Mad or Bad- Criminal Responsibility and Mental Disorder

Sammanfattning: This thesis is a comparative analysis of five cases, in which criminal responsibility and mental disorder were in issue. Andrea Yates drowned her five children. John W. Hinckley Jr shot and injured President Ronald Reagan. Kjeldsen raped and assassinated a taxi driver on his way from Calgary to Banff. Mijailo Mijailovic attacked and killed the Swedish minister of foreign affairs Anna Lindh. Sara Svensson followed directions from her pastor, killed his wife, and wounded another person. The diagnostic criteria of the DSM-IV showed that Hinckley, Yates, Kjeldsen, Mijailovic and Svensson all suffered from mental disorders. The common law tradition excused Hinckley on the account of mental disorder, but convicted Yates and Kjeldsen. Since the presence of mental disorder does not provide for an excuse according to the current Swedish criminal law, Svensson and Mijailovic were both convicted, but Svensson was remanded to a hospital. The new Swedish suggestion wants to implement an exemption of criminal responsibility on the account of mental disorder. The basis of the criminal laws of Sweden and Canada is the concept of free will. Psychodynamic theory argues that freedom is connected to the absence of mental impairment. Psychodynamic theory provides a justification for the exemption for mentally disturbed on the issue of guilt. The current Swedish criminal system, which assesses guilt regardless of the presence of a mental impairment, is not justifiable, according to the author. The author claims the DSM-IV should not decide the criminal distinction between madness and badness. Psychiatry deals with treatment, moral philosophy deals with issues of praise and blame. The Aristotelian notion of moral accountability suggests that the test of criminal responsibility should contain one cognitional prong and one volitional element. Consequently, the knowledge based Canadian test of criminal responsibility is not sufficient. The Swedish new suggestion that adds ''serious'' to the definition is the best solution, according to the author. The rule contains the elements of volition and cognition as well as excludes people with disorders, where the attachment of blame may result in a desired change within the individual, from the scope of its application. There are no known cures for mental disorders. Hospitalization is mainly beneficial for offenders suffering from disorders such as depression and schizophrenia, including psychotic features. Applying the new Swedish suggestion the author suggests that the cases of Yates and Svensson should have resulted in verdicts of not criminally responsible on the account of mental disorder and hospitalization, but leaves the other verdicts intact.