Forensic Psychology

The Criminal Process

The Defendant - Evaluating
Criminal Responsibility
The Linguistic Difficulty

Papërgjegjshmëria penale - [lack of]

criminal responsibility
Insanity
Competencies (to stand trial, to be
sentenced, etc)
Papërgjegjshmëria penale - lack of criminal responsibilty
Objective lack of knowledge about the law
Under age of criminal responsibility
Lack of causal link
Lack of guilt (intent)
Legitimate defence (self-defence)
Extreme necessity (duress)
Exercise of a right or completion of a duty
Harbouring a fugitive - close relative
Failure to report a crime - close relative
Failure to report a crime - professional secret
 The Linguistic Compromise

We will use "legal insanity" to mean

"papërgjegjshmëria penale për shkak të
gjendjes mendore.
 The Basics

Criminal law makes these considerations:

facts are crimes;

perpetrators are subjects.
 The Basics

Criminal responsibility comprises:

an objective element (the crime) or actus reus;

a subjective element (intent and mental capacity) or
mens rea.
 Theories on Criminal Responsibility

Free will theory.

Normality theory.
Personal identity theory.
Punishment theory.
Positive school theory.
Human responsibility theory.
 Theories on Lack of Criminal Responsibility

Free will theory - the person that, confronted with good

and bad, chose bad has criminal responsibility.
It is criticized as unclear and very philosophical.

Normality theory - only the normal person has criminal

responsibility: the person that is spiritually healthy,
mature and reacts in a certain way to events.
The concept of normal person is transitory.
 Theories on Lack of Criminal Responsibility
Personal identity theory - there is responsibility
when the crime realates to the person's personality.
Similar to the concept of normal person.
Punishment theory - only the ones that understand
punishment have responsibility.
The punishment is an effective threat that aims at
creating fear, and cannot be understood by minors,
mentally ill, etc.
Theories on Lack of Criminal Responsibility

Positive school theory - any person can commit

crimes and, when they do, they must submit to the
decision of the authority, whose aim must be
prevention of reoffending.
Human responsibility theory - criminal responsibility
lays in the ability to understand the anti-social
nature of actions.
John Hinckley Jr. - The Case that Changed the Insanity
Defence
An expert psychiatrist testified for the defense that John W. Hinckley, Jr.,
could not be held accountable for shooting the President of the United
States because he was "suffering from a major depressive disorder and from
process schizophrenia. . . ."

No, replied the government, Hinckley was sane and should be found guilty
because, as its expert testified, he was only "suffering from dysthymic
disorder, or depressive neurosis, and from three types of personality
disorder-schizoid, narcissistic, and mixed-the last with borderline and
passive-aggressive features."
These snapshots of expert testimony demonstrate that a contested
insanity defense requires that a non-medical professional (judge or jury)
decide the degree to which a defendant is mentally ill, and not merely
whether a defendant is mentally ill.

Most of us would agree that a person who attempts to assassinate the

President at close range and in broad daylight is "crazy."
But on what grounds does the judge decide whether that defendant is so
removed from normal behavior that basic legal rules of criminal
responsibility no longer apply?

And, when the judge is asked to make that determination, to what degree
does psychiatric testimony actually enable it "to make a sensible and
educated determination about the mental condition of the defendant at
the time of the offense?"
John W. Hinckley, Jr., entered Texas Tech University in 1974. For the next
seven years he drifted about, residing at various times in Texas, California,
and Colorado.

During the summer of 1976, Hinckley lived in Hollywood where he

watched the film Taxi Driver fifteen times at a local theater. Taxi Driver is
the story of Travis Bickle, who intends to assassinate a presidential
candidate but who instead saves a twelve-year-old prostitute, played by
Jodie Foster, by shooting her pimp and one of her customers. Because of
his new-found hero status, Travis is finally able to attract the attention of a
beautiful woman he earlier had pursued unsuccessfully.
By the fall of 1980, Hinckley was apparently obsessed with two people:
Jodie Foster and the President of the United States. During the next few
months Hinckley repeatedly flew to New Haven, telephoned Foster, and
left her notes. He also purchased handguns and tracked President Carter's
campaign travels, first to Dayton, Ohio, and then to Nashville, Tennessee.

In March 1981, Hinckley again traveled to New Haven and left

handwritten notes for Foster.
On March 30, 1981, Hinckley was in Washington, D.C., where he read
President Reagan's schedule in a local newspaper, loaded his handgun with
Devastator bullets-which explode on impact-and left a letter in his hotel
room addressed to Foster.

