Subject(s)
Commitment of Mentally Ill/legislation & jurisprudence , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Patient Education as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Referral and Consultation/legislation & jurisprudence , Adolescent , Adult , Female , Humans , Insanity Defense , Male , Mental Competency/legislation & jurisprudence , Middle Aged , South AfricaABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the understanding and expectations of defendants referred to Valkenberg Hospital for 30-day observation. DESIGN: Defendants referred for 30 days of psychiatric assessment were surveyed by means of a semi-structured interview within 3 days of admission. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred consecutive referrals from the Western, Northern and Eastern Cape were considered; 88 were eventually entered into the study. RESULTS: All defendants were generally ignorant of the reasons for referral, but had a good understanding of court procedure and wrongfulness. Mentally ill subjects differed only in their not being able to distinguish between a guilty/not guilty plea. Most did not have legal representation, did not personally request the assessment and denied guilt of the alleged offence. CONCLUSIONS: Mental illness affects triability but not necessarily criminal responsibility. Disturbingly, most defendants were without legal representation and were unaware of the purpose, implications and possible outcomes of psychiatric observation. It is imperative that the legislation governing these aspects be reviewed.
