'Single' v. 'panel' appointed forensic mental observations: Is the referral process ethically justifiable?

Journal: South African journal of bioethics and law

Volume: 6

Issue: 2

Year of Publication: 

Affiliated Institutions:  Department of Psychiatry, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Abstract summary 

To compare the outcome and psychiatric morbidity of the forensic mental observation referrals, in the two legally created groups of detainees awaiting trial - the 'singles', representing the minor violent and non-violent offenders evaluated by a single-state appointed psychiatrist, v. the 'panels', representing the seriously violent offenders evaluated by two or more psychiatrists.A retrospective record review covered 200 cases, comprising all individuals admitted to the forensic unit of Sterkfontein Hospital for 30 days psychiatric observation from January to August 2010. Pearson's χ test for categorical data were used to determine statistical significance.Of 110 singles, 49 (44.55%) were found fit for trial and 40 (40.4%) were found criminally responsible. Of the 90 'panel' cases 60 (66.67%) were found ft for trial and 57 (64.77%) were found criminally responsible (=0.002 and =0.001, respectively).Those charged with seriously violent offences appear more likely to be found both fit and responsible, compared with those charged with less serious offences.

Authors & Co-authors:  Schutte T T Subramaney U U

Study Outcome 

Source Link: Visit source

Statistics
Citations :  South African Government. Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. Pretoria: Government Printer; 1977.
Authors :  2
Identifiers
Doi : 
SSN : 1999-7639
Study Population
Male,Female
Mesh Terms
Other Terms
Study Design
Cross Sectional Study
Study Approach
Country of Study
Publication Country
South Africa