Forensic psychiatric perspective on criminality associated with intellectual disability: a nationwide register‐based study

Männynsalo, Laura; Putkonen, Hanna; Lindberg, Nina; Kotilainen, Irma

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01125.x

Cited by 49 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(80 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In agreement with the previous studies, thefts were the second most frequent crime with the similar frequency in individuals with BIF and the Mild ID in this study (5). Thefts were common offences in individuals with BIF and Mild ID, this may be explaned by the fact that individuals with ID may tend to come from lower socioeconomic backgraunds and far less likely to gain employment than individuals without ID (20).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Assessing the type of offence and criminal responsibility in borderline and mild intellectual disabilities: Is there any difference?

Akpınar¹,

Aksoy²

2014

Turk J Bioch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Amaç: Bu çalışmada sınır zeka düzeyi ve hafif zeka geriliği olan bireylerdeki suç türlerini ve cezai sorumluluklarını karşılaştırmak amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Ocak-Aralık 2010 tarihleri arasındaki adli başvurularda geriye dönük olarak 39 sınır zeka ve 43 hafif zeka geriliği olan bireyler saptandı. Bunların suç türleri ve cezai sorumlulukları Ruh Sağlığı ve Hastalıkları Hastanesinde tespit edildi. Bulgular: Yaralama suçu hafif zeka geriliği olan bireylerde sınır zekalı bireylerden daha yüksek düzeyde idi. Diğer suç tipleri açısından her iki grup arasında farklılık yoktu. Her iki gruptada en sık suçlar yaralama ve hırsızlık idi. Sınır zeka düzeyi olan bireylerde cezai sorumluluklar; % 82 tam ve %18 azalmış, hafif zeka geriliğinde % 40 tam, % 30 azalmış, % 30 yok idi. Sonuç: Yaralama suçu hafif zeka geriliği olanlarda sınır zeka düzeyi olanlara göre anlamlı olarak yüksektir. Keza cezai sorumlukları hafif zeka geriliği olanlarda sınır zeka düzeyi olanlara göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklıdır. Adli pratikte sınır zeka düzeyi ve hafif zeka geriliği tanıları suç türlerinin saptanması ve cezai sorumlulukların belirlenmesinde önemlilik arz etmektedir.Objective: In the present study we aimed to compare the type of offences and the level of criminal responsibilities in individuals with borderline ıntellectual functioning and mild intellectual disabilities. Method: Thirty nine individuals with borderline and fourty three individuals with mild disabilities were detected a retrospective manner between January-December 2010 on forensic application. The type of the offences and the levels of criminal responsibilities of the individuals with borderline and mild intellectual disabilities were detected in the Mental Hospital. Results: There was more injury offence in the mild intellectual disability as compared to the borderline disabilities. There were no significant differences with respect to the other types of offences between the two groups. The most common offences were injury and theft in the both groups. Criminal responsibility rates were; 82 % full and 18 % diminished responsibility in borderline, and 40 % full, 30 % diminished and 30 % none responbility in mild intellectual disability. Conclusion: The injury offence was significantly higher in individuals with mild ID than borderline intellectual functioning. The levels of criminal responsibilities were also significantly different between the individuals with mild and borderline intellectual disabilities. The diagnosis of borderline and mild intellectual disabilities are important for a type of offence and the levels of criminal responsibilities in forencis practise.Anahtar Kelimeler: Entelektüel bozukluk, zeka geriliği, suç, cezai sorumluluk.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Assessing the type of offence and criminal responsibility in borderline and mild intellectual disabilities: Is there any difference?

Akpınar¹,

Aksoy²

2014

Turk J Bioch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lindsay, Hogue et al, 2006;Mannynsalo et al, 2008). This may be due to a lack of familiarity with diagnostic criteria for personality disorder among clinicians working in LD services in the current study, or reticence about labelling clients with potentially stigmatising diagnoses.…”

Section: Demographic and Individual Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 88%

A multi‐centre study of adults with learning disabilities referred to services for antisocial or offending behaviour: demographic, individual, offending and service characteristics

O’Brien

Taylor

Lindsay

et al. 2010

Jnl Learn Disabil Offen Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prisoners with intellectual disability frequently experience mental health disorders and complex comorbid chronic physical conditions, while substance misuse among prisoners with intellectual disability (as among the general prison population) is allegedly common (Dias et al 2013(Dias et al , 2014Bhandari et al 2014;Männynsalo et al 2009;Alexander et al 2011;Boer et al 2016). In addition, "Those with intellectual disability are likely to experience greater difficulty coping in prisons and to be vulnerable to bullying and financial, physical and sexual abuse" (Boer et al 2016).…”

Section: What Is Broadly Known About Persons With Intellectual Disabimentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous Australians, Intellectual Disability and Incarceration: A Confluence of Rights Violations

Brolan

Harley

2018

Laws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians with intellectual disability in the Australian prison system through a human rights lens. There is an information gap on this group of Australian prisoners in the health and disability literature and the multi-disciplinary criminal law and human rights law literature. This article will consider the context of Indigenous imprisonment in Australia and examine the status of prisoner health in that country, as well as the status of the health and wellbeing of prisoners with intellectual disability. It will then specifically explore the health, wellbeing and impact of imprisonment on Indigenous Australians with intellectual disability, and highlight how intersectional rights deficits (including health and human rights deficits) causally impact the ability of Indigenous Australians with intellectual disability to access due process, equal recognition and justice in the criminal justice and prison system. A central barrier to improving intersectional and discriminatory landscapes relating to health, human rights and justice for Indigenous Australian inmates with intellectual disability, and prisoners with intellectual disability more broadly in the Australian context, is the lack of sufficient governance and accountability mechanisms (including Indigenous-led mechanisms) to enforce the operationalisation of consistent, transparent, culturally responsive, rights-based remedies.

show abstract

Forensic psychiatric perspective on criminality associated with intellectual disability: a nationwide register‐based study

Cited by 49 publications

References 43 publications

Assessing the type of offence and criminal responsibility in borderline and mild intellectual disabilities: Is there any difference?

Assessing the type of offence and criminal responsibility in borderline and mild intellectual disabilities: Is there any difference?

A multi‐centre study of adults with learning disabilities referred to services for antisocial or offending behaviour: demographic, individual, offending and service characteristics

Indigenous Australians, Intellectual Disability and Incarceration: A Confluence of Rights Violations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About