Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Die Sachverständigenexpertise im Spannungsfeld zwischen Justiz und Psychiatrie am Beispiel des Hangbegriffes des § 66 StGB (Sicherungsverwahrung)


Phulmann, P; Habermeyer, E (2010). Die Sachverständigenexpertise im Spannungsfeld zwischen Justiz und Psychiatrie am Beispiel des Hangbegriffes des § 66 StGB (Sicherungsverwahrung). Forensische Psychiatrie, Psychologie, Kriminologie, 4(1):39-47.

Abstract

Using the example of psychiatric expert opinions
in trials leading to preventive detention, we analysed
how far the corresponding orders by the courts were suited
to guide the psychiatric experts and restrict them to their
area of expertise. Furthermore we concentrated on the
question, what reasons were given for preventive detention
on both psychiatric and judicial side and how psychiatric
arguments were adopted by the judges. Our results show
clearly, that placing an order with the psychiatric expert as
well as adopting the psychiatric arguments for preventive
detention occur mainly in a stereotypic way. Psychiatric
and judicial arguments for preventive detention refer both
to previous delinquency. Aspects concerning the offenders
personality appear to be secondary, although they play a
major role in the decision for preventive detention. The
article shows the controversy associated with forensic-psychiatric
expertise in the courtroom and the need for communication
and clarification between psychiatry and law.

Abstract

Using the example of psychiatric expert opinions
in trials leading to preventive detention, we analysed
how far the corresponding orders by the courts were suited
to guide the psychiatric experts and restrict them to their
area of expertise. Furthermore we concentrated on the
question, what reasons were given for preventive detention
on both psychiatric and judicial side and how psychiatric
arguments were adopted by the judges. Our results show
clearly, that placing an order with the psychiatric expert as
well as adopting the psychiatric arguments for preventive
detention occur mainly in a stereotypic way. Psychiatric
and judicial arguments for preventive detention refer both
to previous delinquency. Aspects concerning the offenders
personality appear to be secondary, although they play a
major role in the decision for preventive detention. The
article shows the controversy associated with forensic-psychiatric
expertise in the courtroom and the need for communication
and clarification between psychiatry and law.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Downloads

1 download since deposited on 01 Mar 2011
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Other titles:Areas of conflict between law and psychiatry – illustrated using the example of the term “Proclivity” of section sign 66 German criminal code (preventive detention)
Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Psychiatric University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2010
Deposited On:01 Mar 2011 15:28
Last Modified:21 Nov 2017 15:21
Publisher:Springer
ISSN:1862-7072
Free access at:Publisher DOI. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757-009-0030-2

Download