Pregled bibliografske jedinice broj: 1215108
EARLY DETACHMENT FROM PRIMARY OBJECT AND PATHOLOGICAL STEALING – FORENSIC DISCUSSION
EARLY DETACHMENT FROM PRIMARY OBJECT AND PATHOLOGICAL STEALING – FORENSIC DISCUSSION // ABSTRACT BOOK 2022, MIND & BRAIN 61st INTERNATIONAL NEUROPSYCHIATRIC CONGRESS Virtual MAY 26th – 29th, 2022. / Demarin, Vida (ur.).
Zagreb: International Institute for Brain Health, 2022. str. 27-27 (predavanje, podatak o recenziji nije dostupan, sažetak, stručni)
CROSBI ID: 1215108 Za ispravke kontaktirajte CROSBI podršku putem web obrasca
Naslov
EARLY DETACHMENT FROM PRIMARY OBJECT AND PATHOLOGICAL
STEALING – FORENSIC DISCUSSION
Autori
Kudumija Slijepčević, Marija
Vrsta, podvrsta i kategorija rada
Sažeci sa skupova, sažetak, stručni
Izvornik
ABSTRACT BOOK 2022, MIND & BRAIN 61st INTERNATIONAL NEUROPSYCHIATRIC CONGRESS Virtual MAY 26th – 29th, 2022.
/ Demarin, Vida - Zagreb : International Institute for Brain Health, 2022, 27-27
Skup
61st International Neuropsychiatric Congress “Mind & Brain”
Mjesto i datum
Online, 26.05.2022. - 29.05.2022
Vrsta sudjelovanja
Predavanje
Vrsta recenzije
Podatak o recenziji nije dostupan
Ključne riječi
Pathological steeling, Forensic psychiatry
(Pathological stealing, Forensic psychiatry)
Sažetak
Introduction/Objectives: The lecture will present a patient who has spent almost most of his life in prison due to bizarre thefts and a forensic discussion of the case will be offered. Kleptomania is rarely brought to medical attention voluntarily. Patients usually present for treatment by legal mandate due to repeated shoplifting. Case report: the patient was referred for psychiatric expertise for re-offending. In the previous period, he was prosecuted for over 70 criminal offenses of stealing large motor vehicles, which he did not use in any way for his own benefit. There are no data on psychiatric treatment or previous psychiatric issues. Conclusions: Kleptomania has been unsuccessful as the basis of a not-guilty-by-reason of the insanity defense. Diminished capacity is a partial defense to criminal responsibility that allows a defendant to introduce evidence that he lacked the mental capacity to form the specific intent to commit a crime. This discussion will present clinical doubts according to the diagnosis of impulse control disorder and about final forensic decisions and offer a distinction between the diminished responsibility and full ability to volition control “tempore criminis”.
Izvorni jezik
Engleski