Dangerousness: Historic evolution and practice of the concept

Authors

  • Kátia Mecler Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; Hospital de Custodia e Tratamento Psiquiátrico Heitor Carrilho

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.19945

Keywords:

dangerousness, violence risk, mentally disorder offender, ethics, history of forensic psychiatry

Abstract

The concept of dangerousness was created by the Positive School of Penal Law in the second half of the XIXth century. Since then, it has become one of the key concepts of the modern Penal Law.The Classical Penal Law School was oriented toward the severity of the delictuous act and its correspondent sentence. The Positive Criminal Law School took the delict as an indicator, a symptom of an abnormal personality. Although mainly dedicated for justifying discrimination and seclusion, its scientific orientation paved the way for etiologic thought that nowadays can be restored as a matter of rehabilitation for society - what was not a clear orientation by that days. Even then, however, the preventive mentality was already part of that approach, pointing out to the psychosocial factors as well as neurologic and genetic factors, which was not, however put into practice. It can be said that Classical Law used to deal with Crimes, while the Positive Law, with C riminals. This article presents the particular ways in which the historical evolution of the concept of dangerousness has affected the theory and the practice of Forensic Psychiatry until our days.

References

Carrara, S. Crime e loucura. O aparecimento do Manicômio Judiciário no início do Século . Dissertação de Mestrado. Programa de Pós-Graduação e Antropologia Social do Museu Nacional da UFRJ. Rio de

Janeiro, 1987.

Bruno A. Perigosidade Criminal e Medidas de Segurança. Ed. Rio. Rio de Janeiro, 1991.

Loudet O. Los índices médico-psicológicos y legales de la peligrosidad.

Hare RD. Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised. Toronto, Multi-Health Systems, 1981.

Barrat, ES (1996). Impulsiveness and Agression. In Monahan J, Steadman HJ

(eds.) Violence and Mental Disorder. Chicago, The University of Chicago

Press, 1994.

Webster CD, Eaves D, Douglas K, Wintrup A. The HCR-20 Scheme: the assessment of dangerousness and risk. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada: Simon Fraser University and Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission of British Columbia, 1995.

Carrara S, Fry P. “As vicissitudes do liberalismo no direito penal brasileiro”. Rev Bras Ciências Sociais. 1986; 1(2).

Carrilho H. A colaboração dos psiquiatras nas questões penais. Rio de

Janeiro: Arquivos do Manicômio Judiciário do Rio de Janeiro 1930; 01: 159-182.

Carrilho H. Psicogênese e determinação pericial da periculosidade. Rio de Janeiro: Arquivos do Manicômio Judiciário do Rio de Janeiro 1941; 03: 56-89.

Hungria N. Das medidas de segurança in Comentários ao Código Penal. Vol. III, Rio de Janeiro , Revista Forense , 3ª edição, 1956.

Delgado PGG. As razões da tutela. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Te Corá, 1992.

Delmanto C. Código Penal Comentado. Rio de Janeiro, Renovar,1981.

Mecler K. Perculosidade e Inimputabilidade: um estudo dos fatores envolvidos na determinação da periculosidade do doente mental infrator. Dissertação de mestrado, Instituto de Psiquiatria da UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, 1996.

Goffman E. Manicômio, Prisões e Conventos. São Paulo, Perspectiva; 1974.

Downloads

Published

2010-04-01

Issue

Vol. 20 No. 1 (2010)

Section

Original Research

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis