Treatment of mentally ill offenders in the psychiatric wards in the Region of Puglia

Abstract

The objective of the research was to look at treatment methods for mentally ill offenders at the Centre for Mental Health for the region of Puglia after the passing of sentence 253/03 by the Constitutional Court. Working with the Puglia Department of Mental Health, a revelation module, able to provide information considered to be significant, was construed. The areas taken into consideration as being important were: Social Demography (gender, education, marital status, living conditions, working conditions, family origins), Clinical (diagnosis, hospitalizations, length of stay, number of staff required for treatments, modality and type of treatment, medical contact frequency, psychiatric disorders) and Criminality (crime type, application methods, legal position, liability, prosecuting authority). The study, currently still in course, will provide a thorough report on the state of treatment applications for offenders with mental illness across the territory between 2003 and 2007. Here below, however, are the preliminary findings. 72% of the sample group are male, the most part (51,8%) are of basic schooling and are not married (63%). A large portion of the patients live within the original family nucleus (55,6%) and are described as being ‘absent’ in 40% of the cases. Around 44% suffer from disorders associated to schizophrenia; 75% do not show antisocial or psychiatric familiarity. Regarding ‘treatment methods’, 47% has periodic check-ups at the CSM; for 97% of the sample group, treatment is applied through use of psycho-pharmaceuticals, 43% of these have an associated treatment such as rehabilitation or psychotherapy in such a way that overlaps what is guaranteed for other patients. Particularly interesting is the preliminary data regarding the area of criminality. 69% of the sample are under accusation, 70% of these have received their final sentence. 25% of the cases instead are awaiting sentencing. The prosecuting authority in about half of the cases (49%) results as the Surveillance Court, the rest by other entities – GIP being the majority here – or by judiciary contemporaries with whom the local psychiatric services have not maintained any continual or long-term rapport.