The letter read, in part:

There is a definite possibility that I will be killed in my attempt to get

Reagan... [T]he reason I'm going ahead with this attempt now is because I
just cannot wait any longer to impress you... By sacrificing my freedom
and possibly my life, I hope to change your mind about me.
That afternoon, Hinckley waited outside the
Washington Hilton and, when the President emerged,
Hinckley shot six times, seriously wounding the
President and four others.

These basic facts underlay both the government and

defense theories presented during Hinckley's trial.
The government emphasized the premeditated nature of
Hinckley's actions: Hinckley had bought a gun; followed
President Carter; traveled to Washington; left a note
stating his intentions; selected Devastator bullets from
among the ammunition he had on hand; waited for
President Reagan to leave the hotel; and fired six shots at
the President.
To the defense, these same actions were indications of
Hinckley's mental illness. Hinckley was obsessed with the
story of Taxi Driver and with attracting Foster's attention.
He hoped to win the affection of Jodie Foster by killing the
President. Hinckley may have intended to assassinate the
President, but he ultimately did so only because he was
suffering delusions that rendered him incapable of
behaving in a sane, responsible manner.
Forensic Psychiatric experts:

Park Dietz and Sally Johnson for the government

William Carpenter and David Bear for the defense

Dr. Bear was particularly visible during the trial because of

his challenges to the manner in which the law deals with
psychiatric diagnoses.
Judge Barrington Parker had ruled that the defense could
not introduce into evidence a CAT-scan of Hinckley's brain.

Dr. Bear lectured the court on the role of the CAT-scan in

his diagnosis and announced that "I would like the right to
state to the jury that an important test which I use in
reaching my conclusions has been barred by the court and I
was not able to present it to the jury, though I believe it
would influence their decision as it has influenced mine."
Dr. Bear's concern touches upon two issues likely to catch the
attention of any lawyer:
the quality of evidence used to prove the state of mind of
a defendant,
the proper role of the expert at a criminal trial.

The subjective element of a criminal offense is, almost by

definition, more difficult to establish than the objective
element. This is even more complex when, as in the Hinckley
case, competing experts offer conflicting psychiatric diagnoses.
Dr. Bear told the court that the CAT scan showed widened
folds and ridges (sulci) and that such widened sulci appear
more frequently in schizophrenics (one of three) than in
the normal population (one of fifty).

Over the government's objections, the defense eventually

convinced the court to rule that the CAT-scan was evidence
relevant to their claim that Hinckley was a schizophrenic.
diagnoses (although it was later excluded).
This episode reflects the skepticism with which the law
treats scientific evidence:
Only evidence that is demonstrably reliable is
permitted to go to the judge.

The admission of unreliable evidence - especially unreliable

evidence masked with scientific authority - may result in
unfair verdicts and, over time, in unequal application of the
law to similarly situated defendants.
From Dr. Bear's point of view, the judicial reluctance to
recognize as probative all of the data relied upon by a
diagnostician seemed to restrict the psychiatrist's role as
expert witness.

From the law's viewpoint, that reluctance is necessary to

protect the court's independence and its ability to reach a
just decision.
In Ake v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court reversed the
conviction and death-sentence of an indigent defendant. At
trial, the defendant had requested, but had been denied,
access to a psychiatrist.

"When a defendant has made a preliminary showing that

his sanity at the time of the offense is likely to be a
significant factor at trial, the Constitution requires that a
State provide access to a psychiatrist's assistance on this
issue, if the defendant cannot otherwise afford one."
The Court concluded that the defendant's interest in
presenting an insanity defense is great, the state's interest
in refusing to provide psychiatric assistance is slight, and
that, absent such assistance, "the risk of an inaccurate
resolution of sanity issues is extremely high."
To the majority in Ake, a psychiatrist is needed not just to provide
expert testimony but also to assist counsel in their presentation
and cross-examination of the experts for the other side.

