Skip to main content

Mental State, Intention, and Responsibility

Image
By

The accused had the mental capacity as indicated by the unremarkable background history. He also had guilty intentions as shown by his sexual orientation.

Mental state, intention, and responsibility: Most jurisdictions require evidence of guilty intention for an offender to be convicted. Psychiatrists are therefore most often asked to provide opinions about whether a psychiatric illness affects the accused’s intent to commit the crime. The underlying principle is that no one should be culpable unless they could control their own behavior and to choose whether to commit an unlawful act. In determining guilt, it is necessary to consider the mental state at the time of the act, and intention (mens rea). This means the person perceives and intends that their actions will produce unlawful consequences. Three other forms of intent need consideration. 1. Recklessness. The deliberate taking of an unjustifiable risk when the consequences can be foreseen but are not avoided. 2. Negligence. Bringing about a consequence which a ‘reasonable’ person would have foreseen and avoided. 3. Accident (or ‘blameless inadvertence,’). The key issue is whether the accused had the mental capacity to form the intention, or whether mental disorder might have affected that capacity. Sometimes it will be beyond psychiatric expertise or evidence to answer this question. Asked to give an opinion on these matters, the psychiatrist should liaise closely with the lawyers.

QID: 20200407125553985


They raised this issue in  1976  with Tarasoff v.  Regents of the University of  California (now known as Tarasoff 1). The California Supreme Court, which deliberated the case for an unprecedented time of about 14 months, ruled that a physician or a psychotherapist who has reason to believe that a patient may injure or kill someone, warning the potential victim.

(Kaplan and Sadock’s Synopsis of Psychiatry, 11th edition, page 1384)

Osman Warning is a warning of a death threat or risk of murder, issued by the British police or authorities to the prospective victim. It comes after Osman's 1998 legal case, which the European Court of Human Rights heard.

References

Osman Vs. United Kingdom

Comments

Post a Comment

Your Thoughts?

Popular posts from this blog

ADVOKATE: A Mnemonic Tool for the Assessment of Eyewitness Evidence

By
ADVOKATE: A Mnemonic Tool for Assessment of Eyewitness Evidence A tool for assessing eyewitness  ADVOKATE is a tool designed to assess eyewitness evidence and how much it is reliable. It requires the user to respond to several statements/questions. Forensic psychologists, police or investigative officer can do it. The mnemonic ADVOKATE stands for: A = amount of time under observation (event and act) D = distance from suspect V = visibility (night-day, lighting) O = obstruction to the view of the witness K = known or seen before when and where (suspect) A = any special reason for remembering the subject T = time-lapse (how long has it been since witness saw suspect) E = error or material discrepancy between the description given first or any subsequent accounts by a witness.  Working with suspects (college.police.uk)
Post a Comment
Read more

ICD-11 Criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) 6A05

By
ICD-11 Criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) 6A05 Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is characterised by a persistent pattern (at least 6 months) of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that has a direct negative impact on academic, occupational, or social functioning. There is evidence of significant inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms prior to age 12, typically by early to mid-childhood, though some individuals may first come to clinical attention later. The degree of inattention and hyperactivity-impulsivity is outside the limits of normal variation expected for age and level of intellectual functioning. Inattention refers to significant difficulty in sustaining attention to tasks that do not provide a high level of stimulation or frequent rewards, distractibility and problems with organisation. Hyperactivity refers to excessive motor activity and difficulties with remaining still, most evident in structured situations that re...
Post a Comment
Read more

ICD-11 Criteria for Anorexia Nervosa (6B80)

By
ICD-11 Criteria for Anorexia Nervosa (6B80) Anorexia Nervosa is characterised by significantly low body weight for the individual’s height, age and developmental stage that is not due to another health condition or to the unavailability of food. A commonly used threshold is body mass index (BMI) less than 18.5 kg/m2 in adults and BMI-for-age under 5th percentile in children and adolescents. Rapid weight loss (e.g. more than 20% of total body weight within 6 months) may replace the low body weight guideline as long as other diagnostic requirements are met. Children and adolescents may exhibit failure to gain weight as expected based on the individual developmental trajectory rather than weight loss. Low body weight is accompanied by a persistent pattern of behaviours to prevent restoration of normal weight, which may include behaviours aimed at reducing energy intake (restricted eating), purging behaviours (e.g. self-induced vomiting, misuse of laxatives), and behaviours aimed at incr...
Post a Comment
Read more