Expanding knowledge about criminal justice and mental health

Researchers with expertise in criminal law, philosophy, psychiatry and psychology combine their knowledge to examine how mental disorders are treated in criminal justice and contribute to better legal and forensic practices

Current criminal justice systems are based on the premise that people are responsible actors who can be held accountable for their actions. However, most criminal justice systems have legal principles that recognize that there are exceptions in which a person should not be considered criminally responsible.

A pervasive practice is that children under the minimum age of criminal responsibility are not punished. Likewise, most countries limit criminal liability for offenders with mental disorders and disabilities. However, the question of who should be held criminally responsible and who should not is highly contentious and subject to debate. The same applies to the role of psychological and psychiatric experts in criminal proceedings.

In the research conducted by me and my team at the University of Bergen, we seek to combine insights from legal research, humanities and philosophy to provide a much-needed knowledge base for researchers, policy makers and practitioners concerned with the issue of criminal responsibility.

Mental disorders and criminal liability

Dealing with criminals with mental disorders is a key challenge for modern justice systems. Most countries have doctrines that exempt offenders with mental disorders from punishment and often replace incarceration with compulsory treatment and confinement. Because of the influence of forensic psychiatry on legal practice, these teachings are now often associated with psychiatric diagnoses and ideas about serious mental disorders.

However, psychiatric concepts are developed primarily to guide healthcare professionals in the treatment of patients, rather than to resolve questions of responsibility in criminal proceedings. The practical relevance of mental disorders to criminal liability and punishment is unclear and represents an ongoing challenge to justice systems worldwide.

DIMENSIONS project

The aim of the DIMENSIONS project is to investigate the impact of mental disorders on criminal liability under Norwegian law, with a focus on the legal relevance of psychosis. We take an interdisciplinary approach to examine how and why psychosis is relevant to legal regulations and judgments about criminal irresponsibility.

We will conduct an empirical textual analysis of legal judgments and examine how criminal irresponsibility is related to psychiatric conceptions of psychosis. Philosophical perspectives help us explore the ethical and conceptual foundations of this association. Mental health research is used to challenge legal assumptions about psychosis from a scientific perspective.

A more nuanced understanding

Together, this interdisciplinary approach allows us to expand our understanding of how the legal construct of criminal irresponsibility relates to scientific evidence and normative justifications. By drawing on current mental health research, we can also assess how assumptions about the relevance of psychosis reflect current knowledge about mental disorders and their behavioral impact. This work can ultimately inform legal decision-makers and lead to reforms to current legal practice.

Our project has so far shown that legal practice in this area contains assumptions that can be questioned from a scientific perspective. Our findings also suggest that we need further research, including cross-national legal research, to improve legal understanding of mental disorders. Although the DIMENSIONS project is a basic research project, the hope is that the research can ultimately contribute to better-informed laws and legal practices.

Children’s rights in the context of criminal justice

A particular challenge is dealing with children over the minimum age of criminal responsibility who commit serious crimes. Although these children can be punished, there is still the premise that children are different from adults. Children’s social and cognitive functions are not yet fully developed, which may affect the extent to which they should be held accountable for their actions. Some of these children also suffer from mental disorders, which raises particular legal issues.

Children therefore require different treatment in the justice system than adults, and this is also a constitutional and human rights requirement. The challenge is that it is unclear how children’s development should be taken into account in forensic and legal assessments. Another dilemma is that while the justice system should protect children’s rights, it must also take the necessary precautions to prevent harm to society. That’s a difficult balance.

CHILDCRIM project

In our CHILDCRIM project, we aim to provide a more accurate assessment of accountability and recidivism risk by understanding child development and the risk factors that can lead to criminal behavior. The aim of our research is to bring together a comprehensive understanding of child development, mental health disorders and risk factors to improve the way the justice system handles cases involving children.

We focus on how legal and forensic assessments consider children’s development when assessing mental health disorders, criminal responsibility, and risk of violence. By applying and integrating psychological, psychiatric and legal perspectives, we will also attempt to clarify the importance of child development in these assessments. This integrated approach could ultimately lead to better legal guidelines for dealing with children who commit serious crimes and ensuring that their development as children is taken into account.

Cultural differences in responsibility

Overall, our research over the last few years has shown that there are many areas of need for improvements in the criminal justice system and that further research is urgently needed. A particular concern is to examine the legal understanding of mental disorders in a broader cross-national perspective.

We have conducted a smaller pilot project looking at the Global South and other under-researched jurisdictions.

It appears that cultural views about mental disorders and children play a crucial role in shaping legal doctrines. However, much remains to be done to understand the differences between jurisdictions and how these differences may influence the way legal systems interpret their relevance to criminal liability.