Legal Maze: Navigating Dissociative Identity Disorder
- Amita Abubakar
- Nov 20
- 6 min read
Updated: Nov 21
Author: Amita Abubakar
Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is described by the NHS as a disorder in which one may ‘feel uncertain about their identity and who they are’. This includes the ‘presence of other identities, each with their own names, voices, personal histories and mannerisms’. The main symptoms of DID are:
- Memory gaps about everyday events and personal information
- Having several distinct identities
Whilst the UK’s legal system is known for its commitment to upholding justice and fairness, as society’s knowledge and perception continues to evolve, the courts are faced with the challenge of adapting to cases involving individuals with Dissociative Identity Disorder. Thus, I will explore how UK courts in particular have had to remodel their legal frameworks to ensure a just and indiscriminate treatment of those who live with DID.
DID as a Valid Health Condition
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. This idea condenses a range of problematic themes for lawyers in respect to DID. The Apple TV drama series ‘The Crowded Room’ adapts, arguably, one of the most famous cases in the initial recognition of Dissociative Identity Disorder. State v Milligan was the first case in which a person successfully used DID (then known as Multiple Personality Disorder) as a defence for a violent crime. Two years later, in 1980, the American Psychiatric Association formally recognised the disorder, setting a precedent for acknowledging DID as a genuine mental health condition and highlighting the importance of understanding its impact on an individual's mental state. However, across the US and the globe, an official diagnose of DID is incredibly rare and difficult to obtain making this defence few and far between in legal cases across the world.
Problems that DID Presents to the Legal System
Whilst in the US the diagnosis of DID is made with increasing frequency, in the UK there is a far greater scepticism about the existence of DID as a ‘distinct condition’. According to the Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, dated 1998, there have been no cases in which DID has been used as the basis of a defence in court in England and Wales. Unfortunately, DID presents extensive problems to lawyers, seen most critically within the criminal justice system. In some cases ‘alters’ can take the form of children meaning that communication as well as the adequate formation of a case becomes much more difficult. The idea that alternate personalities (alters) can lie dormant and remain potentially dangerous before suddenly reappearing suggests that an individual with DID is more likely to reoffend. The solution to this dilemma has most commonly been hospital treatment although this method comes with its own problems as many treatments for such disorders are outdated harmful to the individual.
DID Within the Legal System
The original Mental Health Act 1983 did not even mention personality disorder but instead referred to ‘psychopathic disorder’ meaning ‘a persistent disorder or disability of mind which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned’. Any normal person would assume that individuals suffering from DID are victims of crime in the same proportion as everyone else, however, due to the uniqueness of the disorder, very few cases involve ‘alters’ as victims of crime. It becomes a lot easier to analyse the presence of DID within the legal system if we look to US law. For example, in one case Mark Peterson was convicted of second degree sexual assault for having intercourse with a woman, Sarah, who had DID. Wisconsin law made it illegal to have sex with a mentally ill person who is unable to appreciate the consequences of the conduct, making it the first time DID was used as grounds for prosecution. Although this case was tried under specific statutes prohibiting intercourse with a mentally ill person when the defendant knows of the condition it asks the question of how the law should approach cases in which one personality invites or provokes an action and the other personalities do not consent.
How can the Legal System Better Support those with DID?
There are a number of ways that the legal system can provide support for those living with DID. For example, legal professionals should receive training to understand DID, its symptoms, and its impact on an individual’s capacity to participate in legal proceedings. Courts could also appoint experts in DID to assess the condition’s relevance to a case and its potential impact on a person’s ability to stand trial or testify. Furthering legal aid organisations could offer specialised services to individuals with DID to ensure their rights are protected during legal proceedings.
Over time, the legal system has made significant progress recognising DID as a legitimate mental health condition and adjusting to the unique challenges it presents. These legal developments highlight the importance of ongoing education and sensitivity to mental health issues within the legal profession and society at large. Adapting to these challenges is a testament to the legal system’s commitment to ensuring a just and equitable process for all individuals, regardless of their mental health condition. It is an acknowledgement that the law must evolve to reflect out deeper understanding of the complexities of the human mind and the unique challenges that individuals with DID face in the legal arena.
References
Websites
NHS, ‘Dissociative disorders’ <https://www.nhs.uk/mental-health/conditions/dissociative-disorders/> accessed 22 October 2023
‘DissociaDID’ [30 July 2023] https://youtu.be/9fJYTMn7Q-Q?si=GsZvGmTVwWbVDDxI accessed 2nd November 2023
LA Times ‘Man Guilty in Sex Assault on Woman With 46 Identities’ Nov 9 1990 Accessed [7 December 2023]
Saxena V ‘Dissociative Identity Disorder and Criminal Liability’ (2021) https://blog.ipleaders.in/dissociative-identity-disorder-criminal-liability/
Statutes
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1958, Article 1
Mental Health Act 1983
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1958, Article 1
Cases
State v. Milligan, 40 Ohio St. 3d 341, 533 N.E.2d 724 (Ohio 1988)
Gleeson v Court [2007] EWHC 2397 Philippides J (QB)
Orndorff v Commonwealth (2010) 691 SE 2d 177 (Virginia)
State v Darnall (1980) 161, 614 P 2d 120 (Oregon Ct App)
State v Greene (1998) 960 P.2d 980 (Washington Ct App)
State v Grimsley (1982) 444 N.E.2d 1071 (Ohio Ct App).
State v Jones (1988) 747 S.W.2d 229 (Missouri Ct App)
State v Lockhart (2000) 208 W. Va. 622 (West Virginia Ct App)
State v. Milligan, 40 Ohio St. 3d 341, 533 N.E.2d 724 (Ohio 1988)
Wigginton (1990) Supreme Court of Queensland (Mental Health Tribunal) Ryan J
Academic articles
David James and Mark Schramm, ‘Multiple personality disorder’ presenting to the English courts: a case-study’ [1998] Vol 9 No 3
David James and Mark Schramm, ‘Multiple personality disorder’ presenting to the English courts: a case-study’ [1998] Vol 9 No 3
Lindsay D. G. Thomson ‘Personality disorder and mental health legislation in the UK’ [2010], vol. 16, 336-338
Armstrong JG. ‘The Case of Mr Woods: Psychological Contributions To The Legal Process in Defendants with Multiple Personality/Dissociative Identity Disorder’ Vol. 10:2 https://gould.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/10-2%20Armstrong.pdf
Bourget, D, Gagné, P, Wood, SF (2017) Dissociation: defining the concept in criminal forensic psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 45: 147–60
Brand, BL, Classen, CC, McNary, SW, et al. (2009) A review of dissociative disorders treatment studies. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 197: 646–54
David James and Mark Schramm, ‘Multiple personality disorder’ presenting to the English courts: a case-study’ [1998] Vol 9 No 3
Dell, PF, O'Neil, JA (2009) Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders: DSM-V and Beyond. Routledge.
Farrell HM. Dissociative identity disorder: Medicolegal challenges. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2011;39(3):402-6. PMID: 21908758.
Farmer, J, Middleton, W, Devereux, J (2018) Dissociative identity disorder and criminal responsibility. In Forensic Aspects of Dissociative Identity Disorder (eds Sachs, A, Galton, G): 79–99
Kabene SM, Balkir Neftci N, Papatzikis E. Dissociative Identity Disorder and the Law: Guilty or Not Guilty? Front Psychol. 2022 Aug
Lilienfeld, SO (2007) Psychological treatments that cause harm. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2: 53–70
Meynen G. The Insanity Defense. In: Brożek Bartosz, Hage J, Vincent N, eds. Law and Mind: A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences. Law and the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2021:317-341. doi:10.1017/9781108623056.015
Nakic, M, Thomas, P (2012) Dissociative identity disorder in the courtroom. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 40: 146–8
Piper, A, Merskey, H (2004b) The persistence of folly: critical examination of dissociative identity disorder. Part II. The defence and decline of multiple personality or dissociative identity disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 49: 678–83
Rix K, Mynors-Wallis L, Craven C. Rix's Expert Psychiatric Evidence. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020. doi:10.1017/9781911623670
World Health Organization (1992) International Statistical Classification of Diseases and related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10). WHO
Comments