Advertisement

The European Impact on National Forensic Psychiatry

  • Anton van Kalmthout
  • Paul Mevis
Chapter

Abstract

This essay discusses the European impact on national forensic psychiatry, in particular for the position of mentally disordered persons. A distinction can be made between the instruments of the Council of Europe and of the European Union. The Council has a passive approach concerning the ECrtHR and a more active approach with the CPT. The instruments of the European Union aim to strengthen the general principle of cooperation in criminal matters within the EU, based on mutual trust. This assumption can get under pressure, in particular when the differences in safeguards increase. Besides the instruments, the acknowledgement of the vulnerability will be discussed. Moreover, the determination of vulnerability and the fact that heightened vulnerability demands accommodation of extraordinary safeguards at trial and in the execution of criminal sanctions. This is where the forensic psychiatrist plays a role. This essay describes the role of the psychiatrist in case of a vulnerable person as suspect of a criminal case. Important factors to take into account during trial are the fitness to stand trial and the procedural rights, for example, a fair trial. The legitimacy of the execution of sanctions is based on Article 5 ECHR which contains several assumptions that require special attention for the forensic psychiatric in case of vulnerable persons. The European impact on national forensic psychiatry is clearly shown by the results of the CPT, which will be discussed at the end of this essay.

References

  1. 1.
    Burton M, Evans R, Sanders A. Are special measures for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses working? Evidence from the Criminal Justice Agencies. Online Report 01/06, London: Home Office; 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Porter S, Juodis M, Leanne M, Klein R, Wilson K. Evaluation of the effectiveness of a brief deception training program. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol. 2010;21:66–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meynen G. Legal insanity: explorations in psychiatry, law, and ethics, international library of ethics, law and new medicine, vol. 71. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Marle H, Mevis PAM, Roesch R, van der Wolf MJF. Understanding and evaluating contrasting unfitness to stand trial practices: a comparison between Canada and The Netherlands. Int J Forensic Mental Health. 2010;9:245–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moncada Castillo MDC et al. Psychisch gestoorde verdachten. Artikel 6 EVRM vraagt om herijking van de Nederlandse antwoorden op procesonbekwaamheid (Mentally disturbed suspects. Article 6 requires reassessment of the Dutch responses to the disability to stand trial) Strafblad. 2010. p. 320–37.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Verbeke P, Vermeulen G, Meysman M, Van der Beken T. Protecting the fair trial rights of mentally disordered defendants in criminal proceedings: exploring the need for further EU action. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2015:67–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Health Organization. Preventing suicide in jails and prisons. Geneva: WHO; 2007.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morgan R. The European Committee for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. In: Van Zyl Smit D, Dünkel F, editors. Imprisonment today and tomorrow. International perspectives on prisoners’ rights and prison conditions. The Hague: Kluwer Law International; 2001. p. 717–40.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murdoch J. The treatment of prisoners. European Standards, Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing; 2006.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Lange J. Detentie genormeerd. Een onderzoek naar de betekenis van het CPT voor de inrichting van vrijheidsbeneming in Nederland (Detention regulated. A research on the influence of the CPT on the deprivation of liberty in Dutch prisons). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers; 2008.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Kalmthout AM, Leidekker M. Het Anti-Folter Comité en zijn betekenis voor de gedetineerden in psychiatrische inrichtingen (The CPT and its meaning for detainees in psychiatric institutions). In: Oei TI, Groenhuijsen MS, editors. Forensische psychiatrie en haar grensgebieden, actualiteit, geschiedenis en toekomst. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer; 2009. p. 755–68.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hagens H. Toezicht op menswaardige behandeling van gedetineerden in Europa. Een onderzoek naar de verhouding tussen het EHRM en het CPT bij de effectuering van het folterverbod (Monitoring humane treatment of detainees in Europe. A study on the interaction between the ECtHR and the CPT with respect tot the effectuation of the prohibition of torture). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers; 2011.Google Scholar

Legal Cases

  1. ECrtHR 24 October 1979, no. 6301/73 (Winterwerp v. Netherlands).Google Scholar
  2. ECrtHR 24 September 1992, no. 10533/83 (Herczegfalvy v. Austria).Google Scholar
  3. ECrtHR 30 July 1998, no. 25357/94 (Aerts v. Belgium).Google Scholar
  4. ECrtHR 5 October 2000, no. 31365/96 (Varbanov v. Bulgaria).Google Scholar
  5. ECrtHR 26 October 2000, no. 30210/96 (Kudla v. Poland).Google Scholar
  6. ECrtHR 15 June 2004, no. 60958/00, (S.C. v. the United Kingdom).Google Scholar
  7. ECrtHR 18 December 2007, no. 41153/06 (Dybeku v. Albania).Google Scholar
  8. ECrtHR 20 January 2009, no. 28300/06 (Slawomir Musial v. Poland).Google Scholar
  9. ECrtHR 24 September 2009, no. 7025/04 (Pischchalnikov v. Russia).Google Scholar
  10. ECrtHR 17 December 2009, no. 19359/04 (M. v. Germany).Google Scholar
  11. ECrtHR 13 January 2011, no. 6587/04 (Haidn v. Germany).Google Scholar
  12. ECrtHR 2 October 2012, no. 41242/08 (Plesó v. Hungaria).Google Scholar
  13. ECrtHR 9 July 2013, nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10 (Vinter v. the United Kingdom).Google Scholar
  14. ECrtHR 31 October 2013, 17416/03 (Tarasov v. Ukraine).Google Scholar
  15. ECrtHR 3 March 2015, no. 73560/12 (Constantia v. The Netherlands).Google Scholar
  16. ECJ 5 April 2016, C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:198.Google Scholar
  17. ECrtHR 26 April 2016, no. 10511/10 (Murray v. the Netherlands).Google Scholar
  18. ECrtHR 1 September 2016, no. 62303/13 (Wenner v. Germany).Google Scholar
  19. ECrtHR 17 January 2017, no. 57592/08 (Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal Law, Faculty of LawTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Criminal Law and Criminal ProcedureErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations