Communicate the diagnostic assessment in psychiatric expertise reports: Which findings according to experts, lawyers and magistrates?

• In Event: Courts and Sentencing and Penal Decision Making 7. Emerging Issues

Abstract

For more than a century, psychiatrists and psychologists have seen their fields of activity expand (Dumoulin, 2000; Vicenzutto et al., 2019). Their role becomes more important in the courts, particularly in criminal matters, to assess the mental state of the alleged offender at the time of the crime. The Belgian Law related to the internment of persons (2014) has increased the value of psychiatric expertise in criminal justice. This law stipulates that when an individual has committed a criminal offense and there is reason to consider that they were suffering from a mental disorder, it is possible to place him within a secure psychiatric hospital, provided that psychiatric expertise is performed.

A major challenge remains that the expert’s opinion must be understood by the judicial actors. This is even more important as the expert’s clinical opinion can have a significant influence on the magistrates’ perception and consequently on their decisions.

The current paper investigates the perception of psychiatrists’ and psychologists’ experts (n=7), lawyers (n=7), and magistrates (n=7) regarding the writing of psychiatric expertise in the Belgian criminal field. After signing a consent form, we proceed to semi-structured interviews with participants. Their transcribed and anonymized discourses were analyzed using NVivo software through mixed-approach thematic content analysis (deductive and inductive).

The majority of experts’ participants use structured diagnostic assessment instruments to bring more objectivity to their results. The popularization and use of a clinical type of writing are to be recommended. Lawyers and magistrates highlight a lack of clarity and transparency in psychiatric expertise.

They also mention difficulties to understand terminologies employed by the experts. According to them, the diagnostic evaluation structures allow them to achieve an overview of the offender’s personality and to orient and individualize the sentence. The results of these studies will be discussed in light of the literature.

Authors

• Anye Miermont, University of Mons

• Emilie Telle, University of Mons

• Juliette Blin, University of Mons

• Thierry Pham, University of Mons

• Audrey Vicenzutto, University of Mons