Article 1 – Schirmann
Linkage between being an immortal person and having an abnormal brain specific view on
immoral people: immoral and insane due to a disordered brain.
Pinel: mental diseases that affected emotions (and intellectual defect).
Mental disorder concept: focus on disturbed emotions and immorality, such as moral
insanity and homicidal mania.
Immorality and criminality – fields of activity of psychiatrists.
Immoral people: sick than merely unethical.
William Bigg (1843-?)
Killer of animals, torturer of his siblings, and molester of girls.
Described as dangerous, vicious, cunning, devious, infantile, humorless, naïve, and full of
good intentions.
Diagnosed with moral insanity (linked to immoral behavior) – complex functions of the brain
were compromised in this condition which let to deterioration into a biological predecessor.
“Are we to punish him for his involuntary anachronism?”
Charles J. Guiteau (1841-1882)
Killed president James A. Garfield.
Ensuing trial was about whether Guiteau was insane or not.
Spitzka (examination) – signs of abnormal brain (face, shape of head, etc.) disordered
brain action.
One group of experts: brain has microscopic anomalies in the blood vessels and cellular
make-up, but they refused to make a statement about Guiteau’s insanity.
Jane Toppan (1857-1938)
A nurse that poisoned several of her employers and took care of their children.
Does not feel any guilt or does not grieve over it.
Has been part of thefts and intrigues, rarely associated with them and never proved guilty.
Examination: clear-headed, sociable, manipulative, and good at lying.
Diagnosis was complicated.
Corrupted family was the reason why Toppan was insane.
Whether she was immoral due to brain disorder or insane at all remained controversial.
Patient E. (1865-1893)
Europe’s central question: whether morality could be compromised in isolation leaving the
intellect intact.
E: child of well-respected, physically and mentally healthy family.
Family description of E: withdrawn, uncommunicative, big imagination (lies), incapable of
love.
Auguste-Henri Forel: moral deficiency without delusions due to defective brain organization.
Bleuler: minor bodily signs of degeneration, industrious, vain, glib, not malicious, tender with
animals, intellect and memory completely intact, no compassion, devious and manipulative.
o E was the stereotype of a moral idiot.
o Could be environmental influence, but it is a brain disorder.
Brain based diagnosis did not have any evidence from the brain.
Christiana Edmunds (1828-1907)
Unremarkable 43-year-old, unmarried, middle-class background.
Attempt to murder the wife of a man she liked, deposited poisoned chocolate in sweets.
Immaculate intellect, but no hesitation or remorse in her evil actions.
, Had a degenerate family, so she is immoral too.
Moral issues where due to cerebral defect.
Sentenced to death at first, but then institutionalized.
Brian Dugan
Kidnapper, rapist, and murderer.
Kent Kiehl (examination): fMRI, patterns of activation for a typical psychopath.
Misconducts are product of the brain malfunctioning (neurobiological allegedly interfered
with the ethical).
It is believed that the brain functions as a network, in which various areas interact in consulting
immorality. There is still no consistent theory of neurobiology of im-/morality.
Lecture 1
History of forensic psychology
Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.)
Middle ages:
o Legal guardianship lies with family.
o Right of containment (lock-up).
15 -17th century:
th
o 15th century – madhouses
o 16th-17th century – possessed by the devil witch-hunts
o Johannes Wier (1515-1588)
18th century: French Revolution – Enlightenment
19th century:
o 1810: Code Penal – France
o 1809: Criminal code of law – the Netherlands
o 1811: Code Penal – the Netherlands
o More attention to disorders
o Pinel: ‘manie sans delire’ = moral insanity.
o 1841: first Krankzinningenwet
o 1886: introduction of Code of law.
o Later: TBS – severe offences, not fully responsible, high risk of reoffending.
Explanations of mental disorders and crime
Heredity: psychological traits are inherited from ancestors (biological destiny).
Degeneration: mental disorder and criminality also inherited, they worsened with every
generation.
o Degeneration is progressive.
Evolution: morality is sign of high and complex development of humankind.
Neurological explanations:
o Localization doctrine: brain consisted of distinct center with specific functions.
Morality is in the occipital lobes.
o Brain has a double function: both a pervasive mediator and a causal force.
Juvenile criminal law 19th/20th century
Before: no difference between children and adults.
During Code Penal: ‘without distinguishing judgement’ (basically the same).
1905: introduction ‘Kinderwetten’ (children’s laws).
Shift to modern law streams: focus on the offender.
o Aimed at betterment.
o Appropriate punishment – milder punishment.
,20th century: Van Hamel proposition
Mild offenses: regulation/conviction aim at deterrence.
Serious offenses: long-term treatment.
Very serious offenses: TBR – 10 year treatment followed by re-evaluation.
Punishment or treatment?
Necessity of treatment vs. punishment.
Fitting regulation adhering to:
o Proportionality: regulation should be considered in light of the danger/possibility of
re-offending.
o Subsidiarity: severe regulation only accepted when a milder one is not sufficient.
o Effectivity: treatment of regulation should be effective in diminishing danger (of re-
offending).
Basis for regulation
Offence + at least 4 years of prison (criterion: severity).
o Not fully responsible as a result of mental illness = diminished accountability.
o When not treater, there is high risk of re-offending.
Convicted 100% chance of reoffending
o Treatment: decreases this chance over time.
Core TBS-regulation
TBS: a treatment regulation.
Both treatment and rehabilitation are necessary (law).
Balance control: what to focus on?
o Short-term – high security of buildings.
o Long-term – treating disorder such that danger of re-offending is low.
Leave: central part of TBS because returning to society is the main goal.
Later: estrangement from and disappearing of social structure damage integrations (us-
them).
Forensic care
The Netherlands: ‘terbeschikkingstelling’ (TBS).
Germany: indefinite period of time, annual evaluation, patient is autonomous during
treatment.
UK: secure hospitals and prison settings, annual evaluation of mental state and risk,
discharge rests with clinicians, patients are passive receivers of treatment.
US: comparable to UK, but many differences between states.
Treatment of offenders with a mental illness is not self-evident.
Article 2 – Andrews and Bonta
Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model
Formalized in 1990; elaborated and contextualized within a general personality and cognitive
social learning theory of criminal conduct.
Added principles:
o Collaborative and respectful working relationships between staff and offenders.
o Correctional agencies and managers leading to facilitate effective treatment.
Risk principle who = match the level of service to the offender’s risk to re-offend.
Need principle what = assess criminogenic needs and target them in treatment.
Responsivity principle how = maximize the offender’s ability to learn from the intervention
by providing cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) and combining intervention with learning
style, motivation, abilities and strengths of the offender. Two parts:
o General responsivity:
Use of cognitive social learning methods to influence behavior.
, Cognitive social learning strategies are the most effective regardless of the
type of offender (female, aboriginal, psychopath, sex offender).
Core correctional practices (prosocial modeling, problem solving) spell out
the specific skills in a cognitive social learning approach.
o Specific responsivity:
Fine tuning of the cognitive behavioral intervention.
Considers strengths, learning style, personality, motivation, and bio-social
characteristics of the offender.
Conclusion
Best assessment and interventions can be provided through:
o Embrace a general vision that it is in the best interest for all to provide cognitive
behavioral services to offenders.
o Select, train, and supervise staff in the use of RNR assessments and the delivery of
services that adhere to RNR.
o Provide policies and organizational supports for the RNR model.
Table 3: principle of offender assessment and treatment beyond RNR principles.
