Diminished criminal responsibility: A multinational comparative review.

This article reviews the legal frameworks of diminished criminal responsibility in eighteen civil law jurisdictions across the globe-Brazil, Chile, China, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Turkey. Specifically, it reports the legal standards and main features of partial responsibility, associated penalty reductions, and potential dispositions following a partial responsibility finding. It also surveys empirical data on the prevalence of diminished responsibility as compared to criminal nonresponsibility. This article, which reflects contemporary penal codes and draws from both English and non-English sources, is the only known existing source to compile these partial responsibility standards or to delineate their precise sentencing consequences. It is also the only known source in English to describe Portugal's and Chile's treatment of diminished responsibility. Providing a comparative overview of graduated responsibility in nearly twenty countries invites global discussion on whether and how society should recognize partial responsibility, as well as the punitive and therapeutic consequences that should attend this finding.

Extreme emotional disturbance: Legal frameworks and considerations for forensic evaluation.

A significant minority of jurisdictions in the United States offer extreme emotional disturbance (EED) as a partial defense to murder. The form of this defense, as established by statute and case law, varies widely among jurisdictions. Empirical research on EED is scant with little guidance to forensic mental health professionals on how to approach and conceptualize potential EED cases. This paper addresses these issues by being the first known published work to (1) set forth a contemporary map of the varying definitions and scope of EED across the United States, (2) translate legal terminology into constructs accessible to forensic evaluators, and (3) provide legal and clinical analyses of sample EED cases to highlight key differences in the form of the defense and the admissibility of evidence between jurisdictions.

Retributive justifications for jail diversion of individuals with mental disorder.

Jail diversion programs have proliferated across the United States as a means to decrease the incarceration of individuals with mental illnesses. These programs include pre-adjudication initiatives, such as crisis intervention teams, as well as post-adjudication programs, such as mental health courts and specialized probationary services. Post-adjudication programs often operate at the point of sentencing, so their comportment with criminal justice norms is crucial. This article investigates whether and under what circumstances post-adjudication diversion for offenders with serious mental illnesses may cohere with principles of retributive justice. Key tenets of retributive theory are that punishments must not be inhumane and that their severity must be proportionate to an offender's desert. Three retributive rationales could justify jail diversion for offenders with serious mental illnesses: reduced culpability, the avoidance of inhumane punishment, and the achievement of punishment of equal impact with similarly situated offenders. This article explores current proposals to effectuate these rationales, their manifestations in law, and how these considerations may impact decisions to divert individuals with serious mental illnesses from jail to punishment in the community.