Abstract:Following the French law n° 98-468 of 17 June 1998 relative to the prevention of sexual offenses and the protection of minors, social and judicial follow-up and court-ordered treatment were introduced with the aim of reinforcing the prevention of recidivism. Court-ordered treatment is one of the possible obligatory measures provided for by social and judicial follow-up. However, there is no consensus between the different professionals concerning the criteria of indication and the final purpose of this measure. Most of the few available studies are retrospective. Only rare studies have assessed the influence of criminological factors on the indication of court-ordered treatment. We carried out a nation-wide qualitative comparative study in two populations, psychiatric experts and sentencing judges, by means of e-mail questionnaires. The aim was to determine the criteria for court-ordered treatment according to psychiatric experts and to sentencing judges, to identify the criteria that gave rise to differences in appreciation between these professionals, and to attempt to explain these differences. The secondary aim of the study was to determine the methods and tools used in expert practice to evaluate dangerousness and risk of recidivism. We obtained 20 responses in each of the two populations. The great majority of psychiatric experts and sentencing judges considered that court-ordered treatment was appropriate when the offender presented with psychiatric dangerousness, and so with an underlying mental disorder. When a subject had no identified mental disorder, the psychiatrists were divided in their opinion, whereas the majority of sentencing judges were in favor of court-ordered treatment. Opinions differed particularly significantly between the two populations in four circumstances: a subject with an antisocial/psychopathic personality disorder, a subject who denied the alleged acts, the influence of precarious social circumstances and the influence of instability in intimate relationships. The majority of experts used international classifications (DSM-5 and ICD-10) as a basis for their psychiatric diagnosis. Just under half of those surveyed used structured or semi-structured interview guides and only a few stated that they used standardized actuarial tools to assess risk of recidivism. The concepts of care, dangerousness and mental disorder are associated with multiple representations that certainly play a part in the disagreements between the different professionals. It is of prime importance to define these concepts more clearly in order to encourage the use of a common language and to clarify the indications and purpose of court-ordered treatment. We also hypothesize that disagreements between professionals regarding the criteria for court-ordered treatment may be related to certain difficulties raised by the management of the convicted person. The development of guidelines that could be used by all professionals would help to reduce some of these difficulties. Psychiatric experts remain attached to clinical evaluation. Their limited use of assessment tools may relate to the material constraints and time constraints involved. The issue at stake in court-ordered treatment and social and judicial follow-up is to promote cooperation between the various professionals by creating a space for exchange of ideas where the fundamental questions raised by these measures can be discussed, fears shared and knowledge pooled.

Compulsory treatment in Portuguese-speaking countries: An analysis and comparison of the legal framework

Psychiatry and mental health teaching programs of eight portuguese-speaking schools of medicine: A comparative analysis

Ethical Issues in Clinical Decision-Making about Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment: A Scoping Review

The mental health of children and adolescents at Matosinhos: characteristics and obstacles to care

[National health systems, legislation, and social determinants: a comparative study of Brazil, Spain, Portugal, and Italy]

Comparing legislation for involuntary admission and treatment of mental illness in four South Asian countries

Analyzing innovative policies and practices for palliative care in Portugal: a qualitative study

Medical Liability for Omission under the Portuguese Criminal Law: A Critical Eye on Portuguese Jurisprudence

Navigating autonomy and decision-making capacity: Legal and ethical considerations in Medical Assistance in Dying for individuals with mental disorders in Portugal

Forensic criteria, clinical and theoretical issues of the indication of court-ordered treatment: A comparative survey among experts in forensic psychiatry and sentencing judges in France

[Involuntary treatment of mental patients in the community: legal and ethical dilemmas]

Are people-centred mental health services acceptable and feasible in Timor-Leste? A qualitative study

International Law in Portuguese

Prevalence of stigma towards mental illness among Portuguese healthcare professionals: a descriptive and comparative study

Status of mandatory treatment of mentally ill offenders without criminal responsibility in China: Information from 5,262 mandatory treatment judgments

Social inclusion and exclusion of people with mental illness in Timor-Leste: a qualitative investigation with multiple stakeholders

Palliative care: pathway in primary health care in Brazil

Access to health care among female prisoners in a penitentiary in Ceará, Brazil

[Is involuntary commitment to treatment applicable in case of an addictive disorder in the French context? A critical review of available evidence]

Empowering Minds: A Comprehensive Study of ECT Treatment in a Reference Mental Health Center in Portugal

Analysis of the impact of legal circumstances on schizophrenia and bipolar disorder hospitalizations in Portugal: a nationwide study