Genetics and criminal responsibility

Some believe that genetics threatens privacy and autonomy and will eviscerate the concept of human nature. Despite the astonishing research advances, however, none of these dire predictions and no radical transformation of the law have occurred. Advocates have tried to use genetic evidence to affect judgments of criminal responsibility. At present, however genetic research can provide little aid to assessments of criminal responsibility and it does not suggest a radical critique of responsibility.     

Craziness and criminal responsibility.

This article addresses why mental disorder is relevant to criminal responsibility. It begins by considering the meaning of criminal responsibility because it is impossible to understand the relevance of mental disorder unless one understands responsibility clearly. The next section provides a theoretical account of responsibility and excuse in general and addresses common misconceptions about these topics. The third section examines in detail why mental disorder can sometimes produce either a complete or partial excusing condition, such as legal insanity or "partial responsibility," and whether the U.S. Constitution requires the provision of an excuse based on mental disorder. The section proposes that mental disorder should produce an excusing condition in appropriate cases. The next section considers the relation of mental disorder to mens rea, the mental state "element" that is a definitional criterion of most crimes, and whether the U.S. Constitution requires that defendants be permitted to use evidence of mental disorder to negate mental state elements of the crime charged. This section argues that mental disorder rarely negates mens rea, but in those cases in which a plausible claim for negation could be made, defendants should be allowed to make this claim.     

Drug-associated psychoses and criminal responsibility

At present, the law draws a distinction when assigning criminal responsibility to those who commit offences while experiencing psychotic symptoms: if the symptoms are believed to arise because of ingesting drugs (an external cause), the offender is generally convicted of the offence; if the symptoms arise from a mental illness (an internal cause), the offender may be afforded a defence of insanity. In practice, drawing such a distinction can be problematic. There are difficulties for example in determining criminal responsibility when the use of drugs is followed by the emergence of a psychotic illness process that then continues to have an independent existence even in the absence of the ongoing substance use. This article analyses legal, policy, and expert witness perspectives relating to liberal, conservative, and intermediate approaches to this problematic area of jurisprudence.     

Voluntary intoxication and criminal responsibility.

This paper reviews the law related to voluntary intoxication and criminal responsibility in the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, the US Virgin islands, and Puerto Rico. Statutory and case law citations are provided which govern the use of intoxication evidence in each jurisdiction to negate mens rea (i.e., to establish diminished capacity), to support an insanity defense, and to mitigate criminal sentencing. Factors that courts typically focus on when deciding whether to admit this evidence in a particular case are discussed, and these factors are related to clinically relevant criteria.     

An examination of the stability of the MMPI Personality Disorder Scales

Recently, a set of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) scales for the diagnosis of personality disorders have attracted research attention. As personality disorders are thought to represent long-standing trait disturbances, any measure of these disorders should be stable over time and relatively free from state influences. This study investigated the stability of the MMPI scales in 67 subjects across a brief inpatient treatment for substance abuse. The results indicated high levels of stability across the 3-week treatment period.     

Neurobiologic correlates of violence: relevance to criminal responsibility

Studies addressing the relationship between neurotransmitter functioning and violent crime are reviewed. A rich literature exists to support the notion that monoamine (i.e., serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine) neurotransmitter functioning is related to human aggressive behaviour. Results from these studies provide, at best, indirect evidence that neurotransmitter abnormalities are involved in violent criminal behavior. Few studies have specifically addressed the role of neurotransmitter functioning in violent crime. To illustrate how current knowledge in this area has been applied in forensic settings, a case study in which neurotransmitter functioning was introduced as evidence to support an insanity defense is presented. Potential problems associated with such defenses are discussed. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

MMPI profiles of problem peace officers

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) profiles of officers who had been involved in serious disciplinary actions were compared with those of a matched group of officers who had not been involved in such actions. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) found the profiles of the two groups to be significantly different, with Scales F, 5, 6, and 9 significantly higher and Scale L significantly lower for the problem group. In addition, subjects in the problem group were twice as likely to have a high-point elevation T-score greater than or equal to 70 as their nonproblem counterparts. Overall, these results indicate that any degree of psychopathology, as reflected by MMPI profile elevations, increases the likelihood of serious job performance problems. In addition, a presentation of self as conventional and moderately defended is associated with a lesser likelihood of job difficulty, whereas characteristics such as hypersensitivity, impulsivity, and poor frustration tolerance contribute to significant job problems.     

The detection of malingering in criminal forensic groups: MMPI validity scales

Despite the value of the MMPI to the forensic assessment of malingering (exaggeration) of psychopathology, few studies have assessed the accuracy of the MMPI validity scales in criminal forensic populations. We administered the MMPI to 35 insanity defendants undergoing evaluation for fitness to stand trial and/or sanity at the time of the crime, who stood to benefit from being assessed as psychologically disturbed, and 39 subjects previously found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), who did not stand to gain from such an assessment, Insanity defendants showed significantly more malingering than NGRI subjects, p less than .05. Racial differences did not affect the data. These findings support the efficacy of MMPI validity scales in assessing malingering within criminal forensic groups, and support the generalizability of the scales across race.     

MMPI profiles of adolescents charged with homicide

Study of adolescent violence has been impeded by failure to distinguish among the circumstances in which youth engage in violent behavior. The present study investigated MMPI profiles of 36 adolescent murderers and a control group of 18 adolescents charged with larceny. Homicide cases were subgrouped into those who committed homicide secondary to another crime (e.g., robbery or rape) and those who acted in the context of interpersonal conflict with the victim. While there were no significant differences between homicide and larceny groups, crime and conflict subgroups were significantly different on scales F, Hs, Hy, and Sc.