ABSTRACT
Objective T o explore the value of M odified O vert A ggression Scale (M O A S ) on predicting serious aggressive behavior in the inpatients w ith m ental disorders and to provide theoretical basis for violence risk assessm ents in the inpatients w ith m ental disorders. Methods T otal 918 inpatients in a psy-chiatric hospital w ere evaluated by trained m edical w orkers using M O A S in Septem ber 2009, and their serious violent behavior w ere follow ed up for 2 years. T he value of M O A S on predicting violence in the inpatients w ith m ental disorders w as analyzed by SPSS 21.0. Results (1) C om pared to the patients w ithout serious aggressive behaviors, the patients w ith serious aggressive behavior w ithin 2 years show ed significantly higher scores (P<0.05) on verbal aggression, aggression against property, physical aggres-sion and total w eighted score of M O A S; (2) Significant correlation w as found betw een the score of ver-bal aggression and the serious acts of violence w ithin 2 years (P<0.05); (3) Scores of verbal aggres-sion, physical aggression and total w eighted score of M O A S had predictive value on serious aggressive behaviors w ithin 2 years. Conclusion M O A S has certain value on predicting the serious aggressive be-haviors of patients w ith m ental disorders w ithin 2 years.
ABSTRACT
Objective T o understand the assessm ent on the criminal responsibility of drug-induced m ental disorders and judicial experts’ opinions. Methods T he judicial experts from institutes of forensic psychi-atry in Shanghai were selected. T hey were asked to finish a self-m ade questionnaire of assessm ent on the criminal responsibility of drug-induced m ental disorders by letters and visits. Results Most of experts knewthe special regulation,“not suitable for evaluation” towards the criminal responsibility of drug-in-duced m ental disorders of the guideline prom ulgated by Ministry of Justice. B efore and after the guide-line was issued, no expert m ade a no-responsibility opinion in such cases. After the guideline was issued, som e experts m ade a full-responsibility or lim ited-responsibility opinion in such cases. T here was a little disagreem ent am ong the experts in the case that the crime was unrelated with m ental sym ptom s or the criminals used drugs even though he knewit could induced insanity. B ut there were still m any obvious disagreem ents am ong experts in the case that crime was related to such sym ptom s and person was no ability to debate. Most experts agreed to settle the disagreem ents with im proved legislative perfection. Conclusion Most experts are not strictly com plying with the assessm ent guidelines during their practice, and there is still an obvious disagreem ent towards the criminal responsibility of drug-induced m ental disorders.