title: [Eight-step structured decision-making process to assign criminal responsibility and seven focal points for describing relationship between psychopathology and offense].
abstract: The author suggested that it is essential for lawyers and psychiatrists to have a common understanding of the mutual division of roles between them when determining criminal responsibility (CR) and, for this purpose, proposed an 8-step structured CR decision-making process. The 8 steps are: (1) gathering of information related to mental function and condition, (2) recognition of mental function and condition,(3) psychiatric diagnosis, (4) description of the relationship between psychiatric symptom or psychopathology and index offense, (5) focus on capacities of differentiation between right and wrong and behavioral control, (6) specification of elements of cognitive/volitional prong in legal context, (7) legal evaluation of degree of cognitive/volitional prong, and (8) final interpretation of CR as a legal conclusion. The author suggested that the CR decision-making process should proceed not in a step-like pattern from (1) to (2) to (3) to (8), but in a step-like pattern from (1) to (2) to (4) to (5) to (6) to (7) to (8), and that not steps after (5), which require the interpretation or the application of section 39 of the Penal Code, but Step (4), must be the core of psychiatric expert evidence. When explaining the relationship between the mental disorder and offense described in Step (4), the Seven Focal Points (7FP) are often used. The author urged basic precautions to prevent the misuse of 7FP, which are: (a) the priority of each item is not equal and the relative importance differs from case to case; (b) each item is not exclusively independent, there may be overlap between items; (c) the criminal responsibility shall not be judged because one item is applicable or because a number of items are applicable, i. e., 7FP are not "criteria," for example, the aim is not to decide such things as 'the motive is understandable' or 'the conduct is appropriate', but should be to describe how psychopathological factors affected the offense specifically in the context of understandability of motive or appropriateness of conduct; (d) it is essential to evaluate each item from a neutral point of view rather than only from one perspective, for example, looking at the case from the aspects of both comprehensibility and incomprehensibility of motive or from aspects of both oriented, purposeful, organized behavior and disoriented, purposeless, disorganized behavior during the offense; (e) depending on the case, there are some items that do not require any consideration (there are some cases in which there are less than seven items); (f) 7FP are not exhaustive and there are instances in which, depending on the case, there should be a focus on points that are not included in these.
authors: Department of Forensic Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry.
authors: Takayuki
authors: T
authors: Okada
mesh_terms: D057237:Criminals / Q000523:psychology*; D003657:Decision Making / Q000502:physiology*; D006801:Humans; D001523:Mental Disorders; D008960:Models, Psychological; D011570:Psychiatry; D011599:Psychopathology / Q000379:methods