Search

Background and Aims: Individuals with psychosis are over-represented in the criminal justice system and, as a group, are at elevated risk of re-offending. Recent studies have observed an association between increased contacts with mental health services and reduced re-offending, as well as reduced risk of re-offending in those who are ordered to mental health treatment rather than punitive sanctions. In furthering this work, this study examines the effect of disengagement from mental health treatment on probability of re-offence in offenders with psychosis over time.Methods: Data linkage was conducted with judicial, health and mortality datasets from New South Wales, Australia (2001-2015). The study population included 4960 offenders with psychosis who received non-custodial sentences and engaged with community-based mental health treatment. Risk factors for leaving treatment and/or reconviction were examined using multivariate cox regression. Further, a multi-state model was used to observe the probabilities associated with individuals moving between three states: conviction, disengagement from mental health treatment and subsequent re-conviction.Results: A threefold increase was observed in the risk of re-offending for those who disengaged from treatment compared to those who did not (aHR = 2.76, 95% CI 1.65-4.62, p < 0.001). The median time until re-offence was 195 days, with the majority (67%) being convicted within one year of leaving treatment. A higher risk of leaving treatment was found for those born outside of Australia, with substance-related psychosis, and a history of violent offence.Conclusions: The findings argue for an emphasis on continued engagement with mental health services following release for offenders with psychosis and identify subgroups within this population for whom concentrated efforts regarding treatment retention should be targeted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Psychosis is a known risk factor for offending behavior, but little is known about the association between clinical contact with mental health services after an offense and reoffending.Objective: To examine the association between early contact with mental health services and reoffending after an index offense in individuals with psychosis.Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, individuals diagnosed with psychosis before their index offense from July 1, 2001, to December 31, 2012, and who received a noncustodial sentence were identified by linking health and offending databases in New South Wales, Australia. The incidence of and risk factors for reoffending and time to reoffending within 2 years from the index offense were examined using Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. Specifically, the association between contact with mental health services within 30 days after an offense and reoffending was examined. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2019, to March 5, 2020.Exposures: Hospital admission, emergency department presentation, and contact with community mental health services associated with psychosis.Main Outcomes and Measures: Reoffending within 2 years of the index offense was compared in individuals with and without clinical contact with mental health services within 30 days after an offense, with adjustment for potential confounders.Results: Of the 7030 offenders with psychosis (4933 male [70.2%]; median age at the index offense, 34 [interquartile range, 26-42] years), 2605 (37.1%) had clinical contact with mental health services within 30 days after the index offense. The risk of reoffending was significantly lower in those with vs without clinical contact (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91). The risk of reoffending was 30% less in male offenders with 5 or more clinical contacts compared with male offenders with no clinical contact (AHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.84). Reoffending in both male and female offenders was associated with younger age (eg, AHR for male offenders aged <18 years, 3.31 [95% CI, 2.39-4.59]; AHR for female offenders aged <18 years, 2.60 [95% CI, 1.69-3.99]) and offending history (eg, AHR for male offenders with ≥4 prior offenses, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.98-2.64]; AHR for female offenders with ≥4 prior offenses, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.67-2.96]).Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort, early and frequent clinical contact with mental health services after an offense in individuals with psychosis was associated with reduced risk of reoffending in this group. More support may be needed for early treatment of those with serious mental illness who are at risk of reoffending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This paper provides a conceptual, historical and legislative overview of fitness issues. These include fitness to be interrogated or charged, to plead, to be tried and to be sentenced in the context of Australia and New Zealand. Conclusions: Legislation regarding fitness issues needs to strike a balance between protecting the rights of mentally impaired defendants to a fair trial process and recognizing that mental illness in itself does not absolutely preclude participation in a trial process or necessarily diminish criminal responsibility. Although the key determinants of fitness seem to be the ability to cope with court processes and communicate with counsel, the application of clinical judgement to legal criteria is not always straightforward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This paper provides an overview of the insanity defence. An historical context is offered and each element of the M'Naghten Rules is discussed, highlighting differing interpretations within various jurisdictions. Discussion is offered on the role of expert evidence in addressing the 'ultimate issue' before the courts. Significant case law in relation to the insanity defence is highlighted., Conclusions: Psychiatrists have an important role to play in addressing issues central to the M'Naghten Rules and making these accessible and comprehensible to court and jurors in particular. Insanity is a legal construct designed to determine the extent to which a person may be deemed criminally responsible for a criminal act and is often difficult to reconcile within medical and public paradigms of mental illness and justice. Principles are offered to guide psychiatrists who are called to give evidence in cases where the mental illness defence has been raised.