Mental disorder and violent crime: A problematic relationship
| Date | 01 December 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550505058033 |
| Published date | 01 December 2005 |
| Author | Herschel Prins |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Mental disorder and violent crime:
A problematic relationship
Herschel Prins, Universities of Loughborough and Birmingham
Abstract This article discusses the problems inherent in demonstrating the
relationships between mentally-disordered states and crimes of violence. Particu-
lar mental states are selected, somewhat arbitrarily, for this purpose. The article
argues that such relationships also need to be considered against current social
concerns with public protection and risk prevention in the light of media influ-
ences. Practice concerns are addressed throughout the article.
Keywords media influence and ‘moral panics’, mental disorder, practice impli-
cations, public protection, violence
‘Methink’st thou art a general offence, and
Every man should beat thee.’
(All’s Well that Ends Well, Act II, Sc. iii)
Introduction
The title of the original request for this article was expressed as ‘Mental Health and
Violence’. For a number of reasons I considered this proposed title would present
certain problems. First, the words ‘health’ and ‘violence’ were somewhat too broad,
and might be used to cover all manner of behaviours which could not readily be
encompassed within the word limits of even a comparatively substantial article. I
suggested, therefore, that it be changed to that now adopted. Second, even this
change is not without a number of difficulties. For example, mental ‘disorder’ could
be interpreted as covering only those disorders categorized in current mental health
legislation, these being defined in the Mental Health Act 1983 as mental illness,
mental impairment, severe mental impairment, and psychopathic disorder. It
should be noted here that mental illness is not further defined in the 1983 Act; it is
333
Probation Journal
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2005 NAPO Vol 52(4): 333–357
DOI: 10.1177/0264550505058033
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
Article
usually taken to cover the more severe mental illnesses (such as affective disorders
and the various presentations of schizophrenia). And psychopathic disorder
remains a minefield of interpretation and disposal. The second draft Mental Health
Bill now before Parliament will, if it passes into law, significantly change the defini-
tional status of some of these conditions. Third, there are a number of behaviours
that would not necessarily bring individuals within the strict criteria for compulsory
admission under the mental health legislation. For this reason it is probably prefer-
able to refer to mental ‘disturbance’. However, because mental disorder is the
commonly used term I shall use it, whilst remaining aware of its limitations. Fourth,
I then considered that the word ‘violence’ standing alone was too non-specific and
preferred ‘violent crime’. This was because there are acts that can be adjudged as
violent but not necessarily as criminal. For the purposes of this article, violent crimes
are to be regarded as those ‘involving the exercise of physical force so as to injure
or damage persons or property’ (Archer and Browne, 1989: 3). This is satisfactory
up to a point, since it enables us to consider homicide in its various forms, non-fatal
assaults (such as GBH) and the destruction of property by fire (arson). But even this
definition has its limitations. For example, should serious sexual assaults (such as
female and male rape) and indecent assaults be regarded as sexual or violent
offences? The recently introduced Criminal Justice Act 2003 (notably Chapter 5)
seems to support the view that such offences should be treated as crimes of violence
for custodial sentencing and post-custodial sentence supervision. Strictly speaking,
our list could be broadened to include offences such as aggravated burglary,
terrorism and riotous behaviour. Some offences may not include direct physical
assault, but induce considerable fear. For example, unwelcome attentions, such
as harassment by stalking, would do so; for this reason I have devoted some atten-
tion to this recently ‘discovered’ crime (see Purcell et al., 2004). In this preliminary
consideration of the arbitrariness of inclusion/exclusion we should also remind
ourselves of a degree of serendipity in these matters. A serious physical assault
may end up as a non-intentional homicide if, say, the victim was frail, had a thin
skull or there were delays in the arrival of the emergency services. Some sexual
offences, not regarded as violent, may still engender considerable fear, as for
example in the cases of (indecent) ‘exposure’ as redefined in Section 66 of the
Sexual Offences Act of 2003 (see Riordan, 1999). Readers of this journal will know
that one needs to distinguish between the exposer (‘flasher’) who exposes at a
distance and without erection (flaccid penis) from the exposer who adopts a very
aggressive and confrontational position that just stops short of a sexual contact
offence. This latter type of exposer is the one most likely to go on to commit a
more serious sexual assault. Thus, the actual modus operandi of an index offence,
or previous offences, may offer very important prognostic clues concerning the
likelihood of future violence (see Prins, 2005, Chapters 6 and 8).
‘Folk devils and moral panics’
Readers will also be well aware of some of the myths that surround both mental
disorders (disturbances) and criminality, particularly violent criminality. I would
Probation Journal
334 52(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial