In Psychology, the term “imputability” refers to the degree to which a person has been aware of their criminal acts and the will they had when carrying them out
This idea is of utmost importance in legal processes, because depending on how responsible or not the person has been for their own behaviors, they can be convicted or exempt from paying for it.
On the other hand, imputability is an aspect always taken into account in the commission of any crime and, as it is specifically psychological in nature, this is one of the main areas of intervention of forensic psychology. Let’s find out why below.
What is imputability from the point of view of Psychology?
In forensic psychology, imputability is understood as the ability of a person to be held responsible for a legally reprehensible act that he or she is believed to have committed This is one of the areas where forensic psychologists are most useful for the administration of justice, but this does not mean that it is the task of a psychologist to determine whether a person is responsible for their actions or not.
The decision to consider someone attributable corresponds to the administration of justice, which is based on the expert judgment of forensic psychologists and, thus, makes a well-informed decision.
The idea of imputability is ancient, found in legislative texts of the Greeks, Romans, and even in Hebrew law Since this idea existed, judicial systems around the world have incorporated different variations of it over time. The main concept behind this idea is that a criminal act cannot be punishable unless the person who committed it has the capacity to recognize it as such and has freely chosen to carry it out.
Psychological elements involved in the ability to understand what is done
For a fact to be recognized as imputable, it is required that the individual be able to understand that his or her conduct or the omission of it constitutes a crime and that it implies criminal punishment. Achieving this understanding requires that the individual have three capacities or dimensions, although the first two are considered fundamental.
1. Cognitive
Cognitive ability is synonymous with intelligence. Make reference to the individual’s ability to understand and incorporate information from the environment understanding what is happening around them.
Depending on the degree of intelligence possessed by the person who committed the crime, he or she will or will not be aware of the illicit nature of his or her actions and the consequences that his or her conduct entails.
2. Volitional
Volitional capacity refers to the subject’s will to act based on his or her desires or intentions, that is, if he has acted illegally on purpose. This dimension is related to the motivational aspects of behavior and is made up of two main aspects:
3. Judicial or judgment
Judiciary ability refers to the ability of the individual to decide and issue behavior according to his or her criteria and interest in the problems that the environment generates This third dimension is sometimes combined with the volitional dimension.
Thus, taking these three dimensions into account, it is considered that a person is responsible for an illegal act when they have carried out it knowing what they were doing, they were doing it completely freely and with the clear intention of carrying it out.
This idea of imputability is the same one that governs most of the penal codes of democratic nations although with its variations, and that in the event that any of these capacities are lacking, the perpetrator of a crime is exempt from criminal responsibility.
In the Spanish case, imputability is defined in article 20 of the penal code, in points 1 and 2:
“1. Anyone who, at the time of committing the criminal offense, due to any anomaly or psychological alteration, cannot understand the illegality of the act or act in accordance with that understanding.
Temporary mental disorder will not exempt from punishment when it had been provoked by the subject with the purpose of committing the crime or he had foreseen or should have foreseen its commission “.
“2.º He who at the time of committing the criminal offense is in a state of full intoxication due to the consumption of alcoholic beverages, toxic drugs, narcotics, psychotropic substances or others that produce similar effects, provided that he has not been searched for the purpose “if he commits it or his commission was not foreseen or should not have been foreseen, or is under the influence of a withdrawal syndrome, due to his dependence on such substances, which prevents him from understanding the illegality of the act or acting in accordance with that understanding.”
Who is in charge of evaluating these capabilities?
The professionals who are in charge of assessing the psychological capacities related to imputability are forensic psychologists.
Although imputability itself is a legal concept, there are many psychological aspects that can alter a person’s status as responsible for a crime. Among these psychological aspects or determinants of their behavior we have mental disorders such as personality disorders, drug addiction, intellectual disability, intoxication…
But as we have mentioned before, psychologists are not in charge of assessing whether or not an individual is responsible for a crime. The figure of the forensic psychologist does not sue, defend or judge, since legal imputability is the task of the judges What forensic psychologists do do is establish psychological causality between the accused and the acts committed, understood as psychological imputability.
To determine how responsible an individual is for his or her own behavior It is necessary to carry out a thorough evaluation to see if there is a mental disorder that explains it or any other psychological condition relevant to the case
In addition to this, an analysis is essential that determines how this disorder has diminished the individual’s ability to understand the illegality of the act and/or their ability to have acted in a different way, establishing a causal relationship between the disorder and the crime committed.
It should be said that, during the forensic evaluation, not only the intelligence and will of the subject at the time of committing the crime is taken into account. The human mind and behavior are too complex to be reduced to how aware the subject is of his or her actions and whether there has been an express desire to commit the crime. As in any psychological assessment, first The case must be studied taking into account its particularities, a precise evaluation must be designed and, based on the data obtained, a psychological expert report must be prepared
The causes behind an individual not being aware of their behavior or understanding the seriousness of the situation are several. The responsibility or irresponsibility of the subject with respect to the criminal act that he has committed determines the presence or absence of imputability and, also, determines the causes thereof. In the Spanish case and that of many developed countries, A subject will not be liable for typical and unlawful conduct when any of the following circumstances occur:
Mental disorder
Intellectual disability
Severe disturbance of consciousness
Be under 16 years old
1. Mental disorders, psychoses and psychopathies
Mental disorders, also called mental illnesses in the legal field, correspond to the general name for any major mental disturbance of organic or emotional origin.
