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.

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.

The topic of self-induced intoxication causing automatism is a complex legal question that straddles the border of psychiatry, the law, and social policy. It has been argued that women and children are predominantly positioned as victims of sexual and domestic violence, in which substances often play a part. This consideration sensitizes society to any legal measures that may potentially excuse, mitigate, or absolve perpetrators. The legal systems in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom have dealt with these situations as best as they can, sometimes inconsistently and sometimes coming into conflict with the public discourse and subsequent legislation. This article presents a comparison of case law and legislation among these three countries. We review the concept of automatism and self-induced intoxication leading to automatism, and we show how the courts have dealt with this subject.

Identify factors related to bias in forensic psychiatric assessments in criminal matters.
Based on the PRISMA guidelines, we searched the following keywords with Boolean operators: (criminal responsibility OR legal responsibility OR neurolaw OR insanity defense) AND (forensic psychiatry OR assessment OR evaluation OR bias OR decision-making OR capacity OR psychometric). The search included publications from January 1998 to December 2019 in the English language, published in PubMed, Web of Science, Taylor & Francis, and Scopus databases.
The final sample consisted of 30 articles separated into three groups: (1) legal elements and the wording of expert reports, (2) psychometric tools applied to criminal inquiries, and (3) expert forensic technique and inter-examiner agreement.
Multiple factors for biases were identified: difficulties in equivalence between legal and psychiatric terminologies, elements of countertransference between the expert and the examinee, absence of standardization of expert evaluations, low quality of expert reports, differences in the training of professionals involved in the evaluations, use of psychometric tools, number of professionals working on the same case, and the methodology adopted. Psychometric tools developed specifically for forensic psychiatric evaluations allowed the introduction of objective parameters in expert evaluations. Special attention was found in psychometric tools structured as vignettes that allowed the detailed evaluation of legal capacities, present in the legal texts. Psychometric tools in checklist format appeared to be more susceptible to interviewer biases.
The control of inherent biases in forensic psychiatry assessments on criminal matters remains a current challenge, difficult to control in forensic practice. The identification, control and avoidance of them may improve the quality the forensic psychiatric expertise in criminal matters.

Most defendants found incompetent to stand trial have psychotic illnesses. Clozapine has been shown to be superior to other antipsychotic medications in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. It is vastly underutilized, however, including in forensic settings. To our knowledge, there have been no studies exploring the risks and benefits of clozapine for incompetent to stand trial defendants with severe mental illness. We sought to explore the characteristics of patients who were prescribed clozapine in a retrospective sample of defendants deemed incompetent to stand trial with diagnoses of psychotic and bipolar disorders. We found that 25 of 240 defendants (10%) were prescribed clozapine, with 15 (60%) eventually being discharged on it. Of those 15, 8 defendants were successfully restored to competency to stand trial. The restoration rate in the clozapine group was much lower than in the non-clozapine group (32% versus 87%). Our results emphasize the need for prospective comparative studies assessing the efficacy and tolerability of clozapine and other antipsychotic medications related to restoration of competency to stand trial.

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is believed to be a degenerative brain disease characterized by repetitive brain trauma resulting in a specific pattern of neuropathological changes, which some have linked to functional disturbance and aggression. The diagnosis has gained greater public attention after these same neuropathological changes were discovered in multiple deceased National Football League (NFL) players, many of whom had exhibited signs of aggression, impulsivity, and poor executive functioning, according to a widely publicized study. When an NFL player convicted of murder was found to have the neuropathological changes associated with CTE following his suicide, the New York Times editorial section asked whether CTE was a defense for murder. This idea raises an interesting legal and philosophical question about whether an individual\'s criminal actions can be determined by something outside their control, such as past head trauma. To begin to attempt an answer, this article reviews what is currently known about the neurobiology of traumatic brain injury, CTE, and morality. By looking at how U.S. criminal law courts have handled cases of dementia and traumatic brain injury in the past, we can better understand how to consider this postmortem diagnosis in its forensic context.

We examined the prevalence of criminal defendants facing only misdemeanor charges and referred for forensic mental health evaluations of legal sanity (criminal responsibility) in a state-wide sample of sanity reports. We sought to describe this population of defendants, particularly as compared to defendants facing felony charges and referred for evaluation of legal sanity.
We hypothesized that, among those referred for sanity evaluations, defendants facing only misdemeanor charges would have higher rates of serious mental illness than would defendants charged with felonies, as evidenced by their mental status during the evaluation and at the time of alleged offenses. We also hypothesized that defendants charged with only misdemeanors would be more often opined insane, as compared to those charged with felonies.
We reviewed a statewide sample of 926 court-ordered sanity evaluation reports in Virginia and coded numerous variables describing the defendants, sanity evaluation process, resulting reports, and legal opinions offered within the reports.
Approximately 22.3% of sanity evaluations involved defendants charged only with misdemeanor offenses. Defendants facing only misdemeanor charges were 1.82 times more likely to be opined insane than were defendants facing only felony charges, primarily due to their increased likelihood of experiencing psychotic symptoms at the time of the offense (1.83 times more likely than defendants facing felony charges).
The merits of pursuing the insanity defense in response to misdemeanor charges are questionable given the cost- and resource-intensive outcomes associated with insanity acquittals. Diversion strategies may be a more efficient response to those defendants with serious mental illness facing only misdemeanor charges. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The term overkill usually indicates the infliction of massive injuries by far exceeding the extent necessary to kill the victim. Only few articles or textbooks report this term that is mostly associated with sex-motivated homicides where injuries, generally stabbing, are directed to significant sexual parts of the body. The aim of this study is to shed light on the phenomenon of overkill by reviewing some cases personally analyzed by the authors from both a forensic pathology rather than forensic psychiatry views. The reported results coupled with the literature revision confirmed the importance of a complete analysis of all criminological elements for better defining overkill cases.

Evaluations of legal sanity are some of the most complex and consequential mental health evaluations that forensic clinicians perform for the courts. Thus, there is strong reason to monitor the wide-scale process and conclusions of sanity evaluations. In this study, we review 1,111 court-ordered sanity evaluation reports submitted by 74 evaluators in Virginia from the first year after the state initiated an oversight system that allowed for such comprehensive review. Overall, the base rate of insanity findings was 16.9%, although base rates of insanity findings among individual evaluators varied from 0% to 50%. Similarly, most evaluators cited the cognitive (rather than volitional) criteria of the insanity defense as the basis for their insanity findings, although evaluators varied in their patterns of citing these underlying insanity criteria. Our review revealed other trends in practice, such as the rarity of psychological testing (2% of cases) and the frequency of conveying conclusions in \"ultimate issue\" format (76%). Overall, findings reveal that a majority of reports seem reasonably consistent with practice guidelines, but also reveal some idiosyncratic practices or patterns that suggest there is opportunity for improvement.

暂无摘要。