Dissociation and the insanity defense: A review of U.S. Federal appellate case law.

Pathological dissociation is relatively common in the United States and may be associated with violent or criminal behavior. Dissociative Disorders, especially Dissociative Identity Disorder, are considered controversial diagnoses by some in the psychiatric and legal professions. Individuals who offend during dissociative states may not be criminally responsible if they meet the legal standard for insanity, however, insanity pleas based on dissociative symptoms are rare. This review examined Federal appellate case law for potential legal barriers to the insanity defense for dissociative conditions and any restrictions imposed on related expert evidence. Few rulings directly addressed these questions but there do not appear to be any unique barriers for dissociation-related insanity pleas. Some cases provided valuable insights regarding the admission of expert evidence, effective expert testimony, and the role of defense counsel.

[Theory and Practice of Empowerment for Family Members of Patients Under Custodial Protection Sentence].

Empowerment not only benefits patients but also provides support and assistance to their family members, especially in cases when patients are subject to custodial protection sentences. The positive effects of empowerment on patients' family members may be summarized into three main aspects, including: enhancing their engagement in healthcare, alleviating their anxiety, and enhancing their caregiving skills. With regard to enhancing engagement in healthcare, family members receive health education that provides an overview of the illness, treatment options, prognosis, and key nursing points and allows them to better understand the patient's condition and actively participate in decision-making. With regard to alleviating anxiety, patients under custodial protection sentences are involved in legal problems, which results in higher levels of stress for family members compared to their peers caring for general patients. Through emotional support and active listening, nurses provide opportunities for family members to express their concerns and offer comfort and encouragement, helping them cope with difficulties and pressures. With regard to enhancing caregiving skills, the purpose of custodial protection sentences is to prevent recidivism, and family members bear significant responsibility for caregiving after discharge. Nurses can share similar caregiving experiences from their ward, educate family members about observing symptoms, and provide guidance, thereby strengthening their caregiving capabilities. In addition, with regard to the disposition of patients, nurses assist family members to understand the medical process and provide necessary guidance, ensuring family members have a clear understanding and are respected during the preparations for discharge. Based on related theoretical frameworks and practical experiences, this research highlights the positive role of empowerment in enhancing the caregiving abilities and satisfaction of the family members of patients, particularly those subject to custodial protection sentences.

Neuroscience explanations really do satisfy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the seductive allure of neuroscience.

Extraneous neuroscience information improves ratings of scientific explanations, and affects mock juror decisions in many studies, but others have yielded little to no effect. To establish the magnitude of this effect, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis using 60 experiments from 28 publications. We found a mild but highly significant effect, with substantial heterogeneity. Planned subgroup analyses revealed that within-subjects studies, where people can compare the same material with and without neuroscience, and those using text, have stronger effects than between-subjects designs, and studies using brain image stimuli. We serendipitously found that effect sizes were stronger on outcomes of evaluating satisfaction or metacomprehension, compared with jury verdicts or assessments of convincingness. In conclusion, there is more than one type of neuroscience explanations effect. Irrelevant neuroscience does have a seductive allure, especially on self-appraised satisfaction and understanding, and when presented as text.

COVID-19, Mink-Bowman, and Court-Ordered Psychiatric Services in Oregon.

COVID-19 strongly affected referral of individuals from Oregon's courts and the ability of Oregon State Hospital (OSH) to accept patients. Despite acceleration in the decline in civil commitment, competency to stand trial (CST) admissions increased, causing a bed crisis at OSH, which in turn affected community hospitals and jails. In 1993, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals mandated admission of jail detainees to OSH within seven days after a judicial order for CST evaluation or restoration. During COVID, as the number of such patients increased to crisis proportions, average jail detention times exceeded seven days. An inevitable judicial process intensified in the U.S. District Court of Oregon after OSH requested a COVID-related modification of the seven-day limit. This commentary demonstrates more clearly than in the past that there is a negative correlation between civil commitment and competency restoration as components of an interrelated system. After updating the situation in Oregon, this article ends with suggested interventions to improve Oregon's civil and criminal commitment processes, hoping for better care of patients and improved administration of justice.

Culpability for offenses in frontotemporal dementia and other brain disorders.

