Identifying deficits in Ukrainian law: Forensic psychiatry misuse in proceedings of administrative offenses.

Ukraine is actively denouncing and abandoning its Soviet legacy, with the legal process of decommunization being at the forefront of this process.1 However, despite Ukraine's ongoing judiciary reformation process amplified by the signing of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union, Ukraine's legal system still contains inherited Soviet legal deficiencies that allow for human rights violations. Some of the most glaring deficiencies relate to the rules and regulations for assigning and conducting forensic psychiatric examinations in cases of administrative offenses. With an aim to aid Ukraine in eliminating present legal deficiencies that allow for violations of human rights, here we discuss current definitions, rules, and regulations concerning appointment and execution of forensic psychiatric examinations in cases of administrative law violations. We place particular emphasis in our discussion on the European Court for Human Rights case "Zaichenko v Ukraine, No 2", and the reform bill that followed this case. This case is an 'in vivo' illustration of how Ukraine's legal deficiencies have created grounds for the violation of individual human rights. Our assessment of the current rules and regulations for assigning and conducting forensic psychiatric examinations in proceedings of administrative offenses reveals that the legal deficiencies persist. The proposed reform bill is thus a highly warranted initiative, which however has several issues in its formulations and fails to address a few of the worst existing deficiencies. Ukraine's legislators must do further work to put through reforms that will safeguard individuals from unjustified forensic psychiatric examinations.

Long term outcomes and causal modelling of compulsory inpatient and outpatient mental health care using Norwegian registry data: Protocol for a controversies in psychiatry research project.

OBJECTIVES: Compulsory mental health care includes compulsory hospitalisation and outpatient commitment with medication treatment without consent. Uncertain evidence of the effects of compulsory care contributes to large geographical variations and a controversy on its use. Some argue that compulsion can rarely be justified and should be reduced to an absolute minimum, while others claim compulsion can more frequently be justified. The limited evidence base has contributed to variations in care that raise issues about the quality/appropriateness of care as well as ethical concerns. To address the question whether compulsory mental health care results in superior, worse or equivalent outcomes for patients, this project will utilise registry-based longitudinal data to examine the effect of compulsory inpatient and outpatient care on multiple outcomes, including suicide and overall mortality; emergency care/injuries; crime and victimisation; and participation in the labour force and welfare dependency. METHODS: By using the natural variation in health providers' preference for compulsory care as a source of quasi-randomisation we will estimate causal effects of compulsory care on short- and long-term trajectories. CONCLUSIONS: This project will provide valuable insights for service providers and policy makers in facilitating high quality clinical care pathways for a high risk population group.

Criminal insanity in Bulgaria and Norway: Analysing the prospect of a common approach.

This article raises the question of the prospect of a common approach to mentally ill offenders in Europe, through a comparative discussion of the criminal insanity rules and systems in Norway and Bulgaria. The underlying motivation is to fill a gap in current legal research where the insanity discourse is still to a certain extent nationally oriented. Bulgaria is to date not represented at all in the international discussion of criminal insanity. Starting out from recognizing the different history, rules, culture and welfare of Norway and Bulgaria, the authors argue that these countries have a similar practical understanding of insanity and how it is associated with mental disorders as well as common challenges in their forensic and legal systems. These insights can provide a basis for further comparative explorations concerning a possible harmonization of insanity law in Europe.

Remodelling criminal insanity: Exploring philosophical, legal, and medical premises of the medical model used in Norwegian law.

This paper clarifies the conceptual space of discussion of legal insanity by considering the virtues of the 'medical model' model that has been used in Norway for almost a century. The medical model identifies insanity exclusively with mental disorder, and especially with psychosis, without any requirement that the disorder causally influenced the commission of the crime. We explore the medical model from a transdisciplinary perspective and show how it can be utilised to systematise and reconsider the central philosophical, legal and medical premises involved in the insanity debate. A key concern is how recent transdiagnostic and dimensional approaches to psychosis can illuminate the law's understanding of insanity and its relation to mental disorder. The authors eventually raise the question whether the medical model can be reconstructed into a unified insanity model that is valid across the related disciplinary perspectives, and that moves beyond current insanity models.

Imaging Violence in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Critical Discussion of the MRI Literature.

Background: Persons with schizophrenia have a small but significant increase in risk of violence, which remains after controlling for known environmental risk factors. In vivo MRI-studies may point toward the biological underpinnings of psychotic violence, and neuroimaging has increasingly been used in forensic and legal settings despite unclear relevance. Objectives: (1) To present the first systematic review, following standardized guidelines, of MRI studies of violence with schizophrenia. (2) To critically discuss the promises and pitfalls of using this literature to understand violence in schizophrenia in clinical, forensic, and legal settings. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines and literature searches until January 2018, we found 21 original studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria: (1) Studies of persons with schizophrenia, (2) a history of violence or aggressive behavior, (3) the use of one or more MRI-modalities (sMRI, DTI, fMRI). Results: The most consistent findings from the structural studies were reduced volumes of the hippocampus and the frontal lobe (in particular the orbitofrontal and anterior cingulate cortex) in schizophrenia patients with a history of violence or higher aggression scores. The functional studies mainly showed differences and aggression correlates in the frontal lobe and amygdala. However, the studies were methodologically heterogeneous, with four particular areas of concern: different definitions of violence, region of interest vs. whole-brain studies, small subject samples, and group comparisons in a heterogeneous diagnostic category (schizophrenia). Conclusion: The literature reports subtle, but inconsistent group level differences in brain structure and function associated with violence and aggression with schizophrenia, in particular in areas involved in the formation of psychosis symptoms and affective regulation. Due to methodological challenges the results should be interpreted with caution. In order to come closer to the neurobiological underpinnings of violence in schizophrenia future studies could: (1) address the neurobiological differences of premeditated and reactive violence, (2) use RDoC criteria, for example, or other symptom-based systems to categorize psychosis patients, (3) increase subject cohorts and apply new data driven methods. In this perspective, MRI-studies of violence in schizophrenia have the potential to inform clinical violence prediction and legal evaluations in the future.