The Court explained that psychiatrists "know the probative

questions to ask of the opposing party's psychiatrist" and that their
assistance is needed "to conduct a professional examination on
issues relevant to the defense, to help determine whether the
insanity defense is viable, to pre sent testimony, and to assist in
preparing the cross-examination of a State's psychiatric witnesses."
In dissent, Justice Rehnquist took aim at the majority's
characterization of the psychiatric role. He concluded that:

"all the defendant should be entitled to is one competent

opinion-whatever the witness' conclusion-from a
psychiatrist who acts independently of the prosecutor's
office." No more should be required because "[a]
psychiatrist is not an attorney, whose job it is to advocate."
Wigmore asserted that the partisanship of an expert
witness clashes with "that ideal of impartiality and
trustworthiness which is naturally associated with
abstract scientific truth."
 Neni 17 - Kodi Penal
Papërgjegjshmëria për shkak të gjendjes mendore

Nuk ka përgjegjësi penale personi që në kohën e

kryerjes së veprës vuante nga një turbullim psikik ose
neuropsikik që ka prishur tërësisht ekuilibrin e tij
mendor dhe për pasojë nuk ka qenë në gjendje të
kontrollojë veprimet apo mosveprimet e tij dhe as të
kuptojë se kryen vepër penale.
 Article 17 - Criminal Code
[Lack of] [criminal] responsibility because of the mental state
The person that, at the time of the commission of the
offense, suffered from a psychic or neuro-psychic
disturbance that completely ruined his mental balance
and, consequently, [he] was not able to control his
actions or inactions and to understand that he is
committing a criminal offense, does not have criminal
responsibility.
 Legal Insanity

Legal sanity is presumed

Legal insanity must be proven

 Legal Insanity
At the time of
the crime commission
Commission of a crime
Existence of psychic or neuro-psychic disturbance
Complete ruin of the mental equilibrum
Loss of ability to control actions or omissions
Loss of ability to understand that the action is a
crime As a result of the
disturbance
 Legal Insanity
Legal insanity as a legal concept

Loss of two elements:

intellectual (ability to understand actions)
volitional (ability to desire the respective consequences)

Affective, emotive and passionate state is not considered

Establishing legal insanity is not a nosographic exercise

 The Two Elements (Criteria) of Legal Insanity

The Medical Criterion - existence of a medical diagnosis,

based on pathological causes

The Legal Criterion - existence of the conditions set by the

criminal law - how far does the medical condition go
 The Medical Criterion
Psychic disturbance - Is is synonym with Psychotic Disorder?
Schizofrenia, schizoaffective disorder, schizophreniform disorder,
brief psychotic disorder, delusional disorder, shared psychotic
disorder, substance induced psychotic disorder, psychotic disorder
due to another medical condition, paraphrenia,

Neuro-psychic disturbance - Is it synonym with Neuro-psychiatric

Disorder? - organic brain diseases with psychiatric symptoms
Seizures, attention deficit disorders, cognitive deficit disorders,
palsies, uncontrolled anger, migraine headaches, addictions, eating
disorders, depression, anxiety.
 Two Tests for the Legal Criterion

Cognitive tests - whether, at the time of the crime, the

defendant was disabled by mental disorder from knowing,
appreciating, or understanding the nature of his conduct or
that it was morally or legally wrong.
Control (volitional) tests - whether, as a result of mental
disorder, the defendant was unable at the time of the crime
to control his conduct or to conform his conduct to the
requirements of the law.
 The Definition of Metal Illness

The definition of mental disorder as a legal criterion for insanity

is a legal question and within the discretion of the legislators. In
many jurisdictions, it has been established that the law is free to
limit legal insanity to cases involving severe mental disorder or to
define mental disorder in a non-traditional way, as long as the
definition is minimally rational. The law need not be bound by
the definitions used by the mental health science disciplines, such
as psychiatry and psychology.
 The Volitional Element
There is no consensual definition of volition or will in any of the relevant
disciplines, such as psychology or philosophy,
It lead to the discussion of how the brain enables the mind and how
intentions are related to actions.
One helpful way of thinking about volition is as the executory mental
state that produces an action in response to an intention.
Viewed in this way, however, virtually no one with a mental disorder has
a volitional problem because people with disorders are fully able to
execute the intentions that their disordered thoughts, perceptions, and
desires may motivate.
 The Volitional Element

The problem with the volitional element is distinguishing the disordered

person from any other agent who also wants to do something very badly
that the agent should not do, such as the very greedy person tempted
terribly to steal.
Simply characterising the desire as disordered in one case but not the
other cannot resolve the question of control.

Why should we ever excuse someone who acts wrongly in response to a

very strong desire, whether that desire is normal or abnormal?
 The Volitional Element

Moreover, what theory or account allows us to characterise desires, as

opposed to perceptions and beliefs, as irrational?
How do we distinguish between an irresistible desire and a desire simply
not resisted?