The responsibility of persons with brain disorders who commit offenses may depend on how their disorders alter brain mechanisms for culpability. Criminal behavior can result from brain disorders that alter social cognition including a neuromoral system of intuitive moral emotions that are absolute (deontological) normative codes and that includes an emotion-mediated evaluation of intentionality. This neuromoral system has its hub in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) with other frontal, anterior temporal-amygdalar, insular, and right temporoparietal connections. Among brain disorders, investigators report offenses in persons with brain tumors, epilepsy, and traumatic brain injury, but it is those with a form of dementia with VMPFC pathology, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), who are most prone to criminal behavior. This review presents four new patients with bvFTD who were interviewed after committing offenses. These patients knew the nature of their acts and the wrongness of the type of action but lacked substantial capacity to experience the criminality of their conduct at the intuitive, deontological, moral emotional level. Disease in VMPFC and its amygdalar connections may impair moral emotions in these patients. These findings recommend evaluation for the experience of moral emotions and VMPFC-amygdala dysfunction among persons with antisocial behavior, with or without brain disease.

The United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, neuroscience, and criminal legal capacity.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires states parties to 'recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life.' This mandate has sparked debate about the interpretation of legal capacity, including within the criminal context as applied to the retrogressively named 'insanity defense.' Yet, under-examined are two questions: First, what defenses should defendants with psychosocial disabilities be able to invoke during criminal prosecutions? Second, what kind of evidence is consistent with, on the one hand, determining a defendant's decision-making capacity to establish culpability and, on the other hand, the right to equal recognition before the law? Developments in neuroscience offer a unique prism to grapple with these issues. We argue that neuroscientific evidence of impaired decision-making, insofar as it presents valid and interpretable diagnostic information, can be a useful tool for influencing judicial decision-making and outcomes in criminal court. In doing so, we oppose the argument espoused by significant members of the global disability rights community that bioscientific evidence of psychosocial disability should be inadmissible to negate criminal responsibility. Such a position risks more defendants being punished harshly, sentenced to death, and placed in solitary confinement.

Ongwen and Mental Health Defenses at the International Criminal Court.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) case against Lord's Resistance Army commander and former child soldier Dominic Ongwen of Uganda resulted in a guilty verdict and 25-year prison sentence. Mr. Ongwen unsuccessfully raised defenses based on mental health. These included fitness to stand trial, insanity under Article 31(1)(a) of the Rome Statute (a first at the ICC), mitigation in sentencing based on diminished mental capacity, duress (also a first), and the cumulative effects of mental health and duress. These defenses were hampered by limited and ambiguous textual support, which occurs in a politico-legal context that is cautious regarding such defenses. Another group of challenges comes from the inherent difficulty of international forensic practice. In regard to how mental health affects the duress defense, the text of the Rome Statute and the Ongwen decision create a burdensome legal framework for defendants, particularly where mental illness limits but does not "destroy" decision-making, as Article 31(1)(a) requires for an insanity acquittal. Going forward, defense teams may attempt to address the court's all-or-nothing conception of mental illness, perhaps arguing a diminished mental capacity theory that accounts for psychiatric function that is reduced but not destroyed.

Reshaping Insanity in Pakistani Law: The Case of Safia Bano.

This Article analyzes the 2021 judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Safia Bano v. Home Department, Government of Punjab. The case has garnered significant local and international attention due to the Court's ruling that a death sentence may not be carried out on a defendant who has a mental illness. Setting the case against the backdrop of Pakistan's Islamic and colonial contexts, this article argues that the Supreme Court has reshaped the insanity defense in Pakistani law by placing the determination of a defendant's mental state mainly in the hands of medical professionals. However, the Court's reliance on medical professionals and the subsequent downplaying of the "moral capacity" element of the insanity defense-a determination of law made by courts-has created an obstacle for courts to punish offenders more stringently in future cases due to the popular belief that mental health professionals are ill-equipped to answer broader questions of justice for victims and society. The article recommends that this issue can be remedied by establishing an objective legal test for insanity that considers Islamic law, Pakistani precedent, and advances in medical science.

The State of Forensic Literature on Persons with Intellectual Disability Who Sexually Offend.

Persons with intellectual disability charged with sexual crimes (PWID/SC) pose a unique challenge for the forensic psychiatrist. They represent a heterogeneous group whose motivations and pathology range from a simple lack of adaptive functioning to more complex comorbid paraphilic disorders. Although there is a growing body of literature on the risk assessment and treatment of PWID/SC, there is a relative lack of guidance and research on the evaluation of these individuals throughout the legal processes that follow being charged with a sexual crime. To address this deficit, this article reviews the literature germane to several key aspects of this process. We first review the current understanding of intellectual disability and sexual pathology. We identify landmark legal decisions that may relate to PWID/SC. We then review the literature related to PWID/SC and competency assessments, defenses involving mental disease or impairment, sexually violent predator evaluations and court-mandated pharmacotherapy. We aim to both bring attention to this unique forensic population and highlight areas for further research and exploration.

Neurodevelopmental Conditions and the NGRI Defense.

