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

Amaç: Bu çalışmada sınır zeka düzeyi ve hafif zeka geriliğiolan bireylerdeki suç türlerini ve cezai sorumluluklarınıkarşılaştırmak amaçlanmıştır.Yöntem : Ocak-Aralık 2010 tarihleri arasındaki adlibaşvurularda geriye dönük olarak 39 sınır zeka ve 43 hafifzeka geriliği olan bireyler saptandı. Bunların suç türleri vecezai sorumlulukları Ruh Sağlığı ve HastalıklarıHastanesinde tespit edildi.Bulgular: Yaral ama suçu hafif zeka geriliği olan bireylerdesınır zekalı bireylerden daha yüksek düzeyde idi. Diğer suçtipleri açısından her iki grup arasında farklılık yoktu. Her ikigruptada en sık suçlar yaralama ve hırsızlık idi. Sınır zekadüzeyi olan bireylerde ce zai sorumluluklar; % 82 tam ve%18 azalmış, hafif zeka geriliğinde % 40 tam, % 30 azalmış,% 30 yok idi.Sonuç : Yaralama suçu hafif zeka geriliği olanlarda sınırzeka düzeyi olanlara göre anlamlı olarak yüksektir. Kezacezai sorumlukları hafif zeka geriliğ i olanlarda sınır zekadüzeyi olanlara göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklıdır.Adli pratikte sınır zeka düzeyi ve hafif zeka geriliği tanılarısuç türlerinin saptanması ve cezai sorumluluklarınbelirlenmesinde önemlilik arz etmektedir.

Sınır ve hafif zeka geriliklerinde suç türlerinin ve cezai sorumluluklarının değerlendirilmesi: Herhangi bir fark var mıdır?

Objective : In the present study we aimed to compare the typeof offences and the level of criminal responsibilities inndividuals with borderline ıntellectual functioning and mildntellectual disabilities. Method : Thirty nine individuals with borderline and fourtythre e individuals with mild disabilities were detected aretrospective manner between January-December 2010 onforensic application. The type of the offences and the levels ofcriminal responsibilities of the individuals with borderline andmild intellectual d isabilities were detected in the MentalHospital. Results : There was more injury offence in the mild intellectualdisability as compared to the borderline disabilities. Therewere no significant differences with respect to the other typesof offences betwe en the two groups. The most commonoffences were injury and theft in the both groups. Criminalresponsibility rates were; 82 % full and 18 % diminishedresponsibility in borderline, and 40 % full, 30 % diminished and30 % none responbility in mild intellec tual disability.Conclusion : The injury offence was significantly higher inndividuals with mild ID than borderline intellectualfunctioning. The levels of criminal responsibilities were alsosignificantly different between the individuals with mild andborderline intellectual disabi lities. The diagnosis of borderlineand mild intellectual disabilities are important for a type ofoffence and the levels of criminal responsibilities in forencispractise.

PDF

___

1. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2004.
2. King BH, Kodapp RM, Bykens EM. Mental Retardation. In Kaplan&Sadocks Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. Sadock BJ, Sadock VA. (editors) 7st ed. Lippincott Williams&Wilkins 2000. p. 2587-2613.
3. Wettstein BM, Mulvey EP, Rogers R. A prospective comparison of four insanity defense standards. Am J Psychiatry 1991; 148 :21-7.
4. Katz N, Zemishlany Z. Criminal responsibility in Asperger's syndrome. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 2006; 43: 166 -73.
5. Männynsalo L, Putkonen H, Lindberg N, Kotilainen I. Forensic psychiatric perspective on criminality associated with intellectual disability: a nationwide register -based study. J Intellect Disabil Res 2009; 53: 279- 88.
6. Holland AJ. Criminal behaviour and developmental disability: An epidemiological perspective. In Offenders with developmental disabilities developmental disabilities. Lindsay WR, Taylor JL, Sturmey P. (editors) Chichester, UK: Wiley 2004. p. 23-34.
7. Lindsay WR. People with intellectual disability who offend or are involved with the criminal justice system. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2011; 24: 377-81.
8. Jones J. Persons with intellectual disabilities in the criminal justice system: review of issues. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol 2007; 51: 723-33.
9. Shang QJ, Hu ZQ, Cai WX, Yu XD, Gu Y, Jiang MJ. The criminological characteristics of mental retardation. Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi 2006; 22: 58 -60.
10. Hogue T, Steptoe L, Taylor JL, Lindsay WR, Mooney P, Pinkney L, Johnston S, Smith AH, O'Brien G. A comparison of offenders with intellectual disability across three levels of security. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 2006; 16: 13 -28.
11. Riches VC, Parmenter TR, Wiese M, Stancliffe RJ. Intellectual disability and mental illness in the NSW criminal justice system. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2006; 29: 386-96.
12. Lindsay WR. Integration of recent reviews on offenders with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2002; 15: 111 -19.
13. Murphy G, Mason J. People with intellectual disabilities who are at risk of offending. In Psychiatric and Behavioural Disorders in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Bouras N, Holt G. (editors) 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2007. p. 173-201.
14. Hodgins S, Mednick SA, Brennan PA, Schulsinger F, Engberg M. Mental disorder and crime: Evidence from a Danish cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry 1996; 53: 489-96.
15. Holland AJ, Clare ICH, Mukhopadhyay T. Prevalence of criminal offending by men and women with intellectual disability and the characteristics of offenders: Implications for research and service development. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 2002; 468(S1): 6-20.
16. Barron P, Hassiotis A, Banes J. Offenders with intellectual disability: a prospective comparative study. J Intellect Disabil Res 2004; 48: 69 -76.
17. Lindsay WR. Research and literature on sex offenders with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 2002; 46(S1): 74- 85.
18. Hughes K, Bellis MA, Jones L, Wood S, Bates G, Eckley L, McCoy E, Mikton C, Shakespeare T, Officer A. Prevalence and risk of violence against adults with disabilities: a systematic review and meta- analysis of observational studies. Lancet 2012; 28: 1621 -9.
19. Hodgins S. Mental disorder, intellectual deficiency, and crime. Evidence from a birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry 1992; 49: 476-82.
20. Murphy CC, Yeargin -Allsopp M, Decouflé P, Drews CD. The administrative prevalence of mental retardation in 10-year-old children in metropolitan Atlant a, 1985 through 1987. Am J Public Health 1995; 85: 319 -23.
21. Inada T, Minagawa F, Iwashita S, Tokui T. Mentally disordered criminal offenders: ﬁve years data from the Tokyo district public prosecutors ofﬁce. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1995; 18: 221 -30 .
22. Eronen M, Hakola P, Tiihonen J. Mental disorders and homicidal behavior in Finland. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1996; 53: 497 -501.
23. Petrella RC. Defendants with mental retardation in the forensic services system. In The Criminal Justice System and mental retardation. Conley RW, Luckasson R, Bouthilet GN. (editors) Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes 1992. p.79-96.
24. Johnston S. Forensic issues in learning disability. Crim Behav Ment Health 2004; 14(S1): 53 -5.
25. Lindsay WR, Smith AH, Quinn K, A nderson A, Smith A, Allan R, Low J. Women with intellectual disability who have offended: characteristics and outcome. J Intellect Disabil Res 2004; 48: 580-90.