↓ Skip to main content

Mental Insanity Assessment of Pedophilia: The Importance of the Trans-Disciplinary Approach. Reflections on Two Cases

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mental Insanity Assessment of Pedophilia: The Importance of the Trans-Disciplinary Approach. Reflections on Two Cases
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2018.00335
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristina Scarpazza, Ambrogio Pennati, Giuseppe Sartori

Abstract

A 60 plus-year-old male was charged with pedophilia for forcing a child to touch him inappropriately near a primary school fence. In another case, a 70 plus-year-old male was charged with pedophilia for intimately touching a boy in a cinema. What led them to manifest this socially-inappropriate and legally-relevant behavior? Is there an explanation for the sexually-related behavioral changes emerging late in life of these two men? Indeed, a common point exists between the two men: both were found to suffer from highly-disabling neurological conditions, known to have a potential effect on social behavior. Specifically, a large right frontoparietal meningioma was found to have important influence on the first man's cognition and control inhibition, whereas frontotemporal dementia prevented the second man from understanding the moral disvalue of his sexually-inappropriate behavior and controlling his sexual impulses. In the current presentation, particular emphasis is placed on the logical reasoning supporting the conclusions that both the pedophiles should be considered not guilty by reason of insanity. Furthermore, experimental methods have been used to explore both cases, which rely on the existence of cognitive models for the phenomena under study, the integration of insights offered by different disciplines and the application of a variety of tools and approaches that follow the "convergence of evidence" principle, which could be safely used in court to support a mental insanity claim. Here, we describe how the use of the experimental method could become useful to reduce the uncertainty in mental insanity assessments. The use of a transdisciplinary, scientifically-grounded approach can help to change the way legal phenomena are interpreted. For instance, when assessing mental insanity, consultants should not only investigate the eventual existence of a diagnosis, but should assess the cognitive/affective abilities that are necessary to understand our own behavior and emotions as well as those of others. The criteria for responsibility should be symptoms-based and not diagnosis-based. Since pedophilia is among the most hideous behaviors condemned by society, a more comprehensive and transdisciplinary approach is recommended in court.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 23 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 22 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,350,087
of 26,614,447 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#1,371
of 11,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,955
of 346,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#42
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,614,447 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.