Guina et al. summarize the literature on neurodevelopmental conditions and crime, focusing on the use of the insanity plea for this population. There have been a small number of cases in several jurisdictions, using both cognitive and volitional prongs, generating questions about the use of the defense for people with neurodevelopmental conditions. There are theoretical scenarios in which the defense seems appropriate, such as the argument that higher order moral reasoning is contingent on a series of developmental steps, including the development of theory of mind. Other lines of argument could be based on differences in conceptual thinking, reasoning, language, memory, attention, executive functioning, emotional regulation, and impulsivity. There are multiple barriers, however, to the use of the defense, including its antiquated language, which does not reflect our current conceptualizations of mental conditions and disorders. Another barrier is associated with the implicit stigmatization of defining a different way of being as a disorder, a position at the core of the important and burgeoning neurodiversity movement. It is not clear whether neurodevelopmental conditions will become the basis for an increasing number of insanity pleas, but more information in the form of primary data and good analysis is a critical next step.

Rational capacity and criminal responsibility in the USA.

The United States Supreme Court recently found that an insanity defense based upon moral incapacity was not constitutionally required. This decision allows states with a moral incapacity insanity defense, i.e., most states, to abolish their insanity defense. Unfortunately, the Court's opinion was based upon conflated concepts without considering irrationality, traditionally and universally the indispensable core element of insanity standards. This present perspective review attempts to clarify and disambiguate the critical concepts of instrumental and rational capacities as applied to insanity standards. With a proper understanding and application of these distinctly different capacities, insanity standards that at least incorporate rationality should in the future meet the Court's touchstone for determining constitutionally required due process.

Psychiatric Hospitalizations of People Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder in France: A Ten-Year Retrospective Study (2011-2020).

Background: Criminal responsibility is a key concept in the criminal sanctioning of people diagnosed with mental health disorders who have committed crimes. In France, based on the recommendations of one or more expert psychiatrists, a judge can declare a person not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) if, at the time of the offense, the person was presenting a psychiatric disorder that abolished or altered his/her capacity for discernment and/or ability to control his/her actions. In such a case, the judge also generally orders an involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. The objectives of this study were to (1) describe longitudinal retrospective administrative data of psychiatric hospitalizations for people found NCRMD, (2) identify the age, sex, and principal diagnoses of these individuals, and (3) characterize the trajectories of their psychiatric care before and after NCRMD psychiatric hospitalization. Methods: We used discharge reports from the French national hospital database called Programme de médicalisation des systèmes d'information (PMSI) to gather longitudinal data that describe psychiatric hospitalizations for people found NCRMD between 2011 and 2020, the age, sex, and principal diagnoses of these patients, the length of their hospitalization, and the trajectories of their psychiatric care before and after their NCRMD psychiatric hospitalization. Results: We identified 3,020 patients who were hospitalized for psychiatric care after having been found NCRMD between 2011 and 2020. The number of admissions on these grounds has remained stable over this period, ranging from 263 in 2011 to 227 in 2021. They were mostly young men diagnosed with a psychotic disorder (62%). The majority (87%) were hospitalized in general psychiatric hospitals, and only 13% were admitted to maximum-security units (Unités pour malades difficiles, UMD). The median duration of hospitalization for these patients was 13 months. Our results show that 73% of the patients had already been hospitalized prior to their NRCMD hospitalization. The rehospitalization rate within 5 years of discharge from NCRMD psychiatric hospitalization was 62%. Conclusion: We conducted the first study investigating the psychiatric hospital treatment of people declared NCRMD in France. There is an urgent need for further studies to investigate the clinical characteristics of these patients.

Criminal responsibility evaluations: Benchmarking in different countries.

Forensic mental health experts play a crucial role in criminal responsibility evaluations. However, the quality of these assessments has at time come under scrutiny and has been heavily criticized. A literature review revealed significant differences between countries concerning legal frameworks and procedures for conducting these assessments. The findings suggest that although some countries can be seen as a "role model", there still is room for improvement.

Settled Insanity: Substance Use Meets the Insanity Defense.

Mental impairments as a result of intoxication with alcohol or drugs have never been accepted as bases for an insanity defense. However, most U.S. jurisdictions have agreed that when the downstream effects of substance use lead to longer-term impairment, this circumstance can serve as legitimate grounds for an insanity plea. A recent Massachusetts case illustrates the application of this doctrine of "settled insanity." Although subject to criticism as excusing volitional behavior, recognition of the interplay between endogenous dispositions and the effects of substances suggests the wisdom of allowing settled insanity pleas.

Rationality Was Lost on the United States Supreme Court in Its Kahler Decision.

