Mental disorder and criminal responsibility in femicide: a cross-jurisdictional analysis – Psychiatry AI: Real-Time AI Scoping Review

AI Summary

Many femicide perpetrators exhibit psychiatric symptoms or prior mental health contact, yet judicial findings of non-responsibility remain relatively rare across jurisdictions.
Jurisdictional data vary: England and Wales approximately 20% symptomatic, less than 1% non-responsibility; Sweden 41.3% prior contact, major disorders approximately 11%.
Presence of mental disorder does not equate to non-responsibility; individualized clinical-forensic assessment must link psychopathology, capacities at offence, and relational context.

AI Summary

This paper assesses the relationship between mental disorder and criminal responsibility of perpetrators of femicide and intimate partner homicide (IPH), through a comparison of clinical-forensic evidence from different national contexts.

In Italy, among 118 cases concluded with sentencing, a mental disorder affecting criminal responsibility was recognized in 24.6% of cases: full insanity in 13.6%, partial insanity in 7.6%, and suspension of proceedings due to incompetence to stand trial in 3.4%.

The presence of a mental disorder does not automatically imply non-responsibility and requires an individualized clinical-forensic assessment, focusing on the nexus between psychopathological condition, capacities at the time of the offence, and the relational context in which the act occurred.

Basic summary

Riv Psichiatr. 2026 May-Jun;61(3):124-129. doi: 10.1708/4714.47296.

ABSTRACT

Femicide is recognized as one of the most severe expressions of gender-based violence and causes complex assessment issues for both criminal justice systems and forensic psychiatry. This paper assesses the relationship between mental disorder and criminal responsibility of perpetrators of femicide and intimate partner homicide (IPH), through a comparison of clinical-forensic evidence from different national contexts. Four international studies (England and Wales, Sweden, Mexico, and South Africa) and the report of the Italian Parliamentary Commission on femicide for the 2017-2018 biennium were considered. Overall, a substantial proportion of perpetrators present psychiatric symptoms or prior contact with mental health services; however, judicial findings of non-responsibility remain relatively infrequent. In England and Wales, symptoms of mental disorder at the time of the offence are reported in approximately 20% of IPH cases, whereas outcomes closest to findings of non-responsibility concern less than 1%. In Sweden, 41.3% of IPH perpetrators had previous contact with psychiatric services, but major mental disorders at the time of the offence account for approximately 11% of cases. Higher frequencies are observed in samples selected for forensic psychiatric evaluation. In Italy, among 118 cases concluded with sentencing, a mental disorder affecting criminal responsibility was recognized in 24.6% of cases: full insanity in 13.6%, partial insanity in 7.6%, and suspension of proceedings due to incompetence to stand trial in 3.4%. Overall, the findings highlight the need to carefully distinguish between psychiatric diagnosis and legal constructs of criminal responsibility. The presence of a mental disorder does not automatically imply non-responsibility and requires an individualized clinical-forensic assessment, focusing on the nexus between psychopathological condition, capacities at the time of the offence, and the relational context in which the act occurred.

PMID:42273903 | DOI:10.1708/4714.47296

Document this CPD