Mentally ill offenders and accountability in Sweden

Abstract: Introduction In Sweden all offenders are convicted of their crime, regardless if suffering from mental illness. The penalty can however be forensic psychiatric care instead of prison if the offender suffers from a severe mental disturbance (allvarlig psykisk störning). The Swedish legislation on mentally ill offenders differ from internationally where mentally ill are evaluated on accountability and can be acquitted in court if seen as non-accountable. Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate accountability in relation to mental illness including comparison of Swedish and international legislation. Method A hermeneutic method was used and selection of references was based on relevancy to widen and enlighten different perspectives in order to answer the research questions. Results The results show that the decision on who should be convicted to care in Sweden and who should be acquitted internationally is difficult, possibly because the connection between mental illness and criminal behavior is not fully understood. Both pros, such as opinions that it is unfair to convict someone acting criminally because of illness, and cons, such as mentally ill themselves identifying as accountable, exist when evaluating accountability and acquitting mentally ill. Conclusions Sweden differ from other countries regarding the legislation on mentally ill offenders. Both pros and cons exist with evaluating accountability among mentally ill offenders, however the pros seem to dominate but further research is needed to decide whether accountability should be considered when prosecuting mentally ill offenders.