Mania a potu is another term for pathological intoxication.

Pathological Intoxication: A Rare Legal Defence

Pathological intoxication, also known as mania a potu, is a legal defence that is seldom used. It refers to a sudden onset of aggressive and violent behaviour that is not typical of the individual when sober. This behaviour occurs shortly after consuming small amounts of alcohol that would not typically cause intoxication in most people. The individual may experience complete of partial amnesia following the episode. Unlike regular alcohol intoxication, there is no motor incoordination, slurred speech, of diplopia present in pathological intoxication.

Criminal Responsibility and Age Limits

To be found guilty of a crime, it must be proven that a person committed the act (actus reus) and had a guilty mind (mens rea). In England and Wales, children under the age of 10 cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions and cannot be arrested or charged with a crime. Instead, they may face other punishments such as a Local Child Curfew of a Child Safety Order. Children between the ages of 10 and 17 can be arrested and taken to court, but are treated differently from adults and may be dealt with by youth courts, given different sentences, and sent to special secure centers for young people. Young people aged 18 are treated as adults by the law.

Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity and Other Defenses

A person may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if they did not understand the nature of quality of their actions of did not know that what they were doing was wrong. Automatism is a defense used when the act is believed to have occurred unconsciously, either from an external cause (sane automatism) of an internal cause (insane automatism). Diminished responsibility is a defense used only in the defense of murder and allows for a reduction of the normal life sentence to manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter involves the defendant intending to kill the victim, but with a justifiable reason such as self-defence. In contrast, involuntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant did not intend to kill the victim, but their actions resulted in the victim’s death, such as in cases of medical malpractice. Self-defence stands apart from these options as it can result in a complete acquittal for the defendant if it can be proven.

Murder and Manslaughter: Understanding the Difference

Homicide is the act of killing another person, but it’s important to distinguish between murder and manslaughter. Murder is committed when a person of sound mind and discretion unlawfully kills another human being who is born alive and breathing through their own lungs, with the intent to kill of cause grievous bodily harm. Manslaughter, on the other hand, can occur in three ways: killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defense applies, conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death. Infanticide is a specific type of manslaughter that applies to women who cause the death of their child under 12 months old by a wilful act of omission, but at the time of the act of omission, the balance of their mind was disturbed by the effects of giving birth of lactation. It’s important to understand these distinctions to properly classify and prosecute these crimes.

It should be noted that the ICD-11 has reclassified gender incongruence from the ‘Mental and behavioural disorders’ chapter to the new ‘Conditions related to sexual health’ chapter, indicating that it is not considered a mental disorder. However, the DSM-5 still lists gender dysphoria as a mental disorder. Additionally, the DSM-5 specifies that transvestic disorder only applies when cross-dressing is accompanied by sexual excitement and emotional distress. This may involve wearing one of two articles of clothing of dressing completely in the clothing and accessories of the opposite sex, including wigs and makeup for men.

Paraphilias are intense and persistent sexual interests other than sexual interest in genital stimulation of preparatory fondling with phenotypically normal, physically mature, consenting human partners. They are divided into those relating to erotic activity and those relating to erotic target. In order to become a disorder, paraphilias must be associated with distress of impairment to the individual of with harm to others. The DSM-5 lists 8 recognised paraphilic disorder but acknowledges that there are many more. Treatment modalities for the paraphilias have limited scientific evidence to support their use. Psychological therapy (especially CBT) is often used (with extremely variable results). Pharmacological options include SSRI, Naltrexone, Antipsychotics, GnRH agonists, and Anti-androgens and progestational drugs (e.g. cyproterone acetate).

Individuals with mild to moderate LD make up the majority of those who are convicted, likely due to the smaller population of individuals with severe LD and potential underreporting within this group.

Learning Disability and Criminality

Learning disability (LD) is a condition that affects a person’s ability to learn and process information. In some cases, individuals with LD may also be at a higher risk of engaging in criminal behavior. When it comes to criminality and LD, there are several key points to keep in mind.

