TY  -  JOUR
AU  -  Lippi, Matteo
AU  -  Damato, Felice Marco
AU  -  Orsini, Francesca
AU  -  Frati, Paola
AU  -  Rinaldi, Raffaella
T1  -  Mental disorder and criminal responsibility in femicide: 
a cross-jurisdictional analysis
PY  -  2026
Y1  -  2026-05-01
DO  -  10.1708/4714.47296
JO  -  Rivista di Psichiatria
JA  -  Riv Psichiatr
VL  -  61
IS  -  3
SP  -  124
EP  -  129
PB  -  Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore
SN  -  2038-2502
Y2  -  2026/06/14
UR  -  http://dx.doi.org/10.1708/4714.47296
N2  -  Summary. Femicide is recognized as one of the most severe expressions of gender-based violence and causes complex assessment issues for both criminal justice systems and forensic psychiatry. This paper assesses the relationship between mental disorder and criminal responsibility of perpetrators of femicide and intimate partner homicide (IPH), through a comparison of clinical-forensic evidence from different national contexts. Four international studies (England and Wales, Sweden, Mexico, and South Africa) and the report of the Italian Parliamentary Commission on femicide for the 2017-2018 biennium were considered. Overall, a substantial proportion of perpetrators present psychiatric symptoms or prior contact with mental health services; however, judicial findings of non-responsibility remain relatively infrequent. In England and Wales, symptoms of mental disorder at the time of the offence are reported in approximately 20% of IPH cases, whereas outcomes closest to findings of non-responsibility concern less than 1%. In Sweden, 41.3% of IPH perpetrators had previous contact with psychiatric services, but major mental disorders at the time of the offence account for approximately 11% of cases. Higher frequencies are observed in samples selected for forensic psychiatric evaluation. In Italy, among 118 cases concluded with sentencing, a mental disorder affecting criminal responsibility was recognized in 24.6% of cases: full insanity in 13.6%, partial insanity in 7.6%, and suspension of proceedings due to incompetence to stand trial in 3.4%. Overall, the findings highlight the need to carefully distinguish between psychiatric diagnosis and legal constructs of criminal responsibility. The presence of a mental disorder does not automatically imply non-responsibility and requires an individualized clinical-forensic assessment, focusing on the nexus between psychopathological condition, capacities at the time of the offence, and the relational context in which the act occurred.
ER  -