OVERLAPPING AREAS AND THE ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

1. Criminal versus psychopathological deviance: differences and relations

Deviance is a behavior conflicting with social rules, and it will be judged criminal deviance when the conflict confronts a juridical norm. Psycho-pathological deviance implies a shifting from normality (i.e., psychic health).

The different aspects of deviance have to be clearly distinguished.

The same act may be considered out of the norm from a juridical point of view, and therefore considered as a crime, while in social representation it is neither ‘pathological’ nor severely ‘deviate form norms’: this happens often for pollution crimes or tax evasion.

On the contrary, many inappropriate acts socially are not ‘crimes’: for example, a strange dressing in a serious context, or a mixed marriage in some cultures.

Some abnormal modes of behavior - as in maniac-depressive syndromes – are not crimes but require sanctions as compulsory psychiatric treatments.

Criminal and psycho-pathological deviance share some overlapping areas: some abnormal behaviors may have juridical relevance (as in the case of sexual offenders or drug addicted); several illegal acts are considered as indicators of psychic abnormality, e.g. in DSM-IV (1994) codes pertaining to antisocial personality disorders:

Code F60.2 "Antisocial personality disorder" - 3 or more indices among:

- inability to conform to legal or social rules

- dishonest behavior

- impulsivity

- aggressiveness

- lack of safety

- lack of responsibility

- lack of guilty

Code F91.8 "Behavior disorder" Including:

- physical fighting

- physical cruelty

- theft

- property damage

- rape

etc.

Very important question: is it abnormal behavior that defines crime, or vice versa criminal acts that define insanity? As a paradoxical consequence, are all criminals insane (the old biologistic theories of deviance come to mind)? And therefore, will penal responsibility automatically be reduced for all the criminals?

To avoid these paradoxes, the differences and the overlaps between criminal and psychopathological deviance have to be carefully considered.
Common sense often attributes to the authors of severe criminal acts a label of ‘mental insanity’, (for example, the serial killers); but statistical evidence demonstrates no relevant correlation between psychiatric illness and criminal behavior.
The psychic pathologies are also considered extenuating circumstances in serious criminal behaviors: but what type and degree of psychic pathology?

Does IQ < 70, with or without organic syndromes, automatically imply lack of responsibility?

Moreover, an acritical use of psychological theories about ‘mental illness’ may lead to avoiding attribution of responsibility, and this is debatable from a juridical point of view.

It has to be reminded that the Italian penal code (a. 133) states that intensity of the guilt, degree of the fault, and criminal "capacity" have to be evaluated and weighted.

The different sources of abnormality should be considered not in an ‘all-or-none’ logic, in an automatical evaluation of ‘insanity’ or ‘deficiency’ (according to a nosographical diagnosis based on DSM or IQ criteria); but weighted, in a ‘idiographic’ perspective, capacity and responsibility according to the kind of illegal behavior, the particular subject’s status and the relational context in which she/he was involved (Ponti e Merzagora, 1993; De Leo, 1996)

Variables useful for a ‘weighted’ psychological (different from psychiatric) assessment of responsibility are:

- Self-distrust in coping

- Lack of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997)

- Learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975)

that may lead to anxiety, stress, depression and consequently, to maladaptive or criminal ‘compensating’ behaviors.

- Identification with deviant models

and/or

- Individuation based on oppositive attitudes

that may determine negative identity with opposition to the rules.

- Pathological narcissism

- Concrete more than abstract thinking

- Inappropriate planning and decision making

determining impulsive behavior.

- Social perception of rules and laws

- Ethical principles

- Subculture pressures

that lead in some contexts to an over valuation of the benefits of crime.

3. The role of the psychological assessment

The psychological assessment aims to study both the ‘traits’ (stable dispositions that characterize individuals) and the modifications of these traits derived from the interactions with the situations and the context, therefore being it in an ‘idiographic’ perspective. Both ‘structural’ and ‘dynamic’ perspectives have to be considered.

Psychological instruments useful for this complex kind of evaluation are:

- structured interviews of individuals and/or families

- individual and group observation

- ‘life histories’: scripts; strategies of coping; subject’s plans and projects

- standardized test, the most used in forensic assessment being (Lees-Haley, 1992):

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2

Rorschach Test

Wechsler Intelligence Scales

Bender Gestalt Test

In Italy also:

Big Five Factors

Cognitive Behavioral Assessment

A very important difference in the use of psycho diagnostic instruments is the consequence of the aim of the assessment: ‘nosographic’ evaluation for the classification in general diagnostic categories, or ‘idiographic’ knowledge of the problems that impair the subiect’s social adjustment in the specific time and situation.