A criminal responsibility evaluation is an assessment conducted by a mental health professional to determine whether an individual accused of a crime is criminally responsible for their actions. The evaluation typically involves a comprehensive examination of the individual's mental state at the time of the crime, including any mental disorders or conditions that may have influenced their behavior.

The purpose of a criminal responsibility evaluation is to provide the court with information about the individual's mental state and to assist in determining their level of culpability for the crime. The evaluation may include clinical interviews, psychological testing, and a review of relevant medical records and legal documents.

In the United States, criminal responsibility refers to the defendant's mental state at the time the alleged crime was committed. Two legal concepts related to criminal responsibility are the insanity defense and diminished capacity. Both concepts have significant implications in the criminal justice system and have been shaped by landmark cases in U.S. case law.

Insanity Defense:

The insanity defense is a legal defense that can be used by a defendant who is accused of committing a crime, but argues that they should not be held criminally responsible because they were legally insane at the time of the crime. The legal standard for the insanity defense has evolved over time, with significant cases including:

1. M'Naghten's Case (1843): This case established the legal standard that a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the alleged crime, they were suffering from a mental disease or defect that prevented them from knowing the nature and quality of their actions or from understanding that their actions were wrong.

2. Durham v. U.S. (1954): This case established the "Durham rule," which held that a defendant is not criminally responsible if their unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect.

3. Foucha v. Louisiana (1992): This case established that a defendant cannot be held indefinitely in a mental institution solely on the basis of a criminal court's determination that they are dangerous. The state must show that the defendant is both dangerous and mentally ill.

Diminished Capacity:

Diminished capacity is a legal concept that refers to the defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged crime, but unlike the insanity defense, it does not absolve the defendant of criminal responsibility. Instead, it is used as a defense to mitigate the charges against the defendant. Some significant cases related to diminished capacity include:

1. People v. Patterson (1976): This case established that evidence of a defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged crime can be admissible in court to show that they lacked the intent to commit the crime, even if the defendant is not legally insane.

2. Montana v. Engelhoff (1996): This case held that evidence of the defendant's mental state, including their voluntary intoxication, can be admissible in court to show that they lacked the intent to commit the crime, but only if the defendant can show that their mental state was so impaired that they could not form the necessary intent.

Forensic Evaluation Of Criminal Responsibility

When the defense decides to use an insanity defense in a criminal case, mental health professionals, such as psychiatrists or psychologists, are hired by the prosecution and defense, or appointed by the court, to evaluate the defendant's mental state and provide reports and testimony regarding the defendant's criminal responsibility. This is a complex type of evaluation for mental health professionals in their roles as forensic examiners because it differs significantly from the evaluations they conduct in clinical (non-legal) settings.

Clinical diagnostic assessments are not always accurate, even under the best circumstances, such as when the clinician is working with a willing, honest, and cooperative client, and the focus is on current mental functioning and treatment planning. These circumstances are often not present when conducting evaluations for criminal responsibility. Since insanity evaluations focus on a specific point in the past, the effectiveness of commonly used clinical measures, such as psychological tests or diagnostic procedures, is limited. Instead, insanity evaluations rely largely on reviews of investigative evidence collected by the police, interviews with defendants, and information obtained from third parties who may have relevant knowledge about the defendant's behavior and functioning at or around the time of the offense. As a result, investigative reporting, rather than traditional clinical assessment, may be a more appropriate conceptual model for conducting criminal responsibility evaluations.

Common issues with the Forensic Evaluation of Criminal Responsibility.

Decay Theory

Insanity evaluations are often conducted weeks or months after the defendant's arrest, and the time gap between the crime and the clinical evaluation can be significantly longer if the arrest is made after a prolonged investigation. This retrospective nature of the evaluation can result in a distorted picture of the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense. Several factors can contribute to this distortion, including:

1. The defendant's mental illness may have deteriorated over time, and the clinician may interview the defendant in a more disturbed state, leading to an overestimation of the psychopathology present at the time of the offense.

2. The defendant's mental illness may have improved due to treatment or spontaneously, and the clinician may interview the defendant in a less disturbed state, leading to an underestimation of the psychopathology present at the time of the offense.

3. Although not symptomatic at the time of the offense, the defendant may have developed symptoms subsequent to the offense due to the nature of the crime, events that occurred during the arrest or in jail, or anticipation of serious consequences. The clinician may attribute some of this symptomatology as being present at the time of the offense.

4. The accuracy of the information obtained by interviewing the defendant or third-party sources, such as witnesses or family members, may be compromised due to memory deterioration over time, even if the information is provided honestly.

   Validity Concerns

   The information provided to the forensic examiner in insanity evaluations (and other forensic assessments) can be compromised due to personal or professional interests of those providing the information. As a result, concerns about the validity of the information are greater than in evaluations conducted for standard clinical and therapeutic purposes.

   Defendants may feel that a successful insanity defense is their only hope of avoiding a lengthy prison sentence, leading them to exaggerate or fabricate symptoms of mental disorder when describing their behavior and motivations at the time of the offense. Family members may distort information in ways that they believe are helpful to the case, and attorneys may selectively provide investigative information to the clinician, withholding anything that may lead to an unfavorable opinion. The evidence gathered and provided by the police may also be misleading, providing a distorted picture of the defendant's prior mental functioning. For example, a defendant who is mentally confused and verbally incoherent may be coerced into signing a "confession" drafted in organized and coherent language by an arresting officer, thereby masking the extent of psychopathology present at the time of the arrest.

Helpful Resources in the domain of Criminal Responsibility

AAPL Practice Guideline for Forensic Evaluation of Defendants Raising the Insanity Defense