Educationals

After a long controversy about the relationship between crime and addiction, recent research has unequivocally demonstrated that criminality is an integral part of established addiction. In the USA, it is estimated that narcotic addicts commit over 50 million crimes per year. Much of the crime relates to the need to purchase drugs. There is strong evidence suggesting a high incidence of criminal record in established drug users. In an American study of 354 narcotic addicts (Shoffer et al,1984) delinquency was committed by every addict in the sample. Offences committed by the addicts are of two types

• Drug related, and
• Non-drug related with the implication that drug related offense (Possession, supply and larceny) are an inevitable aspect of the life style of the street addict. An FBI analysis in 1966 indicated that 26% of heroin addicts had a conviction for violence and 74% were for larceny. In a study of 243 Baltimore narcotic addicts (Ball et al,1983)the main offense behaviour emerged as theft (38%), followed by drug dealing (27%),pimping and gambling (26%),confidence games and forgery (8%) and violence (2%).

The link between cannabis used and offending are complex. Abuse itself may give rise to offences, apart from crimes related to illegal trafficking. It is widely believed that cannabis takers are much less delinquent than other drug abusers, such as users of heroin, cocaine and morphine.

The link between alcohol and crime has been recognized for many years. Lanke,(1975,1976) showed that during the period 1960-73 , a high statistical correlation existed between violent crime rates and alcohol consumption. A whole variety of different types of crimes have been indicated. These include homicide, sexual crimes, marital assaults, sexual crimes against children, crimes against property and crimes of violence. Gilles,(1976) in a study of homicide in Scotland on 400 individuals found that 58% of males had been intoxicated at the time of crimes as were 30% of females. Alcohol-related driving offences were noted to be at their peak at night and week ends, the periods when drinking is at its heaviest. Apart from above mentioned crimes related to alcohol, offences like illicit arrack sale and distillation are prevalent in some parts of our country. There is an alarming increase in criminal activity associated with drug addiction in South India, especially Tamil Nadu, during the past 13 years after the ethnic conflict in neighboring Sri Lanka. The youth infiltrated in South India indulged in large-scale drug trafficking especially of brown sugar (heroin). Around 70% of brown sugar (herion) addicts of Chennai are involved in criminal activities like stealing, assault etc. In another study at the Institute of Mental Health,Chennai on the prevalence of alcohol and drug abuse among mentally ill prisoners (Criminal lunctims) out of 30 patients, 15 of them have abused alcohol and 5 abused cannabis prior to their commission of crime.

Female offenders

Female criminality is infrequent compared with that of males. This may be due to the lower identification and reporting of female crime.

The commonest offence by women is stealing, shop-lifting which account for half of women offences. Violence and sexual offence are uncommon in women (O'Connor,1987). A substantial proportion of crime by women is associated with psychiatric problems are premenstrual syndrome, drug dependence and antisocial personality.

In a study of mentally ill female prisoners (female criminal lunatics) at Chennai, it was found that out of 537 mentally ill prisoners admitted during a 20-year period, only 26 were female, which forms around 4.84% of the total criminal lunatics (Nambi et al,1992). The commonest crime is murder and the common diagnosis are schizophrenia and depression (Nambi et al.1992).

Criminal responsibility

Though mentally abnormal offenders are only a small minority of all offenders the psychiatrist can play an important role by helping to identify, assess and manage them. The psychiatrist may be asked to give advice in relation to the following issues:

• Fitness to plead (Fitness to stand trial)
• Mental state at the time of offence, before and during trial and during imprisonment.
• Diminished criminal responsibility.
• The psychiatric management of offenders.

Fitness to stand trial

If the accused in a crime be of probable mental illness and not fit to stand trial, the court can order a psychiatrist to observe, treat and give an opinion regarding his fitness to stand trial. The dependent must be in a fit condition to defend himself. The issue may be raised by the defence, the prosecution or the judge. If the accused is found unfit to plead, an order is made for admission to a mental hospital where he will be detained and discharged later for trial after he is found fit for trial.

In ascertaining fitness to plead; it is necessary to determine whether the person:

• Is oriented to place, person and time.
• Understands the questions asked.
• Understands the nature of the charge.
• Understands the difference between guilty and not guilty.
• Is able to instruct his advocate.
• Is able to follow the evidence presented in the court, and
• Is able to challenge the selection of jurors

A person may be suffering from severe mental disorder but still be fit to stand trial.

Criminal responsibility

Mentally ill offenders usually stand trial in the same way as their offender, but when sentence is passed consideration is given to their mental state and to the possibility of psychiatric treatment. In determining whether or not a person is guilty it is necessary to consider his mental state at the time of the act.

Before anyone can be convicted of a crime, the prosecution must prove

• That he carried out an unlawful act (Actus reus) (Intent).
• That he had a certain guilty state of mind at the time, namely mens rea (Guilty mind).

When a person is charged with an offence, defence can be made that he is not capable because he did not have a sufficient degree of mens rea. This defence can be raised in several ways.

• Not guilty by reason of insanity (under the Mc Naughton rules).
• Diminished responsibility (not guilty of murder; but guilty of manslaughter, which requires a lesser degree of criminal intent).
• Incapacity to form an intent because of an automation.

Eg: If mother kills her child in the first year of its life, she is not usually held legally responsible for murder but only for the less serious crime of infanticide.
According to Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong of contrary to law".

This is based on one of the famous McNaughton rules: The Phase of Insanity is generally brought forward during the trial state. The accused is found not guilty, if insanity is established. The concept of diminished responsibility, automatism and the irresistible impulse test-have not gained any momentum in the Indian legal scenario.