Abstract
Assessments of the criminal responsibility of violent and sexual offenders are of public interest, not the least due to their influence on sentencing decisions regarding placement in a forensic hospital. The research literature points to heterogeneous quality of these assessments in practice. In 2007, an interdisciplinary task force published minimum standards for assessing an offender's criminal liability. There is little empirical evidence on whether and in what way these standards are put into practice. The current study examined the application of these minimum standards inspecting a sample of 230 expert reports, provided by two departments of forensic psychiatry, affiliated to the Psychiatric University Hospitals in Munich and Berlin. As about half of the sample of reports was delivered before and after the publication of minimum standards, we checked if these standards revealed any impact on the reports' quality. In addition, we examined the court decisions regarding the consideration of the expert statements for a subsample of 130 cases providing these data. In summary, the implementation of the minimum standards increased from period 1 to 2 considered in this evaluation. Risk assessments and the consideration of expert findings in court decisions continue to vary a lot in practice. On the one hand, the results indicate a (partial) positive effect of the introduction of minimum standards;on the other hand, more efforts are needed with regard to quality assurance of criminal responsibility assessments.
| Dokumententyp: | Zeitschriftenartikel |
|---|---|
| Fakultät: | Medizin |
| Themengebiete: | 600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften > 610 Medizin und Gesundheit |
| ISSN: | 0724-2247 |
| Sprache: | Deutsch |
| Dokumenten ID: | 103036 |
| Datum der Veröffentlichung auf Open Access LMU: | 05. Jun. 2023, 15:41 |
| Letzte Änderungen: | 17. Okt. 2023, 15:12 |
- Dokument bearbeiten