Concerns like these led both the American Bar Association and the
American Psychiatric Association to recommend abolition of an
independent control test during the insanity reform movement that
occurred in response to the Hinckley verdict.
 Instruments forAssessing Legal Insanity

Far fewer than instruments to test competence

Mental Status Examination at the Time of the Offense

Rogers Criminal Responsibility Scales (RCRAS)
 The Insanity Defence - USA

NGRI - not guilty by reason of insanity

At the time of the crime commission
Standards of insanity vary, but sanity is presumed
An assessment of mens rea
 The M'Naghten Rule
1843 - M'Naghten shot and killed the private secretary of the
British prime minister.

Suffering from paranoid delusions, he believed that the Prime

Minister was part of a Tory conspirancy against him. He though
the secretary was the PM, Sir Robert Peel.

Nine medical experts, including one american, testifyed that he

was insane.
 The M'Naghten Rule
He was found guilty by reason of insanity and was committed
to an asylum, where he spent his life.
The Queen and the public were infuriated by this decision.
In 1843, the M'Naghten rule was approved:
The defendant, as a result of a disease of the mind:
did not know what he was doing
did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
Became the standard for insanity in GB and USA
 The Durham Test

An accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful

act wa the product of mental disease or defect.

Lack of definition of mental disease

Personality disorders as mental disease
 The Brawner Rule - ALI Test
Stemming from the Model Penal Code

At the time of the crime, as a result of mental disease or defect, the

defendant lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the
criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct
to the requirements of the law.
Appreciate: includes the emotional and cognitive determinants of
criminal actions
Requires only a lack of "substantial" capacity
Includes a volitional elements
 The Insanity Defence Reform Act

IDRA 1984
In the wake of the trial of John Hickely, Jr.
Eliminated the volitional element
Prohibited experts from giving ultimate opinions about
insanity
Placed the burden to prove insanity on the defendant
 The Current Application

14 states - the full ALI test

28 states - some variation of M'Naghten/cognitive impairment
only test
3 states - M'Naghten plus the irresistible impulse test
1 state - the Durham test
5 states - have abolished the insanity defense (experts evaluate
mens rea in general)
 The Public View

He looks okay to me.

I'm a bit of a psychologist myself.
If experts disagree, the field is not valid.
They are just trying to get him off.
They are all hired guns: they are all bough and paid
for.
 Statistics about NGRI - USA
The rates of insanity pleas are extremely low - estimated to 0.1-0.5% of felomy case.
The insanity plea succeeds once in four times.
Over 70% of insanity acquittals result from plea bargaining arrangements.
No clear statistics about length of confinement, recidivism and dangerousness.
Used more often in cases of violent crimes: 22.5% charged with murder, 64% charged with crimes
against persons.
The majority of NGRI have been diagnosed as psychotic, suggesting severe and probably chronic
mental impairments.
67.4% with a schizophrenic disorder.
1 in 4 or 5 defendants that plead NGRI engages in malingering.
Prior clinical factors have a significant impact in NGRI.
Most NGRI have prior records, but the rate does not differ from other criminals.
Most NGRI come from lower socio-economic background.
Most NGRI have a prior history of hospitalization.
 Back to John Hinckley

On July 27, 2016, a federal judge ruled that Hinckley could be released from
institutional psychiatric care, as he was no longer considered a threat to himself
or others.

Hinckley was released on September 10, 2016, with many conditions. He was
required to live full-time at his mother's home in Williamsburg, Virginia with
prohibitions and requirements.
Prohibitions
drinking alcohol
possessing any firearms, ammunition, other weapons, or memorabilia of Jodie Foster, e.g., photos, or
magazine articles
contacting Reagan's family, Brady's family, Jodie Foster, Foster's family, or Foster's agent
from watching or listening to violent movies, television, or compact discs
from accessing printed or online pornography
online access to violent movies, television, music, novels or magazines
speaking to the press
visiting present or past homes of the current or past president or certain past or present government
officials
visiting graves of past presidents or certain past government officials
driving from his mother's home more than 30 mi (48 km) unattended or 50 mi (80 km) when attended
erasing his computer's Web browser history
Required
to work at least 3 days per week
to leave immediately if he finds himself approaching prohibited places
to record his browser history
On November 16, 2018, Judge Friedman ruled Hinckley could move out of his
mother's house in Virginia and live on his own upon location approval from his
doctors.