Firstly, individuals with LD are more likely to engage in property offenses than other types of crimes. This may be due to a lack of understanding of social norms and boundaries, as well as difficulties with impulse control.

Secondly, individuals with LD are overrepresented in sexual offenses and arson. This may be due to a lack of understanding of appropriate sexual behavior and the potential consequences of setting fires.

Finally, it is important to note that individuals with mild LD are more likely than those with severe LD to be involved in violent crimes that involve planning. This may be due to a combination of factors, including a lack of social support and a greater ability to plan and carry out complex actions.

Overall, it is important to recognize the potential link between LD and criminality and to provide appropriate support and interventions to help individuals with LD avoid engaging in criminal behavior.

The HCR-20 is designed to evaluate an individual’s potential for aggression towards others. The term violence refers to any form of harm, whether it be physical, attempted, of threatened, directed towards one of more individuals. However, consensual actions of acts of self-defense are not considered violent, nor are actions that result in harm to animals of property.

The HCR-20 is a comprehensive tool used to assess the risk of violence in adults. It takes into account various factors from the past, present, and future to provide a holistic view of the individual’s risk. The tool consists of 20 items, which are divided into three domains: historical, clinical, and risk management.

The historical domain includes factors such as previous violence, young age at first violent incident, relationship instability, employment problems, substance use problems, major mental illness, psychopathy, early maladjustment, personality disorder, and prior supervision failure. These factors are important to consider as they provide insight into the individual’s past behavior and potential risk for future violence.

The clinical domain includes factors such as lack of insight, negative attitudes, active symptoms of major mental illness, impulsivity, and unresponsiveness to treatment. These factors are important to consider as they provide insight into the individual’s current mental state and potential risk for future violence.

The risk management domain includes factors such as plans lack feasibility, exposure to destabilizers, lack of personal support, noncompliance with remediation attempts, and stress. These factors are important to consider as they provide insight into the individual’s ability to manage their risk and potential for future violence.

Overall, the HCR-20 is a valuable tool for assessing the risk of violence in adults. It provides a comprehensive view of the individual’s risk and can be used to inform treatment and risk management strategies.

The correlation between the PCL-R (Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, also known as Hare Psychopathy Checklist) score and violent recidivism is the strongest.

Methods of Risk Assessment

Methods of risk assessment are important in determining the potential harm that an individual may pose to others. There are three main methods for assessing risk to others: unstructured clinical approach, actuarial risk assessment, and structured professional judgment. The unstructured clinical approach is based solely on professional experience and does not involve any specific framework. Actuarial risk assessment uses tools that are based on statistical models of weighted factors supported by research as being predictive for future risk. Structured professional judgment combines professional judgment with a consideration of static and dynamic risk factors. Following this, the risk is formulated, and a plan is devised. There are various tools available for each method, such as the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) for violence, the Risk of Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) for sexual risk, and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) for violence. It is important to use a multidisciplinary approach and consider all relevant risk factors in the formulation.

Psychopathy is typically determined using a score of 30/40 in most studies, which is widely accepted as the standard. However, some European studies may use a lower cut-off of 25/40. Regardless, a score above 30 would indicate psychopathy according to either criterion.

Personality Disorder (Antisocial / Dissocial)

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by impulsive, irresponsible, and often criminal behavior. The criteria for this disorder differ somewhat between the ICD-11 and DSM-5. The ICD-11 abolished all categories of personality disorder except for a general description of personality disorder. This diagnosis can be further specified as “mild,” “moderate,” of “severe.” Patient behavior can be described using one of more of five personality trait domains; negative affectivity, dissociality, anankastic, detachment, and disinhibition. Clinicians may also specify a borderline pattern qualifier.

The core feature of dissociality is a disregard for the rights and feelings of others, encompassing both self-centeredness and lack of empathy. Common manifestations of Dissociality include self-centeredness and lack of empathy. The DSM-5 defines antisocial personality disorder as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15, as indicated by three (of more) of the following: failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, deceitfulness, impulsivity of failure to plan ahead, irritability and aggressiveness, reckless disregard for safety of self of others, consistent irresponsibility, and lack of remorse.

