Citation

Rassin E, Boskovic I, Merckelbach H. J. Forensic Sci. 2018; 63(6): 1911-1913.

Affiliation

Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, American Society for Testing and Materials, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/1556-4029.13789

PMID

29660136

Abstract

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may affect victims of crime, but may also be reported by offenders. In the postappeal phase, offenders may claim to suffer from chronic PTSD and argue that this indicates diminished criminal responsibility at the time the index crime was committed. As members of a Dutch criminal cases review commission, we recently encountered two cases in which PTSD was presented as new evidence that would justify a reopening of the case. In this article, we argue that such claims are problematic in that clinical decision making resulting in a PTSD diagnosis adheres to quite different standards than those dictating forensic fact-finding. The two cases illustrate the difference between criminal and clinical fact-finding.

© 2018 American Academy of Forensic Sciences.

Language: en

Keywords

behavioral science; expert-witnesses; forensic science; posttraumatic stress disorder; psychiatry; psychology