This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
JZU Special hospital for psychiatry Sokolac , Sokolac , Bosnia and Herzegovina
Consideration of homicide behaviour of psychotic people implies, except of examination of dominant psychopathology in a scope of current psychosis, even assessment of prepsychotic structure of personality and their available agressive potential. The aim of this work is to consolidate if psychotic offenders and psychotic non-offenders of blood crimes distinguish in markedness of psychopathological expressions on Machover technique. The survey was carried out on a sample of 118 male examinees, who were divided in two groups: a group of psychotic offenders of blood crimes (N= 59) and a group of psychotic psychiatric patients who did not commit crimes (N=59). The group of offenders of blood crimes is divided into two subgroups (offenders of murder and offenders of attempted murders). Information about the age of examinees, their residence, family, education, marital status, family hereditary and psychiatric diagnosis were collected with structured questionnaire for general data and social anamnesis, which was made for the necessity of this examination. The differences between groups and subgroups, with focus on possible consolidation of pathological marks, in the other words characteristic which would be of importance in the prediction of the future homicide behaviour were tested by Machover technique. Statistically important differences were not found between these two important groups in relation to the presence of pathological characteristics (F=0,787; p=0,377), while the subgroups are statistically rather different only in relation to aggressiveness variables (t(57)=2,668; p= 0,01): higher basic aggressiveness is specific for the examinees who committed murder comparing to the examinees who attempted a murder.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