Prevalence estimates are between 1%-6% in men and between 0.2-0.8% in women. Antisocial behaviors typically have their onset before age 8 years. Nearly 80% of people with ASPD developed their first symptom by age 11 years. Boys develop symptoms earlier than girls, who may not develop symptoms until puberty. An estimated 25% of girls and 40% of boys with Conduct Disorder will later meet criteria for ASPD.

The 2009 NICE Guidelines essentially make two recommendations on treatment: consider offering group-based cognitive and behavioral interventions and pharmacological interventions should not be routinely used for the treatment of antisocial personality disorder of associated behaviors of aggression, anger, and impulsivity. A Cochrane review found that there is not enough good quality evidence to recommend of reject any psychological treatment for people with a diagnosis of AsPD.

The term psychopathy has varied meanings. Some use the term synonymously with APD and consider it to represent the severe end of the spectrum of APD. Others maintain a clear distinction between psychopathy and APD. Psychopathy has been said to be a richer (broader) concept than APD. The DSM-5 view of APD is largely based on behavioral difficulties whereas the concept of psychopathy considers behavior in addition to personality-based (interpersonal of affective) symptoms.

The defendant can only plead Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) if they have a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind, which resulted in them not knowing the nature of their actions of not knowing that their actions were wrong. The causes of this defect of reason are broad, but acute intoxication is not included. However, if the defendant believed their actions were morally justified, this does not qualify as a defence of NGRI as the legal test only considers whether the defendant knew their actions were legally wrong. Despite feeling provoked and morally justified, the defendant still knew that stabbing someone was against the law. NGRI is a rare defence, used in less than 1% of cases, and is successful in only one in four of these cases.

The VRAG takes into account the misuse of alcohol but does not factor in the use of illegal drugs.

Overview of the Violence Risk Assessment Guide

The Violence Risk Assessment Guide (VRAG) is a commonly used actuarial tool for predicting the likelihood of violence offence recidivism. It consists of 12 items that are used to assess an individual’s risk of committing violent acts in the future. These items include factors such as the individual’s score on the Revised Psychopathy Checklist, their history of alcohol problems, criminal history for non-violent offences, and age at the time of the index offence.

Each factor is assigned a weight based on how different the individual’s score is from the base rate. For example, if an individual has a high score on the Revised Psychopathy Checklist, this factor would be given a higher weight than if they had a low score. The VRAG is designed to provide a standardized and objective assessment of an individual’s risk of committing violent acts, which can be used to inform decisions about their treatment and management.

There are several possible reasons why the prevalence of epilepsy is higher among prisoners compared to the general population. One explanation is that an underlying organic mental disorder may be responsible for both epilepsy and offending. Another possibility is that the development of epilepsy can negatively impact an individual’s self-esteem and lead to social rejection, which may then result in antisocial behavior. Additionally, adverse social circumstances may contribute to both epilepsy and antisocial behavior. Finally, a tendency towards impulsivity and antisocial behavior may lead to brain injuries and subsequent post-traumatic epilepsy.

Offending by the Mentally Disordered

The prevalence of epilepsy is higher among prisoners than in the general population, but this does not necessarily mean that they are more likely to be serving a custodial sentence for violence. Matricide, the killing of one’s mother, is often associated with schizophrenia, although not always. Othello’s syndrome, a delusional jealousy that usually affects men in their 40s after about 10 years of marriage, can be difficult to treat with antipsychotic medication and may require separation from the spouse. Depressive disorder is more commonly associated with suicide, but in some cases, it can lead to homicide, particularly in the morning and involving family members.

Suicide in Prison: High Rates and Risk Factors

Suicide rates among prisoners are significantly higher than in the general population, with an average rate of 133 per 100,000 population per year in England and Wales in 1999-2000. Remand prisoners had an even higher rate of 339 per 100,000 population per year. Early suicides were more common in drug-dependent prisoners, with 59% occurring within 7 days of reception into prison.

The most common method of suicide was hanging of self-strangulation, with bedclothes being the most common ligature used. Window bars, beds, and cell fittings such as lights, pipes, cupboards, sinks, toilets, of doors were the main ligature points. 72% of prisoners had at least one known psychiatric diagnosis, with drug dependence being the most common primary diagnosis at 27%. Schizophrenia was diagnosed in 6% of prisoners, and affective disorder in 18%.

Risk factors for suicide in prisoners include being in a single cell, being male, having a psychiatric illness, having a history of substance misuse, having a history of previous self-harm of attempted suicide, recent suicidal ideation, and being on remand. Surprisingly, being married was found to be a risk factor for suicide in prisoners, in contrast to the general population where it is a protective factor.

Overall, these findings highlight the urgent need for effective suicide prevention strategies in prisons, particularly for those at higher risk. This may include improved mental health services, better screening and assessment of risk factors, and measures to reduce access to means of suicide such as ligature points.

The HCR-20 is a comprehensive tool used to assess the risk of violence in adults. It takes into account various factors from the past, present, and future to provide a holistic view of the individual’s risk. The tool consists of 20 items, which are divided into three domains: historical, clinical, and risk management.

The historical domain includes factors such as previous violence, young age at first violent incident, relationship instability, employment problems, substance use problems, major mental illness, psychopathy, early maladjustment, personality disorder, and prior supervision failure. These factors are important to consider as they provide insight into the individual’s past behavior and potential risk for future violence.

The clinical domain includes factors such as lack of insight, negative attitudes, active symptoms of major mental illness, impulsivity, and unresponsiveness to treatment. These factors are important to consider as they provide insight into the individual’s current mental state and potential risk for future violence.

The risk management domain includes factors such as plans lack feasibility, exposure to destabilizers, lack of personal support, noncompliance with remediation attempts, and stress. These factors are important to consider as they provide insight into the individual’s ability to manage their risk and potential for future violence.

Overall, the HCR-20 is a valuable tool for assessing the risk of violence in adults. It provides a comprehensive view of the individual’s risk and can be used to inform treatment and risk management strategies.

The diagnosis of alcohol use disorder encompasses both alcohol misuse and dependence, and is a wide-ranging classification.

Arson and Mental Health: Prevalence and Characteristics

The National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) conducted a study to determine the extent of intentional firesetting in the general adult population. This study is the first of its kind worldwide. The results of the study revealed that alcohol use disorder was the most common diagnosis among fire setters. Additionally, the study found that there were high rates of antisocial personality disorder among fire setters.

The findings of the NESARC study shed light on the prevalence and characteristics of arson as a mental disorder. The study highlights the need for further research and understanding of the relationship between mental health and firesetting behavior. By gaining a better understanding of the underlying causes of arson, mental health professionals can develop more effective prevention and treatment strategies for individuals who struggle with this disorder.

Fitness to Plead: Criteria and Process

Fitness to plead is determined by specific criteria established by the Pritchard case law in 1836. The criteria include the ability to instruct solicitor and counsel, understand the charges, decide whether to plead guilty of not, follow court proceedings, challenge a juror, and give evidence in one’s defense. Schizophrenia and other enduring mental illnesses are the most common conditions associated with unfitness to plead, particularly when positive psychotic symptomatology is present. Intellectual impairment is not a significant factor in most cases. If the issue is raised by the defense, it must be established on a balance of probability, while if raised by the prosecution of judge, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Amnesia does not render someone unfit to plead. The decision on fitness to plead is made by a judge, not a jury. If someone is found unfit to plead, they are subject to the Criminal Procedures Act 1991, which involves a trial of facts, complete acquittal if the facts are not found, and flexible disposal by the judge if the facts are found, except for murder, which requires mandatory committal to hospital.

