Co-occurring Psychiatric and Substance Dependence Disorders as Predictors of Parolee Time to Rearrest

An estimated 500,000-plus people are on parole each year, many with serious co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders. Using cross sectional, self-report data this study examined the relationships between parolee time to rearrest, serious mental illnesses, and substance dependency (n = 1,121). Regression analyses indicated that after controlling for demographic and criminal justice variables, parolees with serious psychiatric and substance dependence disorders were rearrested faster than non-dually diagnosed parolees (p < .05). An explanation is that compared with parolees without dual diagnoses, parole violations by dually diagnosed parolees are detected and punished more quickly because of closer parole supervision.     

Impulse control and criminal responsibility: lessons from neuroscience

Almost all of the world's legal systems recognize the "M'Naghten" exception to criminal responsibility: the inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of action. This exception rests on the assumption that punishment is morally justified only if the defendant was able to choose whether to do wrong. Jurists and jurisdictions differ, however, on whether to extend M'Naghten's logic to cases where the defendant understood the wrongfulness of an act but was incapable of resisting an impulse to commit it. In this article I ask whether contemporary neuroscience can help lawmakers to decide whether to adopt or retain this defense, known variously as the "irresistible impulse" defense or the "control" or "volitional" test for insanity. More specifically, I ask firstly, whether it is empirically true that a person can understand the wrongfulness of an act yet be powerless to refrain from committing it; and second (assuming an affirmative answer to the first), whether the law of criminal responsibility can practically accommodate this phenomenon? After canvassing the relevant neuroscientific literature, I conclude that the answer to the first question is "yes." After examining the varied treatment of the defense in the United States and other nations, I also give an affirmative answer to the second question, but only in limited circumstances. In short, the defense of irresistible impulse should be recognized, but only when it can be shown that the defendant experienced a total incapacity to control his or her conduct in the circumstances.     

The relationship of negative self-schemas and insecure partner attachment styles with anger experience and expression among male batterers

The purpose of the study was to explore how negative self-schemas and partner attachments were related to the experience and expression of anger (i.e., trait anger, inward and outward expression of anger) in a sample of male batterers (n = 40) who participated in court-mandated group services. They completed the Experience in Close Relationships (ECR), the Young Schema Questionnaire-2 (YSQ-2), the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2 (STAXI-2), and a demographic sheet. Male batterers who experienced pervasive anger (i.e., trait anger) tended to experience negative self-schemas associated with the Impaired Limits domain (respecting the rights of others, insufficient self-control, entitlement). Male batterers who tended to suppress their anger tended to feel avoidantly attached to their romantic partner and endorsed negative self-schemas associated with the Disconnection and Rejection domain (abandonment, emotional deprivation, defectiveness/shame). Implications for clinical practice with male offenders and future research are discussed.     

Incidental findings in human subjects research: what do investigators owe research participants?

The use of brain imaging technology as a common tool of research has spawned concern and debate over how investigators should respond to incidental findings discovered in the course of research. In this article, we argue that investigators have an obligation to respond to incidental findings in view of their entering into a professional relationship with research participants in which they are granted privileged access to private information with potential relevance to participants' health. We discuss the scope and limits of this professional obligation to respond to incidental findings, bearing in mind that the relationship between investigators and research participants differs fundamentally from the doctor-patient relationship.