In Japan forensic psychiatrist has traditionally used Binder’s criterion, for criminal responsibility with drunken offenders, of that I am doubtful in validity of it.
According to Switzerlands practice, it is enough if you use ICD 10m criteria, e. g. acute alcohol intoxication with complications or in extremis pathological drunkeness, F 10.07, which is extrmly rare
Yes I agree. I use ICD-10 when I participate in psychiatric examination with alcohol related matter.
what is the relevance of ACUTE alcohol intoxication on criminal liability for Swiss and Japanese criminal law?
Depends very much from the observable and objective clinical picture; less from the promille level
Thank you Andreas.
More on:
In reference to the liability, Italian criminal law (Criminal Code Articles. 91-95), distinguishes among drunkenness "by accident" (rare, eg the employee of a distillery which breathes alcohol vapors for malfunction), which removes imputability or decreases the penalty, "voluntary or unintentional" drunkenness, which is considered not relevant, "intended (eg those who get drunk to have the courage to commit a crime) or usual" drunkeness, for which the penalty is increased, and "chronic alcohol intoxication" , which is considered capable of causing mind defect.
(Please note: in criminal law text it's very important terminological distinction, that could be lost in my translation. I apologize and I hope the speech is still understandable).
Other criminal laws make such distinctions?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology