Utrecht University, Willem Pompe Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology, Newtonlaan 231, 3584 BH, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Tilburg University, Tilburg Law School, Department of Criminal Law, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019 Sep-Oct;66:101462. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101462. Epub 2019 Jul 1.
Modern legal systems typically link the insanity or diminished responsibility of an offender for a crime committed in the past to his future dangerousness. This nexus serves across legal systems as a justification for the indeterminate commitment of the offender with diminished or no criminal responsibility. Conceptually, however, insanity and risk are not related legal issues. Moreover, empirical research suggests that there is only a weak link between insanity, diminished responsibility and mental illness on the one hand and risk of recidivism on the other. Other risk factors seem to be more important. The inference of risk from insanity or diminished responsibility that lies at the heart of the indeterminate commitment of mentally disordered offenders is therefore problematic. This should lead to a reconsideration of the preconditions for indeterminate commitment of mentally disordered defendants.
现代法律体系通常将犯罪者过去犯罪时的精神错乱或责任减轻与他未来的危险性联系起来。这种联系在法律体系中是为减轻或免除刑事责任的犯罪者的不定期监禁提供正当理由。然而,从概念上讲,精神错乱和风险并不是相关的法律问题。此外,实证研究表明,精神错乱、责任减轻和精神疾病与再犯风险之间只有微弱的联系。其他风险因素似乎更为重要。因此,从精神错乱或责任减轻推断风险,这是精神障碍犯罪者不定期监禁的核心问题,存在疑问。这应该导致对精神障碍被告不定期监禁的先决条件进行重新考虑。