On September 27, 2021, a federal judge approved Hinckley for unconditional

release beginning June 2022.

On June 15, 2022, Hinckley was fully released from court restrictions.
 Cases from our Domestic Case-Law
The Case of Hysen Biba
Murdered his 3 day old son by throwing him off the hospital window
Declared legally insane
Committed to a psychiatric institution
Released on outpatient treatment after 3 years to the case of his wife (the mother of
the murdered child)
The Case of Shpetim Ziza
Raped and murdered 10 year old Besim Cenga in Diber
Found legally sane, sentenced to life imprisonment
3 known suicide attempts in the prison
His brother was killed for bloodfeud
The family has maintained that Ziza was used by the real killers to procure the child
 Competency to stand trial

The defendant's capacity to function meaningfully and knowingly

in a legal proceeding.

Criminal proceedings should not continue against someone who

cannot understand their nature and purpose, and cannot assit in
defending against the charges.
 Neni 43 - Code of Criminal Procedure
Verifikimet për përgjegjshmërinë e të pandehurit

Kur ka arsye të çmohet se për shkak të sëmundjes

mendore të shkaktuar pas ngjarjes i pandehuri nuk është
në gjendje të marrë pjesë me vetëdije në procedim,
gjykata vendos, edhe kryesisht, ekspertimin.
 Article 43 - Code of Criminal Procedure
Verification of the defendant's responsibility

When there are reasons to believe that, due to the

mental illness caused after the event, the defendant is
not able to participate with conscience in the
proceedings, the court orders, even upon its initiative, an
expert report.
 Competency to Stand Trial
Started after the crime

Commission of a crime
Mental illness
Not able to consciously participate in the
proceedings
As a result of the
mental illnes
 Competency to stand trial - USA

General competence to stand trial

Competence to plead guilty

(Adjudicative competence - no separate standard for the above)

Competence to waive Miranda rights

Competence to refuse the insanity defence
Competence to be sentenced
Competence to be executed
 Competency to stand trial - USA

Dusky v. US

Sufficient present ability to consult with one's attorney with a

reasonable degree of rational understanding and... a rational, as
well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against one.
 Competency to stand trial - USA
Understanding
The roles of participants, the charges, the elements of crime, the consequences of
conviction, the rights waived with a guilty plea
Appreciation
The likelihood of a guilty verdict, the consequences of the conviction, the available
defences, the appraisal of giving testimony, the ability to make rational decisions
Reasoning
Distinguishing and seeking relevant information, evaluating legal options and their
consequences, providing justifications for decisions
Assisting in the defence
Consulting with and relating to the lawyer, planning legal strategy, engaging in the
defence, challenging witnesses, testifying, managing court behaviour
Decision-making abilities
 Evaluating Competency to Stand Trial

Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview (IFI)

Fitness Interview Test - Revised (FIT-R)
The MacArthur Measures of Competence
The Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial - Revised
(ECST-R)
Competence Assessment for Standing Trial for Defendants
with Mental Retardation (CAST-MR)
 Competent with Medication, Incompetent Without

The issue of forced medication

Sell v. U.S. (2003)

Medication is:

medically appropriate
substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the trial's
fairness
necessary to significantly further trial-related interests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weclxy4duRo
 Neni 17
Papërgjegjshmëria për shkak të gjendjes mendore
Nuk ka përgjegjësi penale personi që në kohën e kryerjes së veprës vuante nga një
turbullim psikik ose neuropsikik që ka prishur tërësisht ekuilibrin e tij mendor dhe
për pasojë nuk ka qenë në gjendje të kontrollojë veprimet apo mosveprimet e tij
dhe as të kuptojë se kryen vepër penale.

Personi që në kohën e kryerjes së veprës penale vuante nga një turbullim psikik ose
neuropsikik, që ka ulur ekuilibrin e tij mendor për të kuptuar dhe kontrolluar
plotësisht veprimet apo mosveprimet e tij, është i përgjegjshëm, por kjo rrethanë
mbahet parasysh nga gjykata në caktimin e masës dhe llojit të dënimit.
 Article 17
[Lack of] [criminal] responsibility because of the mental state
The person that, at the time of the commission of the offense, suffered from a
psychic or neuro-psychic disturbance that completely ruining his mental balance
and, consequently, [he] was not able to control his actions or inactions and to
understand that he is committing a criminal offense, does not have criminal
responsibility.
The person that, at the time of the commission of the offense, suffered from a
psychic or neuro-psychic disturbance that reduced his mental balance to understand
and fully control his actions or inactions, [has criminal] responsibility, but this
circumstance is taken into account by the court in the determination of the degree
and the kind of punishment.
Two different concepts:

