INTERFACES BETWEEN MENTAL HEALTH AND PSYCHIATRY IN THE ASSESSMENT OF CRIMINAL INSANITY IN ADULTS ACCUSED OF VIOLENT CRIMES: A SCOPING REVIEW

Objective: To map and analyze evidence on mental health and criminal irresponsibility among adults accused of violent crimes. Methods: Scoping review conducted between January and February 2026 in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA-ScR guidance, with prior protocol registration in the Open Science Framework. Searches were performed in PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library, complemented by Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and qualitative synthesis. Results and Discussion: Twelve studies were included. Evidence shows higher prevalence of mental disorders among legally involved individuals; however, this does not automatically establish criminal irresponsibility, which requires assessment of cognitive and volitional capacity at the time of the offense. Discrepancies between clinical and forensic diagnoses, cognitive biases, and methodological variability were identified. Emerging trends include structured assessment protocols, bias mitigation strategies, and exploratory use of artificial intelligence tools. Conclusion: A multifactorial, standardized, and legally grounded evaluative framework is essential to strengthen reliability and legitimacy in forensic psychiatric decision-making regarding criminal responsibility.