Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:55:30.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluación de la responsabilidad penal en Suiza: cambios y continuidad

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2020

G. Niveau  and
E. Sozonets
G. Niveau
Affiliation:
Unidad de Psiquiatria Forense, Instituto Universitario de Medicina Legal, Avenue de Champel 9, 1211Ginebra 4, Suiza
Get access

Resumen

Antecedentes:

No se conocen muy bien los factores que los expertos utilizan para evaluar la responsabilidad penal. En las publicaciones se mencionan ocasionalmente cambios en la importancia atribuida a algunos diagnósticos. El propósito de este estudio es identificar la existencia y la naturaleza de estas modificaciones.

Método:

Comparamos las características sociodemográficas, criminológicas y psiquiátricas de dos muestras de evaluaciones psiquiátricas llevadas a cabo en Ginebra, Suiza, en 1973-74 (N=75) y 1997-98 (N=94).

Resultados:

Los dos grupos de sujetos descritos por los informes de los expertos parecen ser bastante diferentes en varias características. Sin embargo, no se encontro que los expertos concluyeran en favor de responsabilidad disminuida en sus informes con una tasa significativamente diferente. La regresión logística muestra que el diagnóstico de trastorno de la personalidad es la única variable que influyo en los expertos de manera diferente para el período 1997-1998 comparado con el período 1973-1974.

Conclusion:

En Ginebra, los expertos psiquiátricos continúan atribuyendo todavía responsabilidad disminuida a los delincuentes que sufren psicosis o depresión. Sin embargo, la población que sufre evaluaciones psiquiátricas en la actualidad ha cambiado considerablemente.

Keywords

responsabilidad penalpsiquiatría forensealegato de enajenación mentaldelincuentespericiapsiquiátrica
Type
Artículo Original
Information
European Psychiatry (Ed. Española) , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , April 2002 , pp. 182 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bibliografía

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (DSM III), 3rd ed. Washington DC: APA Press; 1980.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, PSGrisso, T.Posttraumatic stress disorder and the insanity defence: reply. Am J Psychiatry 1994;151:153.Google Scholar
Beckham, JCAnnis, LVGustafson, DJ.Decision making and examinar bias in forensic expert recommendations for not guilty by reason of insanity. Law Hum Behav 1989;13:79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borum, RAppelbaum, KL.Epilepsy, aggression and criminal responsibility. Psychiatr Serv 1996;47:762-3.Google ScholarPubMed
Bursztajn, HJScherr, JDBrodsky, A.The rebirth of forensic psychiatry in light of recent historical trends in criminal responsibility. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1994;17:611-35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callahan, LARobbins, PCSteadman, HJMorrissey, JP.The hidden effects of Montana’s "abolition" of the insanity defence. Psychiatr Q 1995;66:103-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, SSmith, A.Changes in the sentencing of diminished responsibility homicides. Br J Psychiatry 1983;142:20-34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinwiddie, SH.Genetics, antisocial personality and criminal responsibility. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1996;24:95-108.Google ScholarPubMed
Durst, RJabotinsky-Rubin, KGinath, Y.A look at court appointed psychiatric evaluations in Israel with special reference to criminal liability. Med Law 1993;12:153-63.Google Scholar
Gibbons, PMulryan, NO’Connor, A.Guilty but insane: the insanity defence in Ireland, 1850-1995. Br J Psychiatry 1997;170:467-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollweg, M.Modification of criminal law and its impact on psychiatric expert opinions. Int J Law Psychiatry 1998;21:109-16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Homant, RJKennedy, DB.Subjective factors in the judgment of insanity. Crim Just Behav 1987;14:38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Insanity Defense Work Group. American Psychiatric Association statement on the insanity defense. Am J Psychiatry 1983;140:681-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunjukrishnan, RBradford, MW.Schizophrenia an major affective disorder: forensic psychiatric issues. Can J Psychiatry 1988;33:723-33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nedopil, N.Violente of psychotic patients: how much responsibility can be attributed? Int J Law Psychiatry 1997;20:243-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osran, HCWeinberger, LE.Personality disorders and "restoration to sanity". Bulf Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1994;22:257-67.Google Scholar
Office cantonal de la statistique. Annuaire statistique du canton de Geneve. Genevea: publisher; 1975, 1999. 18 Piper A Jr. Multiple personality disorder. Br J Psychiatry 1994;164:600-12.Google Scholar
Reichlin, SMBloom, JDWilliams, MH.Excluding personality disorders from the insanity defense-a follow-up study. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1993;21:91-100.Google Scholar
Rudnick, ALevy, A.Personality disorders and criminal responsibility: a second opinion. Int J Law Psychiatry 1994;17:409-20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Touari, MMesbah, MDellatolas, GBensmail, B.Association between criminalityand psychosis: a retrospective study of 3984 expert psychiatric evaluations. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 1993;41:218-27.Google ScholarPubMed
Warren, JIRosenfeld, BFitch, WLHawk, G.Forensic mental health clinical evaluation: an analysis of interstate and intersystemic differences. Law Hum Behav 1997;21:377-90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organisation. The ICD 10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: WHO; 1992.Google Scholar