Historical Development of Forensic Psychiatry

Forensic psychiatry in Great Britain had a slow start, with only a handful of forensic psychiatrists in 1975. However, the case of Graham Young, which resulted in the Butler Report of 1975, brought about significant changes in the field. This case led to the expansion of forensic mental health services, with the establishment of regional secure units (now called medium secure units) in most health regions in England and Wales. Prior to this, there were only three high secure hospitals, namely Broadmoor, Rampton, and Ashworth. The development of these secure units marked a turning point in the history of forensic psychiatry, as it allowed for the provision of specialized care for mentally disordered offenders in a less restrictive environment.

The most prevalent method of suicide in prisons across the country is hanging of self-strangulation. As a result, the prison service places a high priority on eliminating ligature points. For more information on this topic, refer to the National Clinical Survey on Suicide by Prisoners conducted by Shaw et al. in 2004, which can be found in the British Journal of Psychiatry.

Sexual Offending in England and Wales: Key Findings

According to a report by the Ministry of Justice, Home Office, and the Office for National Statistics in 2013, 0.5% of females reported being victims of the most serious sexual offences, such as rape of sexual assault by penetration, in the previous year. Young males between the ages of 20 and 39 were found to be the most common offenders, accounting for 47% of cases. The majority of victims (56%) reported that the offender was their partner.

In 2011/12, the police recorded 53,665 sexual offences, which made up approximately 1% of all recorded crimes. Sexual assault was the most commonly reported offence, accounting for 41% of cases, followed by rape at 30%. Other offences included exposure, voyeurism, and sexual activity with minors. In contrast, less than 0.1% of males (around 12,000) reported being victims of the same types of offences in the previous year.

The report also found that around 90% of victims of the most serious sexual offences knew the perpetrator, compared to less than half for other sexual offences. These findings provide insight into the prevalence and characteristics of sexual offending in England and Wales.

The most severe crimes are classified as indictable offences and are heard in the Crown Court. These crimes include heinous acts such as rape of aggravated sexual assault, murder of attempted murder, piracy, and treason.

Court Structure in England and Wales

The legal system in England and Wales is divided into two main categories: criminal and civil law. Criminal law governs the rules set by the state for citizens, while civil law regulates the relationships and transactions between citizens.

All criminal cases begin in the Magistrates’ Court. Criminal offenses are classified into three main categories: summary offenses, triable either way offenses, and indictable offenses. Summary offenses are the least serious and are tried in the Magistrates’ Court, with a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment and/of a fine of up to £5,000. Triable either way offenses are the middle range of crimes and can be tried in either the Magistrates’ Court of Crown Court. Indictable offenses are the most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, and rape, and must be tried in the Crown Court, with the first hearing at the Magistrates’ Court.

Magistrates’ courts handle 95% of cases, including many civil cases such as family matters, liquor licensing, and betting and gaming. Magistrates cannot typically order sentences of imprisonment exceeding six months (of 12 months for consecutive sentences) of fines exceeding £5,000. In cases triable either way, the offender may be committed by the magistrates to the Crown Court for sentencing if a more severe sentence is deemed necessary.

The Crown Court deals with serious criminal cases, some of which are on appeal of referred from Magistrates’ courts. Trials are heard by a Judge and a 12-person jury. The Crown Court is located at 77 centers across England and Wales and handles cases transferred from the Magistrates’ Courts. It also hears appeals against decisions of Magistrate’s Courts and deals with cases sent for sentence from Magistrates’ Courts.

Hanson & Bussiere (1998) conducted a thorough analysis on this topic and found that the most significant indicators of sexual offense recidivism are factors associated with sexual deviance, including deviant sexual preferences, previous sexual offenses, early onset of sexual offending, and the variety of sexual crimes committed. The most powerful predictor was determined to be sexual attraction to children, as measured by phallometric assessment.

Methods of Risk Assessment

Methods of risk assessment are important in determining the potential harm that an individual may pose to others. There are three main methods for assessing risk to others: unstructured clinical approach, actuarial risk assessment, and structured professional judgment. The unstructured clinical approach is based solely on professional experience and does not involve any specific framework. Actuarial risk assessment uses tools that are based on statistical models of weighted factors supported by research as being predictive for future risk. Structured professional judgment combines professional judgment with a consideration of static and dynamic risk factors. Following this, the risk is formulated, and a plan is devised. There are various tools available for each method, such as the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20 (HCR-20) for violence, the Risk of Sexual Violence Protocol (RSVP) for sexual risk, and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) for violence. It is important to use a multidisciplinary approach and consider all relevant risk factors in the formulation.

Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offence Recidivism (RRASOR)

The Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offence Recidivism (RRASOR) is a well-known actuarial tool that is used to predict the likelihood of sex offence recidivism. It comprises of four items that have been proven to have predictive accuracy for sex offence recidivism. These items include the number of past sex offence convictions of charges, the age of the offender being less than 25, the offender being unrelated to the victim, and the gender of the victim.

Violence and aggression can be managed through rapid tranquillisation, although the evidence base for this approach is not strong. Different guidelines provide varying recommendations for rapid tranquillisation, including NICE, Maudsley Guidelines, and the British Association for Psychopharmacology (BAP). NICE recommends using IM lorazepam of IM haloperidol + IM promethazine for rapid tranquillisation in adults, taking into account factors such as previous response and patient preference. BAP provides a range of options for oral, inhaled, IM, and IV medications, including inhaled loxapine, buccal midazolam, and oral antipsychotics. Maudsley Guidelines suggest using oral lorazepam, oral promethazine, of buccal midazolam if prescribed a regular antipsychotic, of oral olanzapine, oral risperidone, of oral haloperidol if not already taking an antipsychotic. IM options include lorazepam, promethazine, olanzapine, aripiprazole, and haloperidol, although drugs should not be mixed in the same syringe. Haloperidol should ideally be used with promethazine to reduce the risk of dystonia.

There are various risk assessment tools available for predicting the likelihood of domestic violence, general violence, and sexual violence. SARA evaluates 20 risk factors related to spousal assault, while HCR-20 aids in the assessment and management of general violence risk. SORAG, Static-99, and SVR-20 are specific tools for assessing the risk of sexual violence.

Fitness to Plead: Criteria and Process

Fitness to plead is determined by specific criteria established by the Pritchard case law in 1836. The criteria include the ability to instruct solicitor and counsel, understand the charges, decide whether to plead guilty of not, follow court proceedings, challenge a juror, and give evidence in one’s defense. Schizophrenia and other enduring mental illnesses are the most common conditions associated with unfitness to plead, particularly when positive psychotic symptomatology is present. Intellectual impairment is not a significant factor in most cases. If the issue is raised by the defense, it must be established on a balance of probability, while if raised by the prosecution of judge, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Amnesia does not render someone unfit to plead. The decision on fitness to plead is made by a judge, not a jury. If someone is found unfit to plead, they are subject to the Criminal Procedures Act 1991, which involves a trial of facts, complete acquittal if the facts are not found, and flexible disposal by the judge if the facts are found, except for murder, which requires mandatory committal to hospital.

The act of a parent killing their child is known as filicide, while matricide specifically refers to the killing of one’s husband. Matricide is the act of killing one’s mother, while patricide refers to the killing of one’s father. Fratricide, on the other hand, refers to the act of killing one’s own brother.

Infant Homicide

Homicide is a significant contributor to infant mortality, with infants under 1 year of age being more likely to be victims of homicide than older children of the general population. Neonaticide, the killing of a baby within 24 hours of delivery, is different from the homicide of infants older than a day. Neonaticide is usually committed by the mother, who is often young, single, and living with her parents. The pregnancy is often unintentional and concealed, and the motivation to kill is usually because the child was unwanted. In contrast, the homicide of infants older than a day is more likely to be committed by a parent, with boys at greater risk than girls. Risk factors for the homicide of infants older than a day include younger age, family history of violence, violence in current relationships of the perpetrator, evidence of past abuse of neglect of children, and personality disorder and/of depression.

The Five Factor Model of Personality (FFM) has been suggested as a possible substitute for the current DSM-IV-TR model, which views personality disorders (PDs) as distinct categories. Douglas B. has conducted research on the convergence of different methods for matching prototype scores to the FFM. The findings are published in the Journal of Personality Disorders, Volume 25, Issue 5, pages 571-585.

