In Italy the is a open debate on the topic. A recent law made provisions for the closing of the special judiciary hospitals by the end of march 2013. As a large number of persons acquitted for NGRI are going to be relased with form of probation to the National Health Service, there is a growing number of experts and public opinion makers who are arging for a Sweden model, although I have no information about polls on the issue.

There are several states in America that do not have an NGRI defense, Idaho being one of them. We are still able to evaluate mens rea to determine intent and perhaps aide in reduction of the crime to a general intent with lesser punishment. There is a Steadman 1993 article about the effects of post-Hinckley NGRI reform here in the States.

Dear Shiina sensai

I am a forensic psychiatrist employed by the state of Michigan as Director of the Office of Psychiatric/Medical Services in the Behavioral Health & Developmental Disabilities Administration. Lately my particular interest has been in risk assessment of insanity acquittees whose offenses were either homicide or sexual in nature. I have the opportunity to examine most of these offenders when they are recommended for community placement.

I have not thought much about the particular question you raise in quite some time, but I know that public opinion periodically receives a great deal of attention, the last big wave of interest being when John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan c. 1981. So I was sure it would be possible to find some references in a Google search, and a few of these are attached. I hope this helps.

Meanwhile, the status of forensic psychiatry and the insanity defense is of considerable interest to me, as my wife, a psychologist raised in Chigasaki, Kanagawa prefecture, and I have collaborated from time to time in treating members of the greater Detroit area's Japanese community, including one high-profile case of a young woman who drowned her infant child within a few weeks of birth. The Japanese attitude towards post-partum psychosis seemed to be very generous, whereas in the U.S. these cases are viewed much as any other insanity claim related to homicide.

Anyway, hope the attached will help get you started. I'd love to hear more about what is going on over there.

Best regards, Jim Dillon, MD

Appears that this only accepts one file per reply. So...

3/4

4/4

the italian criminal law defines eligibility, or suitability for crime, the sufficient condition to persecute a person and to take into account the legal consequences. Nobody can be accused if at the time of the offence was not able to understand or willing, but the inability shall not exclude eligibility when it is due to the fault of the subject. I’m sorry, this is what I can say about this issue and I don’t have any surveys or questionnaires available.

In Brazil there are a lot of discussion about the closure of psychiatrics hospitals and also about unimputability. Another issue is the reduction of legal age (18 years). I have no information about research among civilians. I believe that the first links are directly related to what you asked:

http://www.ufrgs.br/bioetica/psiqpes.htm

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0102-71822007000200005&script=sci_abstract&tlng=pt

http://www.observatoriodeseguranca.org/polemica

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0101-81082007000300008&script=sci_arttext

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0047-20852011000200011&script=sci_arttext

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0047-20852010000100013

http://www.abpbrasil.org.br/diretrizes_final.pdf

No victim, no punishment

I am very glad for your great help. Thank you very much!

The precise definition of criminal responsibility varies from place to place but, in general, to be responsible for a criminal act implies the perpetrator must understand what they are doing and that it is wrong. Clearly, most young children are too immature to fully appreciate the difference between right and wrong. Most countries have fixed an age below which a child cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions. Commonly this is set at ten years, although the age of criminal responsibility can vary between six and 12 years.

An individual may also not be held responsible for their crimes on grounds of mental disorder. It has long been recognized that some people do not have control over or understanding of their actions and the issue of criminal responsibility has been a subject of debate since ancient times. A landmark case occurred in 1843, when Daniel M'Naghten shot and killed the secretary to Britain's Prime Minister Robert Peel. The medical evidence found M'Naghten to be insane. This led to the famous M'Naghten Rule where someone could evade criminal responsibility if it could be proved that they did not understand the "nature and quality" of the act they were committing. Equally, they were not held responsible if they did understand what they were doing, but did not appreciate that it was wrong.

Over the years, there has been much discussion over the meaning of these terms. In countries or states that do not have the death penalty, the difference between being found guilty and responsible and guilty and not responsible is a prison term or a stay in a mental institution. Where the death penalty applies, it may mean the difference between death and life. In March 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled that while persons under the age of 18-years-old can be held responsible for crimes and punished by imprisonment, they are not subject to the death penalty for crimes committed while under the age of 18.

There are many situations in which someone may not be responsible for their actions. Psychosis may mean they were out of touch with reality at the time of the crime. Criminals suffering from schizophrenia may cite "inner voices" driving them to murder someone. Disorders of impulse control may mean someone is unable to stop himself or herself from attacking someone. People whose actions and judgment are affected by prescription drugs may also not be fully responsible. Crimes with no apparent or rational motive may also be committed by those who are not fully responsible for their actions.

The forensic psychiatrist will examine the accused and will also look for evidence of whether he or she understood what they were doing was wrong. Wearing gloves or a mask or giving a false alibi or name are all clear indicators of knowing a criminal act is being committed. Suspects who dispose of evidence, flee the scene, or lie to police are also likely to appreciate that they are doing wrong. Some criminals can be very manipulative and may feign mental illness, thinking that a stay in a mental hospital is preferable to prison or, indeed, the death sentence. It is up to the forensic psychiatrist to examine all the evidence and the suspect and then to assess if the suspect is, or is not, responsible for the crime.

It is should vary from country to country....