In its recent Kahler decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Kansas' abolition of the state's insanity defense was constitutional. It did so by framing the matter as a choice between the state's mensrea defense and a moral capacity defense, then mischaracterizing the mensrea defense as a type of insanity defense. In analyzing the two approaches, the Court missed the fundamental importance of rationality in criminal mental responsibility, a constitutional requirement for other criminal competencies, and a condition well described in the Court's Panetti ruling. The Court's acceptance of the abolition of a special insanity defense is a public policy in the direction of further criminalizing and punishing rather than providing prompt and proper treatment to those with serious mental illness, at a time when increasing modern research demonstrates the success of insanity acquittee dispositions with improved treatment and management resulting in lower rates of relapse and criminal recidivism.

Criminal Responsibility in Geropsychiatry: Competence, Culpability, and Care.

Elderly persons can get involved in the criminal justice system as victims or as perpetrators. The interaction of elderly persons with mental illness at various cross-sections of the judicial process needs thoughtful consideration. Through this review, the authors approach this less studied aspect of forensic psychiatry. Concerning the evaluation of a prisoner, three scenarios need focused consideration: evaluation for fitness to stand trial before a competent court, evaluations for an insanity defense, and fitness for sentencing. At the same time, incarcerated elderly who developed dementia or a severe mental illness at any point of time during the trial or in prison need specific approaches. In this article, the authors discuss the acts and case laws relevant to navigating these legal scenarios. We discuss existing mental health care provisions for protecting the health interests of elderly care in prison.

Borderline Personality Disorder in the Courtroom.

The insanity defense has been criticized with consequences for individuals with real mental illness. In the United States, several states have redefined the insanity defense by excluding antisocial personality disorder from consideration for the not guilty by reason of insanity plea. Four states have eliminated the insanity defense completely. The purpose of this article is to analyze the diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, its relevance in the courtroom setting, and how this speaks to the approach of the insanity defense in general. The history of the insanity defense, impulsive nature of borderline personality disorder, and the reasons that make personality disorders controversial are reviewed. The impulsive nature, and the association to childhood trauma, dissociation, and frontolimbic abnormalities support the continued protection of borderline personality disorder under the insanity defense. Knowledge of these facts will assist the forensic psychiatrist in effectively educating the courtroom about borderline personality disorder.

Some Methodological Issues in Neuroethics: The Case of Responsibility and Psychopathy.

There are some distinct methodological challenges, and possible pitfalls, for neuroethics when it evaluates neuroscientific results and links them to issues such as moral or legal responsibility. Some problems emerge in determining the requirements for responsibility. We will show how philosophical proposals in this area need to interact with legal doctrine and practice. Problems can occur when inferring normative implications from neuroscientific results. Other problems arise when it is not recognized that data about brain anatomy or physiology are relevant to the ascription of responsibility only when they are significantly correlated with the psychological capacities contemplated by the legal formulations of responsibility. We will demonstrate this by considering two significant cases concerning psychopathy. Some paradigms that aim at measuring higher-order capacities, such as moral understanding, have limited validity. More robust paradigms for the study of learning in restricted controlled conditions, on the other hand, have limited ecological validity across individuals and context to be of any use for the law.

Limitations Using Neuroimaging to Reconstruct Mental State After a Crime.

Neuroimaging offers great potential to clinicians and researchers for a host of mental and physical conditions. The use of imaging has been trumpeted for forensic psychiatric and psychological evaluations to allow greater insight into the relationship between the brain and behavior. The results of imaging certainly can be used to inform clinical diagnoses; however, there continue to be limitations in using neuroimaging for insanity cases due to limited scientific backing for how neuroimaging can inform retrospective evaluations of mental state. In making this case, this paper reviews the history of the insanity defense and explains how the use of neuroimaging is not an effective way of improving the reliability of insanity defense evaluations.

Preliminary examination of an insanity defense typology: Prevalence rates and correlates.

The present investigation was designed to systematically examine the insanity defense typology proposed by Brown (2018) using a large sample of cases wherein there was support for the insanity defense. A total of 187 court-ordered cases in which an insanity defense was supported were categorized based on the typology. The sample comprised of mostly single, middle-aged males who had been charged with a felony and diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. About half the sample was ultimately adjudicated not guilty by reason of insanity by the court. About two-thirds of the cases were categorized into one of the seven insanity defense subtypes using a coding scheme developed by the author of the typology. Inter-rater agreement occurred 82% of the time. The most frequent subtype was Paranoid Self-Defense, followed by "But It's Mine" and Paranoid Protection of Others. There were few differences among these subtypes based on demographic, clinical, offense, and outcome variables, except for presence of a primary psychotic disorder and offense type. Implications and ideas for future research are discussed.