In the legal field, they are understood as conditions characterized by loss of contact with reality and often with hallucinations and illusions. In the case of psychosis there would be an alteration of intelligence, while in psychopathies there would be an alteration of personality.
In forensic psychology, to determine whether or not a mental disorder exists and how it influences the responsibility of an individual in relation to the crime committed, The following criteria are usually followed:
Biological or psychiatric: the diagnosis is enough to determine non-imputability.
Psychological: the manifestation of abnormality at the time of the crime is enough.
Mixed. The judge determines imputability based on psychiatric diagnosis based on the moment the abnormality manifested.
2. Intellectual disability
Intellectual disability involves a severe lack of intelligence, also known as oligophrenia (from “oligo”, “little or absence” and “phreen”, “intelligence”). In the legal field, it would be defined as any neurological syndrome that involves a marked intellectual deficit, whether congenital or early acquired, and that It has a global impact on both the personality and the degree of independence of the affected person This situation may occur for the following reasons:
Genetics: intellectual deficit explained by Mendel’s laws.
Chromosomal alteration (e.g. Down syndrome, trisomy 18, Turner, Klinefelter…)
Germs: exogenous cause in prepartum (syphilis), childbirth (asphyxia) or postpartum (accidental fall of the newborn)
Deaf-mute and blindness would also fall within this circumstance, as long as it is from birth Although these two conditions are not synonymous with intellectual disability, it is considered that a person who was born with problems of deafness and blindness, especially if they occur in combination as is the case of deaf-muteness, will not fully develop intelligence or ability to know their environment, which is why, despite presenting normal intelligence, they would be treated as oligophrenic.
3. Serious disturbance of consciousness
By serious disturbance of conscience we mean that the person who committed the crime was under the influence of something or someone that prevented him from acting consciously The subject was in a situation in which he suffered a profound alteration in his perception of reality. Within this type of circumstance we find:
1. Alcoholic drunkenness
The effects of alcohol have diminished the subject’s cognitive processes and have reduced his voluntary control of his actions, something that occurred at the time of committing the crime. Within this circumstance there are different categories
Fortuitous: involuntary. It involves the ingestion of an excessive amount of alcohol for the subject that has caused acute intoxication. It is an excuse.
Guilty: voluntary. Occasional or habitual ingestion without moderation, but without the intention of getting drunk. It’s mitigating.
Willful: voluntary and premeditated. Ingestion with the clear intention of later committing a crime and obtaining an excuse.
In turn, depending on the degree of intoxication that the subject manifests at the time of committing the crime, we have: Full or complete: it is the state of confusion where the subject is totally drunk and deprived of intelligence and will; semi-full or incomplete: the subject has a certain capacity to want and understand what he does, although not in a lucid way.
If the drunkenness is accidental and full, it is considered exempt from liability, while if it is semi-full, it is mitigating In the event that it is culpable, it responds as guilt and, if it is intentional, it is considered a fully conscious crime.
2. Sleep
During sleep, a situation occurs that excludes the ability to understand and know and, therefore, there would be no guilt An example of this situation would be a mother who crushes her newborn baby.
We would also include in this situation sleepwalking, a sleep problem characterized by the subject’s ability to perform acts typical of the waking state, only when they are deeply asleep. It is considered an imputable situation.
The case of hypnotism requires special mention a state of deep suggestion that, as a general rule, is also unimpeachable, as long as one has acted as an instrument of what the hypnotist has ordered his victim.
3. Extreme pain and passionate states
There are certain medical conditions that can momentarily alter the will and intelligence of the affected person. Extreme pain is considered extenuating and, If it destroys reason or causes the affected person to act as if he or she has entered into an episode of psychosis, it is usually an excuse The passionate state is mitigating.
You may be interested: “The 13 types of pain: classification and characteristics”
Social utility of determining imputability
One might think that how conscious an individual is or is not when committing a crime is not relevant when penalizing him for it. Committing a crime implies certain social consequences regardless of the will and intelligence of the person who committed it and, taking this into account, the fact that he suffers from a mental disorder or intellectual disability would not be a sufficient excuse to reduce his sentence or exempt him from the crime.
This idea is usually based on the belief that the law and punishments are made to take revenge for the reprehensible behavior of someone who has committed a crime. Many today continue to see prison and punitive measures as simple punishments to give those who have done wrong their own medicine, when in reality these measures have the objective of reinserting the individual and making him reflect on his behavior, understand what he has done. done wrong in order to prevent him from doing it again.
In the case of people with altered will and intelligence, if they do not understand what they have done wrong or their behavior is the result of suffering from a mental disorder, What they need is not prison sentences, but special treatments for their psychological conditions
They will also require an educational program to make them see why their behavior has been legally reprehensible and provide them with the tools and strategies so that they do not commit it again. Condemning someone who is not aware of their actions is a highly unproductive measure that does not guarantee that the subject will not do wrong again.
