Putting diminished responsibility law into practice: A forensic psychiatric perspective

Abstract

There has been a good deal of criticism, especially in the legal press, about the concept of diminished responsibility and about the wording of the principal legal provision in s.2(1) of the Homicide Act 1957. Since its inception lawyers and others have raised a series of concerns about the way in which the law operates and the role played by forensic psychiatrists. One of the main concerns has been the encouragement of psychiatrists to give their opinion on what is the ‘ultimate issue’ in the case – whether the defendant's responsibility was diminished. The traditional legal view is that psychiatrists should confine their opinion evidence to the defendant's mental health and how that manifested itself in the individual's perception, judgement and thinking. Psychiatrists have no special training or expertise in assessing personal responsibility and should thus not comment on it. Moreover, there are specific situations such as mercy killings or battered spouses who kill their abusers, in which psychiatrists may find themselves being pressed to give opinions so as to bring about what is regarded as a ‘just’ result. Comparatively little research has been undertaken on the views of those forensic psychiatrists who advise the criminal justice system in these cases. This article considers the results of a series of interviews with psychiatrists who work in the area in an attempt to determine how far they share these concerns.

Key Words:

• diminished responsibility
• problem areas
• psychiatric perspective