of the disorder are defined by the classifications, the psychodiagnostic tools used in practice can successfully detect the disorder itself but without distinguishing its' subtypes, meaning, a thorough and detailed anamnesis and experience are essential in attempting to set an adequate diagnosis. Diagnostics has its' own value within the forensic assessment but sometimes, it can be misleading for its assessor. A personality profile and a mental status assessment within the time frame of the actual felony, is a basis of an adequate assessment and diagnostics. Being mentally disturbed or entirely normal; therapy or sanction – the differences are enormous.
Results:
A case report from forensic practice: a man charged with numerous acts of heavy theft, was assessed in a combined manner (psychiatric-psychological) in separate court cases. The expertise results are going to be demonstrated comparatively.
Conclusions:
Results represent differences between two manners, different diagnosis in two expertises.
