Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:38:49.085Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Can we harmonise forensic psychiatry across Europe?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Najat Khalifa
Affiliation:
The University of Nottingham, Duncan Macmillan house, Porchester Road, Nottingham NG3 6AA, email: [email protected]
Mark H. Taylor
Affiliation:
East Midlands Centre for Forensic Mental Health, Leicester
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
The Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2008

In their article Gordon & Lindqvist (Psychiatric Bulletin, November 2007, 31, 421–424) refer to harmonisation of forensic psychiatry in Europe. We agree with the authors that, although laudable in principle, such undertaking is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. However, it is possible to share experiences and learn from each other. One example of cooperation in forensic services between European countries is the development of the Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder Programme (DSPD) in England, which was initially inspired by the Dutch Terbeschikkingstelling (TBS) system.

Under TBS, the Dutch Criminal Code allows the detention of high-risk offenders with mental disorder. TBS has two components – a prison sentence followed by treatment in designated forensic units (Reference van Marlevan Marle, 2002). The duration of the sentence depends on the nature of the crime committed and the level of culpability.

Although it seemed prudent to adapt the TBS model, which had been tested over time, the final DSPD proposal came out fundamentally different. TBS order is issued and terminated by the courts, whereas in DSPD, offenders are detained under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983. This is despite earlier calls to develop a new strategy for high-risk offenders led by the judiciary, with psychiatrists’ support (Reference Coid and MadenCoid & Maden, 2003). The result has been criticism that psychiatry is being used for exercising social control. In our opinion such a composite arrangement meets neither the Dutch rehabilitative approach nor the public protection agenda.

References

Coid, J. & Maden, T. (2003) Should psychiatrists protect the public? A new risk reduction strategy, supporting criminal justice, could be effective. BMJ, 326, 406407.Google Scholar
van Marle, H. J. C. (2002) The Dutch Entrustment Act (TSB): Its principles and innovations. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1, 892.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.