[Preliminary reports on psychiatric practice in correctional facilities]

In October 2001, Nanashakon, a council composed of seven psychiatry-related organizations in Japan, decided to launch an investigation into forensic psychiatry in Japan, and established a working team (WT) for this purpose. From its establishment to March 2004, the WT performed surveys and analyses of the current situation of preliminary reports by psychiatric experts (preliminary reports) and of psychiatric practice in correctional facilities. Based on the results, the WT has presented proposals including guidelines for preliminary reports. In January 2002, the WT conducted an awareness survey on the status quo of testimony by psychiatric experts and forensic psychiatry, targeting the members of the Japanese Society of Psychiatry and Neurology, and obtained 666 replies. The survey revealed various critical opinions such as skepticism over the current punishment imposed on criminal patients with mental disorders. In February 2002, the WT obtained data on preliminary reports (2,042 cases) compiled prior to prosecution in FY2000 from the Japanese Ministry of Justice. Reviewing the details and differences between the evaluation by psychiatrists and the decision by public prosecutors, the WT pointed out the ambiguity of criteria used for the evaluation of competency of weak-minded persons and the criteria for criminal punishment. Around the same time, the WT was also asked by a news agency to analyze the preliminary reports of 50 district public prosecutor offices. The results revealed marked regional differences in the operation of the preliminary evaluation system for competency. In January 2003, the WT collected 146 preliminary reports from around the country for comparison and review, and again found conspicuous individual and regional discrepancies in the format and content. Based on these results, the WT conducted a hearing of 41 expert opinions on preliminary reports, and in January 2004, proposed guidelines outlining a format model of preliminary reports, and a training and authorizing system for forensic psychiatrists, to standardize preliminary reports and enhance their reliability. In February 2004, the WT conducted a questionnaire survey on the current situation of psychiatry in correctional facilities, targeting doctors with experience working under these circumstances. Fifty-one replies were obtained. Most of the respondents approved of the current system. However, to incite arguments in this area, attempts were made to draw critical responses and discussion by presenting data on the current situation of psychiatric practice in correctional facilities.