The role of impulse control disorders on criminal responsibility is currently a controversialissue. With the advent of the DSM-5 various questions arise which specifically relate to thenature and impact of impulse control disorders on criminal responsibility. Further anomalies,in addition, relate to the differences between the classification of impulse control disorders inthe DSM-IV-TR as opposed to the recent DSM-5. To date the issue of impulse controldisorders has only been addressed in limited criminal case law in South Africa and indicatesthat courts generally view these disorders as mitigating factors during the sentencingprocedure. The focus of this contribution will be to revisit the diagnostic framework forimpulse control disorders with specific reference to the criteria provided for in the DSM-5 inorder to assess its applicability to a finding of diminished criminal responsibility as providedfor in section 78(7) the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, and whether it could in certaincircumscribed circumstances fulfil the criteria for the defence of pathological criminalincapacity, or more commonly known as the insanity defence. The vital and essential role ofthe mental health expert within such context will be illustrated.
展开▼
