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