The Experts below are selected from a list of 33435 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
W Thomkapanich - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
p02 82 influence of forensic psychiatric reports to Criminal procedure
European Psychiatry, 2010Co-Authors: W ThomkapanichAbstract:Objective To study influence of forensic psychiatric diagnosis in case of Criminal Responsibility, treatment necessary and violence to court orders. Materials and Methods Samples were 301 inpatients of Galya Rajanagaridra Institute who were Criminal offenders during year 2000-2007. Data were collected from medical records and reports of the judgments and prosecution. The data were analyzed by descriptive statistic. Results The study found that most of samples were single, males who aged between 21-40 years old. They were unemployed and graduated primary school. Most of them were sent by courts. Murderers were found the most. Regarding to psychiatric diagnosis, most of them were psychosis and their motivation to crime were delusion and hallucination. Moreover, psychiatrists diagnosed that 125 samples (41.5 %) were not Criminally responsible, 143 samples (47.5 %) needed treatment and 42 samples (14.0 %) were stated as violence. In those cases, 5 and 22 cases (1.7 and 7.3 %) were dropped the charge by police and district attorneys, respectively. Regarding to Criminal Responsibility according to the section 65 of Criminal Code, courts agreed with psychiatrist’s diagnosis for 49.3 %. In case of treatment order according to the section 48 and 56 of Criminal Code, courts disagreed with psychiatrist’s diagnosis for 64.1 % totally. Conclusion The study showed that forensic psychiatric diagnosis, in cases of Criminal Responsibility, treatment necessary and violence, moderately influenced to court orders. Thus, this leads to question to develop forensic psychiatric work in the future.
Peer Briken - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
predictive validity of operationalized criteria for the assessment of Criminal Responsibility of sexual offenders with paraphilic disorders a randomized control trial with mental health and legal professionals
Frontiers in Psychology, 2020Co-Authors: Sascha Dobbrunz, Anne Daubmann, Jurgen L Muller, Peer BrikenAbstract:The prevention of sexual violence is a major goal of sexual health. In cases of accused sexual offenders, the assessment of diminished Criminal Responsibility of the accused is one of the most important procedures undertaken by experts in the German legal system. This assessment follows a two-stage method assessing first the severity of a paraphilic disorder and then second criteria for or against diminished capacity. The present study examines the predictive validity of two different sets of criteria for the assessment of Criminal Responsibility in the context of paraphilic disorders combined with sexual offending. Two exemplary case vignettes of two suspected sexual offenders were developed to assess the criteria. For each participant, one of the two exemplary case vignettes was randomly presented. The presentation of the two different sets of criteria was also randomized, so that each participant was assigned only one of the two criteria sets to rate one of the presented cases. N = 349 participants from different professional backgrounds (mental health and legal professionals) completed their assessments and were included in the data analysis. The data were evaluated using logistic regression. Results show that the more recently published criteria set (Briken and Muller, 2014) predicts both the severity of the disorder as well as the diminished capacity twice as good as the older criteria set of Boetticher et al. (2005) currently used regularly for forensic court reports. In preliminary conclusion, the new criteria of Briken and Muller (2014) form an empirically based assessment of Criminal Responsibility. However, the proposed criteria cannot replace an extensive exploration of the accused person and a careful file analysis. Validity and reliability of the results are also limited due to the methodical choice of a vignette study.
