Increased frequency of brain pathology in inmates of a high-security forensic institution: a qualitative CT and MRI scan study

This study aimed to assess whether brain pathology might be more abundant in forensic inpatients in a high-security setting than in non-criminal individuals. By using a previously used reliable approach, we explored the frequency and extent of brain pathology in a large group of institutionalized offenders who had not previously been considered to be suffering from structural brain damage and compare it to healthy, non-offending subjects. MRI and CT brain scans from 148 male inpatients of a high-security mental health institution (offense type: 51 sex, 80 violent, 9 arson, and 8 nonviolent) that were obtained due to headache, vertigo, or psychological complaints during imprisonment were assessed and compared to 52 non-criminal healthy controls. Brain scans were assessed qualitatively with respect to evidence of structural brain damage. Each case received a semiquantitative rating of “normal” (=0), “questionably abnormal” (=1), or “definitely abnormal” (=2) for the lateral ventricles, frontal/parietal cortex, and medial temporal structures bilaterally as well as third ventricle. Forensic inpatients displayed signs of brain damage to a significantly higher degree than healthy controls (p < 0.001). Even after adjustment for age, in the patients, being younger than the controls (p < 0.05), every offender type group displayed a higher proportion of subjects with brain regions categorized as definitely abnormal than the non-criminal controls. Within the forensic inpatients, offense type groups did not significantly differ in brain pathology. The astonishingly high prevalence of brain pathology in institutionalized inmates of a high-security mental health institution who previously had not been considered to be suffering from an organic brain syndrome raises questions on whether such neuroradiological assessment might be considered as a routine procedure in newly admitted patients. Furthermore, it highlights that organic changes, detectable under clinical routine conditions, may play a role in the development of legally relevant behavioral disturbances which might be underestimated.