Forensic Psychiatry in Relation to Legislation in Different Countries

Rylander, Gunnar

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-00166-0_10

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 111 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During the summary examination, the expert should be fully aware of the following, as shown in the Source of Errors in Forensic Mental Examination 3 : (1) obtaining superficial anamnesis, (2) poor skill in diagnosis, (3) lack of knowledge in making a differential diagnosis, (4) adherence to an earlier diagnosis, (5) confusing interpretation of findings, (6) ill-advised deductions and conclusions (i.e., diagnosis at a glance), (7) succumbing to prejudice (emotional or principled bias, or overconfidence in the examination or negligence due to expertise). The summary examination is expected to be useful for diagnosing frank psychosis or obvious mental normality, 1 and the matters that the prosecutor wants the expert to clarify are as follows: Is it possible to indict the suspect? If it is not possible to prosecute, then is it necessary to give notice under Article 25 of the Mental Health and Welfare Act or to file a petition under Article 33 of the Medical Treatment and Supervision Act?…”

Section: General Remarks On the Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Summary Mental Examination in Criminal Proceedings

Nishio¹

2011

Keio J. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses the inception (in 1955) and history of the inclusion of the summary mental examination in criminal proceedings. It then reviews the procedures for diagnosing easily diagnosed cases such as frank psychosis or obvious mental normality. An overview is then provided of the manner in which the reliability of the summary examination can be maintained by deeming those cases where diagnosis can be made without the use of suggestive questions as "easily diagnosed cases" and by avoiding positively diagnosing obvious mental normality. The importance of ensuring that test proceedings in summary examinations do not interfere with formal forensic psychiatric examinations that may be conducted later is then reviewed. These proceedings, through the summary examination, provide material for an expert to state an opinion in court as to the criminal responsibility of the accused suspect. (Keio J Med 60 (1) : 22 -26, March 2011)

show abstract

Section: General Remarks On the Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar procedures are in place in Scandinavian countries. 1 There is some argument about the contents of the summary mental examination. 2 In 2004 the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology presented a Model Form of the summary mental examination.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%