Umut Mert Aksoy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
assessing the type of offence and Criminal Responsibility in borderline and mild intellectual disabilities is there any difference
Abant Medical Journal, 2014Co-Authors: Abdullah Akpinar, Umut Mert AksoyAbstract:Ozet Abstract Amac: Bu calismada sinir zeka duzeyi ve hafif zeka geriligi olan bireylerdeki suc turlerini ve cezai sorumluluklarini karsilastirmak amaclanmistir. Yontem: Ocak-Aralik 2010 tarihleri arasindaki adli basvurularda geriye donuk olarak 39 sinir zeka ve 43 hafif zeka geriligi olan bireyler saptandi. Bunlarin suc turleri ve cezai sorumluluklari Ruh Sagligi ve Hastaliklari Hastanesinde tespit edildi. Bulgular: Yaralama sucu hafif zeka geriligi olan bireylerde sinir zekali bireylerden daha yuksek duzeyde idi. Diger suc tipleri acisindan her iki grup arasinda farklilik yoktu. Her iki gruptada en sik suclar yaralama ve hirsizlik idi. Sinir zeka duzeyi olan bireylerde cezai sorumluluklar; % 82 tam ve %18 azalmis, hafif zeka geriliginde % 40 tam, % 30 azalmis, % 30 yok idi. Sonuc: Yaralama sucu hafif zeka geriligi olanlarda sinir zeka duzeyi olanlara gore anlamli olarak yuksektir. Keza cezai sorumluklari hafif zeka geriligi olanlarda sinir zeka duzeyi olanlara gore istatistiksel olarak anlamli farklidir. Adli pratikte sinir zeka duzeyi ve hafif zeka geriligi tanilari suc turlerinin saptanmasi ve cezai sorumluluklarin belirlenmesinde onemlilik arz etmektedir. Objective: In the present study we aimed to compare the type of offences and the level of Criminal responsibilities in individuals with borderline intellectual functioning and mild intellectual disabilities. Method: Thirty nine individuals with borderline and fourty three individuals with mild disabilities were detected a retrospective manner between January-December 2010 on forensic application. The type of the offences and the levels of Criminal responsibilities of the individuals with borderline and mild intellectual disabilities were detected in the Mental Hospital. Results: There was more injury offence in the mild intellectual disability as compared to the borderline disabilities. There were no significant differences with respect to the other types of offences between the two groups. The most common offences were injury and theft in the both groups. Criminal Responsibility rates were; 82 % full and 18 % diminished Responsibility in borderline, and 40 % full, 30 % diminished and 30 % none responbility in mild intellectual disability. Conclusion: The injury offence was significantly higher in individuals with mild ID than borderline intellectual functioning. The levels of Criminal responsibilities were also significantly different between the individuals with mild and borderline intellectual disabilities. The diagnosis of borderline and mild intellectual disabilities are important for a type of offence and the levels of Criminal responsibilities in forencis practise.
Stefano Ferracuti - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
translating clinical findings to the legal norm the defendant s insanity assessment support scale diass
Translational Psychiatry, 2019Co-Authors: Giovanna Parmigiani, Gabriele Mandarelli, Felice Carabellese, Gerben Meynen, Stefano FerracutiAbstract:Insanity definition and the threshold for satisfying its legal criteria tend to vary depending on the jurisdictions. Yet, in Western countries, the legal standards for insanity often rely on the presence of cognitive and/or volitional impairment of the defendant at crime time. Despite some efforts having been made to guide and structure Criminal Responsibility evaluations, a valid instrument that could be useful to guide forensic psychiatrists’ Criminal Responsibility assessments in different jurisdictions is lacking. This is a gap that needs to be addressed, considering the significant forensic and procedural implications of psychiatric evaluations. In addition, differences in methodology used in insanity assessments may also have consequences for the principle of equal rights for all citizens before the law, which should be guaranteed in the European Union. We developed an instrument, the Defendant’s Insanity Assessment Support Scale (DIASS), which can be useful to support, structure, and guide the insanity assessment across different jurisdictions, in order to improve reliability and consistency of such evaluations.
Gabriele Mandarelli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
translating clinical findings to the legal norm the defendant s insanity assessment support scale diass
Translational Psychiatry, 2019Co-Authors: Giovanna Parmigiani, Gabriele Mandarelli, Felice Carabellese, Gerben Meynen, Stefano FerracutiAbstract:Insanity definition and the threshold for satisfying its legal criteria tend to vary depending on the jurisdictions. Yet, in Western countries, the legal standards for insanity often rely on the presence of cognitive and/or volitional impairment of the defendant at crime time. Despite some efforts having been made to guide and structure Criminal Responsibility evaluations, a valid instrument that could be useful to guide forensic psychiatrists’ Criminal Responsibility assessments in different jurisdictions is lacking. This is a gap that needs to be addressed, considering the significant forensic and procedural implications of psychiatric evaluations. In addition, differences in methodology used in insanity assessments may also have consequences for the principle of equal rights for all citizens before the law, which should be guaranteed in the European Union. We developed an instrument, the Defendant’s Insanity Assessment Support Scale (DIASS), which can be useful to support, structure, and guide the insanity assessment across different jurisdictions, in order to improve reliability and consistency of such evaluations.