In the UK, this rarely happens to be honest. Personality disorders are very rarely diagnosed using the full range, let alone being used in court. I used to work in a forensic mental hospital and despite all offenders in there being diagnosed with some mental health issue, it was never used in their trials. It was more about 'dealing' with them afterwards if that makes sense.

Victoria Blinkhorn Thank you for your answer. Yes, this is what usually happens - personality disorders are not considered to be major mental illness, thus are not likely to influence the establishment of criminal liability and the infliction of criminal sanctions. In most cases personality disorders are not at all taken into account by courts. However, it does happen rarely in some jurisdictions (e.g. in Hungary) that a defendant is found to have diminished responsibility by reason of personality disorder that may serve as ground for the mitigation of punishment.

Legal practice in this regard is not consistent, it seems, and this needs further scrutiny. Many questions arise in light of the growing body of literature suggesting that people with personality disorders - especially APD and psychopathy - may show more or less significant impairments in emotional processing, moral reasoning and other criminologically relevant cognitive and emotional abilities and processes.

Judit Szabó yes absolutely needs further investigation I agree. From my experience, I think using personality disorder as a defence in court is frowned upon simply due to so many offenders playing that card in court when really they're isn't anything wrong. Perhaps that's why it doesn't happen much anymore.

I'd be interested to be kept up to date on your research :)

In the Indonesia. With regard to psychology, in the science of criminal law, there are reasons for the elimination of crime, namely reasons for justification and reasons for forgiveness:

• Justification means an excuse that eliminates the unlawful nature of a crime. So, in justifying reasons seen from the side of action (objective). For example, the action of 'life deprivation' carried out by the executioner of the death row inmate against the death row inmates (Article 50 of the Criminal Code [“KUHP”]).
• Reasons for forgiveness are reasons that erase the guilt of the perpetrator of a criminal act, while the act is still against the law. So, in terms of forgiveness seen from the side of the person / perpetrator (subjective). For example, because the perpetrator is insane or crazy so he cannot be held accountable for his actions (Article 44 of the Criminal Code)

To find out whether a psychopath is a disease that can be equated with insane or crazy as referred to in Article 44 of the Criminal Code, we refer to the opinion of a victimology expert from California State University, United States of America and Director of the Tokiwa International Victimology Institute, Japan, John Dussich.

In John Dussich's article: A Psychopath Does Not Worth the Death Sentence, John says that nearly all forensic psychologists do not believe that the psychopath is a valid concept. In psychopathology, there is something called the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) which is a way to identify the psychiatric personality. Indeed, there is one scale called psychopathy, but this is a miscellaneous category, not really considered. It is further said that psychopaths are not madness either. If the person is mentally ill, that is in his own category, it is called psychotic. It is important to note whether this person can think rationally. If you can't think rationally, then you have to be put in a mental hospital. That can be a basis for forgiveness. The point is, don't punish based on psychological labels. Punishment should only be given based on the severity of the crime he committed, not because of the psychopath label.

Jude Mukoro Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I think the problem you have mentioned is a general one that applies to many jurisdictions. It is hard for legal systems to adapt to scientific growth (especially if there is no political will for it). Judicial and prosecution systems are not always able to follow the developments of forensic psychiatry. But even in those jurisdictions where mental health and disorders are taken into account during criminal proceedings, the status of personality disorders is often controvertial.

Kartono Kartono Thank you for you respose. It is indeed disputabe whether personality disorders can limit mental capacity in the context of criminal liability.

However, I'm not sure most forensic experts debate the existence of psychopathy (which is actually more of a psychologcal construct than a clinical diagnosis), as you have stated it. Personality disorders (and among them, APD) do exist and so does the personality construct of psychopathy; there's extensive research in this area. I am not sure MMPI2-s psychopathic deviate scale is the best tool for the measurement of psychopathy, there are much more sophisticated scales for that purpose (PCL-R being the gold standard).

When it comes to the relationship between personality disorders and criminal liability, the question is not so much about "rational thinking", but more about moral understanding and reasoning and personality factors that may hinder a person in complying with basic moral norms or acting in accordance with his/her will (e.g. being extremely impulsive). Of course I am aware of the difference between psychosis and psychopathy, and I also know that even having a diagnosis of psychosis may not result in the establishment of limited criminal liability - it all depends on the specific circumstances of the criminal offence and the offender.

In the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation there is a provision under Article 22 "Criminal liability of people suffering from a mental disorder that does not exclude responsibility".

Part 1 of the article states that a person not uderstanding fully nature of his or her acts or their socially dengerous nature or being able to have control over his or her actions due to a mental disorder is criminally liable.

Atricle 21 ("Insanity defence") requires for admissability to not have any understanding of the nature of the act and or any control over it due to chronic or temporary mental disorder, feeblemindedness or any other medically relevant state of consciousness.

There seems to be a problem: Article 21 provides an open list of relevant disorders, requiring only lack of understanding or control. At the same time Article 22 provides only mental disorders. Under strict interpretation it follows that feeblemindedness is not admissible under Article 22. But if I understand correctly, the Supreme Court uses thoses terms interchangebly.

Part 2 of Article 22 prescribes courts to account for this circumstance in assigning penalty and court, If deemed appropriate, could assign involuntary measures of medical character to be carried out with the penalty.

If a person is suffering from drug addiction and his or her sentence does not include jail time, then under Article 72.1 a court might assign mandatory course of treatment and medical and (or) social rehabilitation.

As an example: by the Verdict of Oktyabrsky District Court of Ryazan City proclaimed on January, 23 of 2019, a defendant was found guilty under Provisions "а, в" Part 2 Artice 158 of the Criminal Code (theft commited with premeditation by a group of perpetrators). His medical examination stated that he is suffering from "agitation psychopaty" but this condition does not fall under Article 22, he does not require involuntary treatment but is not capable to represent himself. Court recognized this condition as an alleviating circumstance under Part 2 Article 61 of the Code.

https://sudact.ru/regular/doc/7sxptemFWYQj/?regular-txt=%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%8F®ular-case_doc=®ular-lawchunkinfo=%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F+22.+%D0%A3%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C+%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%86+%D1%81+%D0%BF%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%85%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BC+%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B9%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BC%2C+%D0%BD%D0%B5+%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BB%D1%8E%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%89%D0%B8%D0%BC+%D0%B2%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8F%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%28%D0%A3%D0%9A+%D0%A0%D0%A4%29®ular-date_from=®ular-date_to=®ular-workflow_stage=®ular-area=®ular-court=®ular-judge=&_=1608802418876&snippet_pos=7304#snippet

Kirill Berchansky interesting, but despite it being in law, how often does it actually get looked at in court cases? This was my point earlier on this subject.

Victoria Blinkhorn

Well, it depends on what you mean by "looked at". If it is mentioned in a psychiatric examination, then the judge is bound to "discuss" it in his or her final decision. Otherwise the sentence might be amended on appeal.

If your question is whether it makes an impact on the penalty assigned, then it requires complex dedicated studies with calculating median sentences on multiple parameters.

On surface search I found a couple of papers: one states that courts tend to soften the sentence based on anecdotal evidence (total of 2 sentences - https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25997898&), and another - with no evidence whatsoever (https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/psihicheskoe-rasstroystvo-ne-isklyuchayuschee-no-ogranichivayuschee-vmenyaemost-pravovye-psihologicheskie-i-psihiatricheskie).

This one provides an example of softening the sentence on appeal, but just one (https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=25833732).

So, the answer to your question is: personality disorder would be certainly considered as an alleviating circumastance, but whether it would actually have an impact is at best relative.