Importance of Confession in Judicial Psychiatry

• NCJ Number: 70698
• Journal: Etudes internationales de psycho-sociologie criminelle - Crime et libertes Volume: 2 Issue: 34/35 Dated: (1979) Pages: 3-9
• Author(s): F J Amarista
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 7 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Statistics
• Language: French
• Country: France
• Note: This French version is a translation from the original Spanish version written in Venezuela

Annotation

This Venezuelan study presents data on mental attitudes and characteristics of confessed offenders to aid court psychiatrists in analyzing offenders' mental state and attitudes prior to their crimes.

Abstract

Study data are based on 564 suspected offenders, 60 percent involving confessions and 40 percent denials. Of those who confessed, 31 percent resort to defensive rationalizations, 18 percent have a reasonable explanation of the crime, 5 percent are cynical. Attitudes vary widely according to the nature of the crime. Denials range from 43 to 50 percent for hold-ups, theft, forgery, drug trafficking, and kidnapping. Rationalization is most common for swindling, while individuals responsible for injuries to others most frequently claim grounds for the deed. Denials and rationalizations occur with the same frequency in all age groups, while feelings of justification are most common in adults (90 percent of the total). The 25-to-45-year-old group shows high levels of shame, indifference, and cynicism. The mental state of the cases studied is normal in 62 percent of the cases, deficient in 3 percent, psychopathic in 4 percent, somatically disturbed in 1.5 percent, immature in 24 percent, neurotic in 2 percent, epileptic in 1.4 percent, and psychotic in 1.2 percent. Retarded and somatically ill individuals, psychopaths, and psychotics exhibit no shame for their crimes. Epileptics do not rationalize their crimes, neurotics do not justify their acts, and neither group adopts a cynical attitude. Fifty-seven percent of the delinquents are occasional, 20 percent circumstantial, and 23 percent habitual. Occasional and habitual criminals rationalize frequently (63 percent and 31 percent of rationalizations, respectively), while circumstantial offenders are more likely than habitual offenders to justify their actions (30 and 14 percent). Shame is felt by 56 percent of occasional, 33 percent of circumstantial, and 11 percent of habitual offenders; and indifference by 42 percent of occasional, 33 percent of circumstantial, and 25 percent of habitual offenders. No circumstantial offenders expressed cynical attitudes. Tables are supplied.--in French