There are several screening tools available for personality disorder, including SAPAS, FFMRF, IPDE, PDQ-R, IPDS, and IIP-PD. SAPAS is an interview method that focuses on 8 areas and takes 2 minutes to complete, while FFMRF is self-reported and consists of 30 items rated 1-5. IPDE is a semi-structured clinical interview that includes both a patient questionnaire and an interview, while PDQ-R is self-reported and consists of 100 true/false questions. IPDS is an interview method that consists of 11 criteria and takes less than 5 minutes, while IIP-PD is self-reported and contains 127 items rated 0-4. A score of 3 of more on SAPAS warrants further assessment.

The Pritchard Criteria, which assess cognitive ability, are not the sole determining factor for individuals found unfit to plead. In fact, less than one third of those deemed unfit have an intellectual impairment. The majority of individuals found unfit to plead actually have schizophrenia. This information was reported in a systematic review of the constructs and their application in the Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology by T Rogers in 2008.

Fitness to Plead: Criteria and Process

Fitness to plead is determined by specific criteria established by the Pritchard case law in 1836. The criteria include the ability to instruct solicitor and counsel, understand the charges, decide whether to plead guilty of not, follow court proceedings, challenge a juror, and give evidence in one’s defense. Schizophrenia and other enduring mental illnesses are the most common conditions associated with unfitness to plead, particularly when positive psychotic symptomatology is present. Intellectual impairment is not a significant factor in most cases. If the issue is raised by the defense, it must be established on a balance of probability, while if raised by the prosecution of judge, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Amnesia does not render someone unfit to plead. The decision on fitness to plead is made by a judge, not a jury. If someone is found unfit to plead, they are subject to the Criminal Procedures Act 1991, which involves a trial of facts, complete acquittal if the facts are not found, and flexible disposal by the judge if the facts are found, except for murder, which requires mandatory committal to hospital.

Violence and aggression can be managed through rapid tranquillisation, although the evidence base for this approach is not strong. Different guidelines provide varying recommendations for rapid tranquillisation, including NICE, Maudsley Guidelines, and the British Association for Psychopharmacology (BAP). NICE recommends using IM lorazepam of IM haloperidol + IM promethazine for rapid tranquillisation in adults, taking into account factors such as previous response and patient preference. BAP provides a range of options for oral, inhaled, IM, and IV medications, including inhaled loxapine, buccal midazolam, and oral antipsychotics. Maudsley Guidelines suggest using oral lorazepam, oral promethazine, of buccal midazolam if prescribed a regular antipsychotic, of oral olanzapine, oral risperidone, of oral haloperidol if not already taking an antipsychotic. IM options include lorazepam, promethazine, olanzapine, aripiprazole, and haloperidol, although drugs should not be mixed in the same syringe. Haloperidol should ideally be used with promethazine to reduce the risk of dystonia.

Out of the 131 accounts of filicide reviewed by Phillip Resnick between 1751 and 1967, the motive of altruism was the most frequently observed, making up 49% of cases. On the other hand, spousal revenge was only found to account for 2% of cases.

Fitness to Plead: Criteria and Process

Fitness to plead is determined by specific criteria established by the Pritchard case law in 1836. The criteria include the ability to instruct solicitor and counsel, understand the charges, decide whether to plead guilty of not, follow court proceedings, challenge a juror, and give evidence in one’s defense. Schizophrenia and other enduring mental illnesses are the most common conditions associated with unfitness to plead, particularly when positive psychotic symptomatology is present. Intellectual impairment is not a significant factor in most cases. If the issue is raised by the defense, it must be established on a balance of probability, while if raised by the prosecution of judge, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Amnesia does not render someone unfit to plead. The decision on fitness to plead is made by a judge, not a jury. If someone is found unfit to plead, they are subject to the Criminal Procedures Act 1991, which involves a trial of facts, complete acquittal if the facts are not found, and flexible disposal by the judge if the facts are found, except for murder, which requires mandatory committal to hospital.