Further offences by discharged psychiatric patients--can somebody be held liable?

Journal: Medicine and law

Volume: 20

Issue: 2

Year of Publication: 2001

Affiliated Institutions:  Department of Criminal and Medical Law, University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

Abstract summary 

The decision to release a state patient who is unfit to stand trial and/or not criminally responsible, who had been committed to a mental institution in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act or who was held in terms of section 28 of the Mental Health Act, may have harmful or even fatal consequences. The multi-professional team at Oranje Hospital will only institute discharge procedures regulated in terms of section 29 of the Mental Health Act when it is of the opinion that a state patient's mental illness is stable and well-controlled and his clinical picture is such that he qualifies to be discharged. In this discussion focus will be placed on: a. the two discharge procedures applied in South Africa. b. four case studies which will be presented dealing with the observation period, admission, offence, diagnosis, treatment, hospitalisation, leave periods, discharge on certain conditions, re-admission and further offences. c. the question of whether the State may be held liable for the negligent or wrongful discharge or release of a state patient who subsequently commits a serious crime.

Authors & Co-authors:  Oosthuizen H H Verschoor T T Slabber M M

Study Outcome 

Source Link: Visit source

Statistics
Citations : 
Authors :  3
Identifiers
Doi : 
SSN : 0723-1393
Study Population
Male,Female
Mesh Terms
Crime
Other Terms
Study Design
Case Study,Cross Sectional Study
Study Approach
Country of Study
South Africa
Publication Country
United States