Criminal responsibility and mental disorder: Why do heterogeneous constructs not overlap?

This paper discusses some problems in associating definitions and judgments of criminal unaccountability, e.g. criminal insanity, to psychiatric constructs, i.e., diagnoses, symptoms and related constructs of functional impairment. The aim is to highlight this relationship as to why it is inevitably challenging at a conceptual level. The backdrop of the paper is that the dependence between legal and psychiatric constructs challenges constitutional values of legal certainty and equality before law. The authors propose that to understand and possibly address this challenge, one must acknowledge the heterogeneity of psychiatric constructs and the intricate relationships between diagnoses, symptoms and functional impairment of argued legal relevance. Moreover, one must acknowledge that legal constructs of criminal unaccountability and psychiatric constructs of mental disorders are different ways of categorizing complex phenomena for different purposes, making the overlap between them epistemologically challenging. It is not expected that either the court or the experts are aware of such issues, which could lead to unwanted biases. In the paper, the key perspectives that shape these issues are outlined and discussed.