تشخیص اختلال شخصیت ضد اجتماعی و مسئولیت کیفری

Abstract The present study empirically investigates whether personality disorders and psychopathic traits in criminal suspects are reasons for diminished criminal responsibility or enforced treatment in high security hospitals. Recently, the tenability of the claim that individuals with personality disorders and psychopathy can be held fully responsible for crimes has been questioned on theoretical bases. According to some interpretations, these disorders are due to cognitive, biological and developmental deficits that diminish the individual's accountability. The current article presents two studies among suspects of serious crimes under forensic evaluation in a Dutch forensic psychiatric observation clinic. The first study examined how experts weigh personality disorders in their conclusions as far as the degree of criminal responsibility and the need for enforced forensic psychiatric treatment are concerned (n = 843). The second study investigated associations between PCL-R scores and experts' responsibility and treatment advisements (n = 108). The results suggest that in Dutch forensic practice, the presence of a personality disorder decreased responsibility and led to an advice for enforced forensic treatment. Experts also take characteristics of psychopathy concerning impulsivity and (ir)responsibility into consideration when judging criminal accountability. Furthermore, they deem affective deficiencies sufficiently important to indicate suspects' threat to society or dangerousness and warrant a need for forensic treatment.

Introduction Full criminal responsibility implies that an individual who commits a crime was fully aware of the (illegal) nature, character and consequences of that crime. When an individual suffers from a severe mental disorder that leads to a crime, it is generally agreed in most jurisdictions that he or she cannot be held criminally responsible for it and should be exempt from its penal consequences. A number of countries, such as Canada and a number of U.S. states, use a dichotomy of options when it comes to criminal responsibility. An offender is viewed either as fully responsible and receives a prison sentence, or the crime was the result of a mental disorder, the offender is viewed as criminally insane, and the court imposes enforced treatment in a high security forensic psychiatric hospital. Elsewhere, a graded system is used, allowing for various possible grades of criminal responsibility. Not all mental disorders are considered a potential cause for diminished criminal responsibility. In many jurisdictions the mere presence of a personality disorder is not viewed as sufficient grounds for criminal insanity and forensic treatment. This holds especially for antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy with crucial diagnostic criteria such as criminal versatility and repeated unlawful behaviors. Some authors have questioned, however, the tenability of the claim that individuals with personality disorders can be held fully responsible. They argue that personality disorders and psychopathy can be interpreted as serious mental disorders, based as they are on developmental disabilities or particular deficits such as cognitive deficiencies and biological impediments. Mei-Tal (2002), for instance, argued that the complete absence of empathy in persons with high psychopathy scores implies that they should never be regarded as responsible agents or blameworthy. Earlier, Herpertz and Sass (2000) concluded that violence in persons with high psychopathy scores is rooted in emotional deficiency. Due to deficient emotional learning they show poor conditioning processes, cannot be conditioned to avoid punishment, and are unable to evaluate the consequences their actions will have. They therefore make no effort to avoid harmful behavior or suppress violent impulses. Emotional deficiency is also associated with a general under-arousal, which in turn may lead to sensation seeking and risk-taking in the form of violence or other illegal behavior ( Herpertz & Sass, 2000). According to Ciocchetti (2003), punishment is inappropriate for persons with high psychopathy scores due to their failure to understand the significance and influence of their responses to the acts of others. They cannot appropriately interpret punishment because they cannot understand the wrongfulness of their actions or the significance of any punishment they are given. Fine and Kennett (2004) argued that psychopathic offenders are incapable of forming genuine moral concepts because they failed to pass through a crucial moral developmental stage in early childhood and therefore cannot meet the requirement of being criminally responsible. Palermo (2007) argued that under conditions of severe stress, individuals suffering from psychopathic or antisocial personality disorders may decompensate and experience either fleeting or short-term psychotic thinking and behavior that can severely impair the ability to reason or act rationally, to distinguish right from wrong, and to conform to the law. According to Palermo, the best legal option in such a case would be commitment to a mental forensic institution for suitable treatment.

.