European Psychiatry - Volume 41 - April 2017

597 / 916

25th European Congress of Psychiatry / European Psychiatry 41S (2017) S583–S644 S593
3 University of Athens, Medical School, 1st Department of Psychiatry,
Aeginition Hospital, Athens, Greece
∗ Corresponding author.
Introduction To our knowledge, a limited number of studies
address criminality among psychiatric patients as depicted in legal
files.
Objectives The objective of the present study was to provide
demographic, psychiatric, legal/criminal data about psychiatric
patients in Greece.
Methods Legal case files of 100 adult subjects, 90male/10 female,
88 Greeks/12 foreigners were reviewed.
Results Seventy eight percent of the subjects had at least one
psychiatric evaluation prior to the commitment of the crime. The
main diagnoses at the time of the criminal act were: schizophrenia
spectrum psychosis (18%), anti-social/borderline/mixed person-
ality disorder (15%), substance use disorder (15%), alcohol use
disorder (10%), depressive affective disorder (6%), mixed anx-
iety/depressive disorder (6%), bipolar disorder (5%), anti-social
personality disorder/substance use disorder (5%), schizophre-
nia/substance use disorder (3%). In 11% the diagnosis was
unknown. Eighty four percent of the crimes committed were homi-
cides/attempted homicides, 6% assaults/(attempted) homicides, 3%
property crimes/(attempted) homicides and below 3% assaults,
property crimes, sexual offences, drug crimes. The weapon used
was a knife/sharp object (42%) or a gun (40%). Perpetrator and vic-
tim were strangers in 25% of the cases, just acquaintances in 14%,
had a professional relationship in 7%, their relationship was conju-
gal (15%), they were partners (13%) or relatives (7%). In persons
with schizophrenia spectrum psychosis the victims were rela-
tives/spouses in 41.2%, while in other diagnoses the respective
percentage was 21.5% (P = 0.044).
Conclusions In accordance to the international literature, there is
a vast need for further research in order to improve forensic psychi-
atric services and prevent criminality among psychiatric patients.
Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their decla-
ration of competing interest.
EV0581
Criminal insanity and psychiatric
diagnoses in Greek penal cases
G. Tzeferakos ∗, M. Papaliaga , C. Papageorgiou , P. Bali ,
A. Douzenis
1 University of Athens, Medical School, 2nd Department of Psychiatry,
Attikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece
2 University Hospital of Larissa, Department of Psychiatry, Larissa,
Greece
3 University of Athens, Medical School, 1st Department of Psychiatry,
Athens, Greece
∗ Corresponding author.
Introduction To our knowledge, few studies address the issue of
criminal responsibility among psychiatric offenders. InGreece, arti-
cles 34 and 36 of the penal code regulate criminal insanity and
diminished responsibility, respectively.
Objectives The objective of the present study was to provide psy-
chiatric/legal data considering the appeal to articles 34/36 of the
Greek penal code.
Methods Legal case files of 100 adult subjects, 90male/10 female,
88 Greeks/12 foreigners were examined.
Results According to the first degree court, one defendant was
found criminally insane, 29 with partial responsibility, while the
rest were regarded as fully capable. The decisions of the court of
appeal/the supreme court of appeal were 2 criminally insane, 36
partially responsible and 62, fully criminally responsible. The deci-
sions were unanimous in 78% of the cases.
The most common diagnoses were schizophrenia spectrum psy-
chosis (18%), antisocial/borderline/mixed personality disorder
(15%) and substance use disorder (15%). Court decisions of criminal
insanity/diminished responsibilitywere higher when the perpetra-
tor had an Axis I diagnosis (47.5%), significantly lower in cases of
personality disorder (22.2%) and even lower in cases of substance
use disorder (16.7%). In patients with prior hospitalizations the per-
centage of criminal insanity/diminished responsibility was 55.6%,
significantly higher than in cases without (24.4%).
Conclusions Schizophrenia is the most common mental disorder
correlated with offenders criminally insane/partially responsible,
while a history of psychiatric hospitalization is a very strong
positive predictive factor for the successful appeal of the aforemen-
tioned articles.
Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their decla-
ration of competing interest.
EV0582
Agreement between psychiatric
evaluations and court decisions
concerning criminal responsibility
G. Tzeferakos ∗, M. Papaliaga , C. Papageorgiou , A. Douzenis ,
P. Bali
1 University of Athens, Medical School, 2nd Department of Psychiatry,
Attikon General Hospital, Athens, Greece
2 University Hospital of Larissa, Department of Psychiatry, Larissa,
Greece
3 University of Athens, Medical School, 1st Department of Psychiatry,
Aeginition Hospital, Athens, Greece
∗ Corresponding author.
Introduction To our knowledge, a relatively small number of
studies address the agreement between psychiatrists and court
decisions concerning criminal responsibility among psychiatric
offenders.
Objectives The objective of the present study was to examine the
agreement between psychiatric evaluations and court decisions in
Greek penal cases.
Methods Legal case files of 100 adult subjects, 90male/10 female,
88 Greeks/12 foreigners were studied, and agreement was assessed
by the (kappa) statistic.
Results Seventy eight percent of the subjects had had contact
with psychiatric services before the commitment of the crime. The
most common diagnoses were schizophrenia spectrum psychosis
(18%), antisocial/borderline/mixed personality disorder (15%) and
substance use disorder (15%). In 30% of the cases criminal insan-
ity/partial responsibility was attributed in the first-degree court.
The presence of a psychiatrist (n = 63), attending, defense, pros-
ecution or appointed by the court, significantly increased the
possibility of such an attribution (41.3% versus 10.8%).
The highest agreement ( = 0.780) was observed between court’s
decision and the evaluation of the psychiatrist appointed by the
court, in the 35 cases in which such an expert was present
(P < 0.001). Very significant agreement ( = 0.805) was observed
between the decisions of second and first-degree courts (P < 0.001).
In 91% of the cases, the decisions remained unchanged.
Conclusions Criminal insanity/diminished responsibility, were
attributed in 30% of the reviewed cases. The presence of a psychi-
atrist already at the first-degree court is a prerequisite for such an
attribution, especially when, he is appointed by the Court.
Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their decla-
ration of competing interest.