Dear Pontus, 

Check these out: 

Article Providing Those with Mental Illness Full and Fair Treatment:...

Article Neuroscience, Ethics and Legal Responsibility: The Problem o...

Article Evaluating the people who were sent for determining of crimi...

Book Forensic psychology reconsidered: A critique of mental illne...

Many thanks to you all! Excellent suggestions and interesting and noteworthy observations from Humberto´s Argentina! I´d feel most privileged to share your personal and professional reflections/opinions and expertise! 

Best regards, Pontus

There's a very nice historical treatment of the insanity defense in

Wild Beasts and Idle Humors: The Insanity Defense from Antiquity to the Present

by Daniel Robinson (Author). Harvard University Press (October 1, 1996)

The Review  From Library Journal

A flurry of books dealing with the insanity defense appeared in the mid-Eighties following the controversial verdict in the trial of John Hinckley for attempting to assassinate President Reagan. Not much has been published since. Robinson's (An Intellectual History of Psychology, LJ 8/95) work is a welcome addition to the literature and a valuable book for readers with an interest in either law or psychology. An intellectual history of the interplay of psychology and law within the narrow context of insanity as a legal defense in criminal or civil actions, this book carefully examines the views of human nature prevalent in classical Greece and Rome, the early and later Middle Ages, the Enlightenment, and the era of modern science. It then traces the influences of these ideas on the development of the concepts and structures of the law. The book is scholarly in tone and methodology (there are over 40 pages of endnotes) but clear and readable. The legal issues are not presented in an overly technical manner; both lawyer and lay reader can read this book with benefit. Highly recommended for academic libraries with collections in either law or psychology.?Patrick Petit, Catholic Univ. Law Lib., Washington, D.C.

Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc. 

Dear Hendrika,

That is an excellent tip and I will do as Humberto and try to find the book.

My intention is to thoroughly search for which (if any) current scientific evidence there are in favour for the postulated link between mental illness AND a reduced/or erased ability to perform responsible actions.

To me, the question of responsibility is a moral one - we could chose to hold everyone responsible just as well no one. The historic perspective is therfore of interest since it must be considered peculiar that humans chose none of these options but a third - hold some responsible.

Until further notice,

Pontus

 Pontus, a very interesting question.

I agree with you that ultimately relief from culpability is a moral/legal issue, not a scientific one. But like many moral or legal questions, one that can be helpfully informed by science.

I see one of my epidemiological papers was recommended to you above. That paper and the prior one (BJP 20004 ) may be of use to you as a population based study of the use of NGRI, used as a proxy for the relationship of SMI to violence. More recently my group has been trying to look more directly at  the relationships of SMI to violent behavior by looking specifically at the motivation for the violent act, moving beyond much prior research which really focuses only on the presence of SMI at the time of the violence, not why the violence occurred (seehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/281483435_Assessing_Illness-_and_Non-Illness-Based_Motivations_for_Violence_in_Persons_With_Major_Mental_Illness?ev=prf_pub;  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277018205_Simpson_A_I_Grimbos_T_Chan_C_Penney_S_R_Developmental_typologies_of_serious_mental_illness_and_violence_Evidence_from_a_forensic_psychiatric_setting_Australian_and_New_Zealand_Journal_of_Psychiatry_20?ev=prf_pub; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236277111_Motivational_Influences_in_Persons_Found_Not_Criminally_Responsible_on_Account_of_Mental_Disorder_A_Review_of_Legislation_and_Research?ev=prf_pub). See my profile here in researchgate.  We need to ask why directly (and reliably) if we are to advance the discussions regarding the relationship of SMI to violence and assist legal decision makers.

In other words, put simply, it depends on which actions. People with SMI may behave in a violent manner because of 'normal' criminal motivations, or because their symptoms of illness gave rise to the violence. The former behaviour is criminally culpable as it would be for any other person, the latter may be in a different moral/legal class, should society so deem it. It is the making of this distinction that we need to be able to perform in a robust and reliable manner. 

Sandy Simpson

Article Assessing Illness- and Non-Illness-Based Motivations for Vio...

Article Simpson, A I ; Grimbos, T; Chan, C; Penney, S R. Development...

Article Motivational Influences in Persons Found Not Criminally Resp...

