Obsessive compulsive disorder and obsessive compulsive personality disorder and the criminal law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is a mental illness that has penetrated public consciousness. However, the extent to which OCD and obsessive compulsive personality disorder (OCPD) can constitute debilitating conditions that adversely affect most aspects of a person's functioning and quality of life are not so well known, including as to how they can impair the capacity to give reasoned consideration to conduct options and the consequences of choices. Little scholarship exists about the legal repercussions of OCD and OCPD and, in particular, their potential relevance for both assessments of criminal responsibility and criminal culpability. This article commences to redress that deficit, outlining contemporary clinical knowledge about the disorders that is relevant to the legal context and identifying important judgments by courts in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India which have dealt with the potential impact of OCD and OCPD, in particular for decisions at the sentencing phase of criminal proceedings. It calls for better awareness of OCD and OCPD on the part of forensic mental health practitioners, criminal law practitioners and members of the judiciary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".