Parmigiani Giovanna, Mandarelli Gabriele, Meynen Gerben, Ferracuti Stefano
Department of Human Neurosciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Criminology and Forensic Psychiatry, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Behav Sci Law. 2023 Sep-Oct;41(5):432-444. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2618. Epub 2023 Mar 20.
Insanity evaluations are often criticized for their-alleged-lack of objectivity, reliability and transparency. Structured tools to guide and support forensic evaluators during these evaluations have been developed-but they are rarely employed in forensic practice. In the present article, we consider the value of these tools for forensic practice in terms of opportunities and limitations. First, we briefly describe different insanity criteria used in Western countries. Next, we will review five structured instruments to guide insanity assessment together with their performance measures. Finally, we draw conclusions on the value of such instruments for forensic practice.
精神错乱评估常常因其所谓缺乏客观性、可靠性和透明度而受到批评。在这些评估过程中用于指导和支持法医评估人员的结构化工具已经开发出来——但它们在法医实践中很少被采用。在本文中,我们从机遇和局限性方面考虑这些工具对法医实践的价值。首先,我们简要描述西方国家使用的不同精神错乱标准。接下来,我们将回顾五种指导精神错乱评估的结构化工具及其性能指标。最后,我们就这些工具对法医实践的价值得出结论。