Comparative analysis of the criteria of insanity in the Continental and Anglo-Saxon legal systems
Suggested citation:
Safuanov FS, Sergeeva ES. [Comparative analysis of the criteria of insanity in the Continental and Anglo-Saxon legal systems]. Rossiiskii psikhiatricheskii zhurnal [Russian Journal of Psychiatry]. 2022;(3):4-12. Russian
In this scientific review, pursuing the objective of comparative analysis of clinical and psychological criteria of legal insanity and diminished responsibility, contained in the legislation of Russian Federation, France, Germany, Great Britain and The United States of America, we have carried out the analysis of legal acts, scientific and educational literature. This review finds the existence of fundamentally different approaches to criminal responsibility of people with mental disorders in the countries of civil and common law.
Keywords legal insanity; diminished responsibility; the M’Naghten rule; the Durham rule; the irresistible impulse test
1. Rukovodstvo po sudebnoj psihiatrii. V 2 t. Tom 1: Prakticheskoe posobie. 3-e izd., pererab. i dop. AA Tkachenko, editor. Moscow: YUrajt; 2017. 449 p. (In Russ.) 2. Motov VV. Psihicheskoe rasstrojstvo i ugolovnaya otvetstvennost' v SSHA. Nezavisimyj psihiatricheskij zhurnal. 2004;(1):57–65. (In Russ.) 3. Shishkov SN. Nevmenyaemost' (mirovozzrencheskie, empiricheskie, social'nye predposylki i stanovlenie v kachestve pravovoj kategorii). Moscow; 2010. 380 p. (In Russ.) 4. Artemenko NV. Aktual'nye problemy vmenyaemosti (nevmenyaemosti) i vozrasta ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti: Sravnitel'nyj istoriko-pravovoj analiz ugolovnogo zakonodatel'stva RF i Francii [PhD thesis]. [Rostov-na-Donu (Russia)]: Rostovskij gosudarstvennyj universitet [Rostov State University]; 1999. 205 p. (In Russ.) 5. Shishkov SN. “Ideya nevmenyaemosti” i zdravyj smysl (istoriko-kul'turologicheskie aspekt). Yuridicheskaya psihologiya. Moscow; 2007. p. 19–25. (In Russ.) 6. Galkin VV, Morozov VI. K voprosu o kriteriyah nevmenyaemosti. Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravoohranitel'naya praktika. 2016;4(38):52–60. (In Russ.) 7. Novye vidy sudebno-psihiatricheskoj ekspertizy v grazhdanskom processe (primenitel'no k Zakonu RF “O psihiatricheskoj pomoshchi i garantiyah prav grazhdan pri ee okazanii”). TB Dmitrievа, editor. Moscow: Centr zashchity prav i zdorov'ya grazhdan; 1993. 105 p. (In Russ.) 8. Safuanov FS, Haritonova NK, Zejger MV, et al. [Complex forensic psychiatric examination of cases concerning restriction of legal capacity due to mental disorder: challenges and prospects]. Rossiiskii psikhiatricheskii zhurnal [Russian Journal of Psychiatry]. 2016;(2):37–44. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.) 9. Safuanov FS, Vandysh-Bubko VV. Ogranichennaya vmenyaemost': sudebno-ekspertologicheskij analiz. Yuridicheskaya psihologiya. 2009;(2):6–9. (In Russ.) 10. Dmitrieva TB, Kachaeva MA, Safuanov FS. Kompleksnaya sudebnaya psihologo-psihiatricheskaya ekspertiza psihicheskogo sostoyaniya materi, obvinyaemoj v ubijstve novorozhdennogo rebenka: Posobie dlya vrachej i psihologov. Moscow: GNCSSP im. V.P. Serbskogo; 2001. 32 p. (In Russ.) 11. Dozorceva EG, Fedonkina AA. Psihologicheskie osobennosti nesovershennoletnih pravonarushitelej s lichnostnoj nezrelost'yu. Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie psyedu.ru. 2013;5(3). (In Russ.) URL: https://psyjournals.ru/psyedu_ru/2013/n3/62522.shtml (accessed on: 28.06.2022). 12. Haritonova NK, Safuanov FS, Malkin DA. Ekspertnaya ocenka sdelkosposobnosti po grazhdanskim delam v ramkah kompleksnoj sudebnoj psihologo-psihiatricheskoj ekspertizy: Posobie dlya vrachej. Moscow: GNCSSP im. V.P. Serbskogo; 2005. 30 p. (In Russ.) 13. Perepravina YuO. [Deal-Making Capacity of a Citizen: Criteria for Forensic Psychological Assessment]. Psikhologiia i pravo [Psychology and Law]. 2021;11(4):153–68. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2021110411 14. Shishkov SN. Opredelenie glubiny psihicheskih rasstrojstv, isklyuchayushchih vmenyaemost': illyuzii i real'nost'. Psihicheskoe zdorov'e. 2021;(9):73–9. (In Russ.) 15. Ayme J. L’article 122-1 du Code pénal, ou comment ne fut pas résolu le paradoxe du fou criminel. In: Criminologie et psychiatrie. Paris: Ellipses/Edition Marketing; 1997. p. 559–67. 16. Rex v. Arnold, 16 Howell's State Trials 695, 765 (1724). 17. Malinovskiy AA. [Evolution of the Institution of Insanity in English Law]. Psikhologiia i pravo [Psychology and Law]. 2021;11(3):175–86. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/psylaw.2021110312 18. Kubancev SP. Pravila Maknatena kak koncepciya nevmenyaemosti v ugolovnom prave SSHA. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava. 2005;(8):115–27. (In Russ.) 19. Parsons v. Alabama (81 AL 577, So 854 1886 AL). 20. Meynen G. Legal Insanity: Explorations in Psychiatry, Law, and Ethics. Springer, 2016. p. 115–43. 21. Rukovodstvo po sudebnoj psihiatrii. Moscow: Medicina; 2004. 592 p. (In Russ.) 22. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/400/ (accessed on: 28.06.2022). 23. Motov VV. Fundamental'nye voprosy amerikanskoj sudebnoj psihiatrii i psihiatrii i prava. Moscow: Folium; 2008. 247 p. (In Russ.) 24. Goldstein A. The Insanity Defense 113, 1967. In: Reisner R, Slobogin C, Rai A. Law and the Mental Health System. 3rd ed. American Casebook Series. West Group. St. Paul, Minn; 1999. p. 429. 25. United States v. Lewellyn, 723 F.2d 615 (8th Cir. 1983). 26. Hallevy G. The Matrix of Insanity in Modern Criminal Law. Springer; 2015. 217 p.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.47877/1560-957Х-2022-10301
Article Metrics
Metrics powered by PLOS ALM