Diminished Capacity

Diminished Responsibility
 Automatism

Actus Reus - voluntary physical act

Act over which there is no conscious control
Conscious action with unintended consequences

The automatism (or unconsciousness) defense recognises that some

criminal acts may be involuntary, even though no third party is
involved.
 Automatism

Sleep
Head injury
Hypnotic suggestion
Shock
Metabolic disorders
Epilepsy
Dissociation
Automatism vs. Insanity

Physical control over actions

Burden of proof
Mental disease or defect
 Self-Defense

Neni 19
Mbrojtja e nevojshme

Nuk ka përgjegjësi penale personi që ka kryer veprën duke qenë i detyruar të
mbrojë jetën, shëndetin, të drejtat dhe interesat e tij ose të një tjetri, nga një sulm i
padrejtë, i vërtetë dhe i çastit me kusht që, karakteri i mbrojtjes të jetë në
proporcion me rrezikshmërinë e sulmit.
Mospërputhja haptazi ndërmjet tyre përbën kapërcim të kufijve të mbrojtjes së
nevojshme.
 Duress
Neni 20
Nevoja ekstreme

Nuk ka përgjegjësi penale personi që ka kryer veprën nga nevoja për të përballuar
një rrezik real dhe të çastit që e kërcënon atë, një person tjetër apo pasurinë nga një
dëmtim i rëndë dhe i pashmangshëm me mënyra të tjera, me kusht që të mos jetë i
provokuar prej tij dhe dëmi i shkaktuar të mos jetë më i madh së dëmi i zmbrapsur.

The case of Patricia Hearst

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W90nslFUPp8
 Entrapment, Provocation
Neni 294/a
Veprimet simuluese (vlen edhe për infiltrimin)
1. Oficeri i policisë gjyqësore ose një person i autorizuar, mund të ngarkohet për të
kryer blerje ose shitje të simuluar të sendeve që janë të ndaluara për t’u prodhuar,
zotëruar, mbajtur apo tregtuar, apo sende që rrjedhin nga një krim, ose simulimin e
një akti korruptiv ose të kryejnë veprime të tjera simuluese, për të zbuluar dhe
mbledhur prova për personat e dyshuar për kryerjen e një krimi, duke fshehur
bashkëpunimin me policinë ose detyrën e tyre si punonjës policie.
3. Nuk duhet provokuar një akt kriminal, duke shtyrë një person të kryejë një krim,
të cilin nuk do ta kishte kryer po të mos ishte ndërhyrja e policisë. Kur vërtetohet
provokimi, rezultati nuk mund të përdoret.
 Intoxication
Neni 18
Kryerja e veprës penale në gjendje të dehur

Nuk përjashtohet nga përgjegjësia personi që ka kryer veprën penale në gjendje të

dehur.
Kur dehja është shkaktuar në rrethana të rastit dhe ka sjellë uljen e ekuilibrit
mendor, kjo rrethanë mbahet parasysh për zbutjen e dënimit ndaj tij.
Kur dehja është bërë me paramendim për të kryer veprën penale, kjo rrethanë
mbahet parasysh për rëndimin e dënimit.
Rregullat e mësipërme zbatohen edhe kur vepra penale kryhet nën efektin e
narkotikëve apo stimulantëve të tjerë.
 Neni 239 - Kodi i Procedurës Penale
Shtrimi i përkohshëm në një spital psikiatrik

Kur personi që duhet arrestuar është i sëmurë mendërisht

dhe për këtë shkak përjashtohet ose pakësohet shumë
zotësia e të kuptuarit ose e vullnetit, gjykata në vend të
paraburgimit mund të urdhërojë shtrimin e përkohshëm në
një institucion psikiatrik, duke caktuar masat e nevojshme
për të parandaluar rrezikun e ikjes.
 Article 239 - Code of Criminal Procedure
Temporary commitment to a psychiatric hospital

When the person to be arrested is mentally ill and, for this

reason, his capacity to understand or [his capacity] of will
is lost[1] or greatly diminished, the court, instead of pre-
trial detention, may order his temporary hospitalization in
a psychiatric institution, determining measures necessary
to prevent his escape.