Best Alexander

I am more than grateful for your extremely thorough answer!

Your Group interest me a lot. I have a submitted paper that might interest you all.

It is an interview study with 46 Swedish forensic psychiatric patients on their experience of what caused their crime, which they committed under the influence of SMI.

Interesting enough a majority claimed that the SMI played NONE or A SMALL PART in the causation of the crime. Instead they point to substance abuse, social misery and hate/aggression towards a single person. I GUESS THAT THIS IS IN LINE WITH YOUR RESEARCH AND I KNOW THAT IT IS IN LINE WITH THE EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES CONDUCTED IN SWEDEN.

It seems to me that these causes belong to what you called "normal criminal motivations"...

The result also suggests that an upgrading of the value of 1st person experiences , both in Courts and Clinics is recommendable.

Until further notice,

Pontus

Research License to speak

Mental illness is a disturbing problem for the family & especially parents .It depend upon the nature of the mental illness .Person suffering for mental illness may be of different types 1 Certain members they sit silent without disturbing the member of family but members have to take care of their natural calls. 2 There are patient who speak with the loudly noise without any meaning & purpose & such patient are disturbing the atmosphere in the family & some time in the neighbor also .3 Certain mental patients they remain mischievous ,aggressive ,& no control of their aggressive movement & behavior.

For such patient only alternative is to place them under the mental hospital .For other there are certain social organisation they keep certain members from the morning time to evening time & such social institute they make out the program under the psychic tech & to make & to change the mental environment of the patient .

In such case the main advantage for the family is that they receive ample time at home & after returning the patient at home his behavior may get partial change .

Legal responsibility is not the solution of such problem under legal responsibility they part & spend the money for patient & this is not solution of the problem.

This is my personal opinion 

Thank you all for fantastic answers!

There is a thin line between moral and legal responsibility and the way one of them are handled ex. the legal one by the state and the moral one by psychiatric professionals) I believe influences the other. My thesis was a first step to scrutinize which scientific evidence there are that mental illness (in all its different colours and shapes) really has bad influence of ones ability to make responisible decisions.

Over all- which symptoms in which psychiatric diagnosis has bad impact on which important faculties when making which kind of (responsible) actions?

In specific - which symptoms in schizophrenia has bad impact on the ability to appreciate information linked to paranoic beliefs and violent responses (actions)?

I really look forward to your thoughts and response in this matter,

Pontus

Article Accountability and psychiatric disorders: How do forensic ps...

Research License to speak

Thanks Pontus, I will read your paper with interest. I briefly read your 2009 paper also. The scenarios are interesting but none of them really describe the nexus between the diagnosis and the action. Thus I would have had a lot of difficulty replying to the questions asked in the 2009 paper as I would not have enough information to answer the question.  

I think this may in part be a result of Sweden's lack of a legal test that demands that the forensic assessor address the nexus between symptoms and the alleged offence. Rather your criminal code relies on the mere presence of a diagnosis [not necessarily the presence of symptoms that may diminish responsibility] then you are not in the habit of addressing the proximal motivations for criminality. As a result, perhaps, your forensic population is much more varied than in jurisdictions with a McNaughten standard, where usually 85% of the ppn have a primary psychotic diagnosis [not the 4-50% of your current study] and violence is the overwhelming presenting problem.

Happy to talk further with you about this off line, if that would help.

Sandy  

The level of mental alertness carries the weight of legal responsibility. When someone goes totally insane and does something he/she would not normally do in normal circumstance; assess the severity and genuinity of the mental illness. Severity and genuineness of the mental condition provides the flatform for legal responsibility.  

Thanks Zachary for your answer!

I believe that severity and genuinity may be 2 ways to desbribe the platform you mention. One must then be able to defend why these 2 are better than any other way of constructing that platform.

In my above attached article the informants did not ascribe psychiatric factors any larger impact of their criminal deeds - regardless of the severity and genuinity of their mental condition.

Of course one must be open to the possibility that these 46 persons did lie to me. Nevertheless, I believe that they did not and even if they did it intentionally or unintentionally there will be SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS IN TERMS OF TREATMEANT if we start to seriously listen to how first person describe their experience.

Perhaps shall we then get closer to a more correct and therefore a more understandable understanding of mental illness as phenomenon.

Until further notice, Pontus