Abstract
Objectives. To present problems inherent in the assessment of a high probability of recurrence of an act of a high harmfulness to the community by individuals demonstrating symptoms of paranoid syndromes.
Review. On the grounds of examples from the author 's own practice as a forensic psychiatric expert two occasions are indicated on which such difficulties are encountered: 1) in the evaluation of indications to the necessary application offorensic detention as a preventive measure, and 2) in the evaluation of a change in the individual 's psychiatric condition, due to which his/her further forensic detention is no longer necessary (i.e. the probability of recurrence of an act of high social harmfulness is not high).
Conclusions. The author proposes that in case of a motion forforensic detention application as a preventive measure forensic psychiatric experts should prove that criteria listed in Art. 94 par. 1, or in Art. 93 of the penal code are fulfilled. As regards persons releasedfrom further forensic detention, they should be under control and in care of their local psychiatric outpatient clinic and of a professional probation officer. These institutions should be obligated to inform the relevant criminal court about the discharged person's treatment outcome and his/her functioning in the community.